Written: October 5–6,
1930
Source/Translated: Converted from the original
Gurmukhi (Punjabi) to Urdu/Persian script by Maqsood Saqib;
translated
from Urdu to English by Hasan for marxists.org, 2006;
HTML/Proofread: Andy Blunden and Mike
Bessler;
CopyLeft: Creative Common (Attribute &
ShareAlike) marxists.org 2006.
It is a matter of debate whether my lack of belief in the
existence of an Omnipresent, Omniscient God is due to my arrogant pride
and vanity. It never occurred to me that sometime in the future I would
be involved in polemics of this kind. As a result of some discussions
with my friends, (if my claim to friendship is not uncalled for) I have
realised that after having known me for a little time only, some of them
have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my
foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. Even then it is a
serious problem. I do not boast of being above these human follies. I
am, after all, a human being and nothing more. And no one can claim to
be more than that. I have a weakness in my personality, for pride is one
of the human traits that I do possess. I am known as a dictator among
my friends. Sometimes I am called a boaster. Some have always been
complaining that I am bossy and I force others to accept my opinion.
Yes, it is true to some extent. I do not deny this charge. We can use
the word ‘vainglory’ for it. As far as the contemptible, obsolete,
rotten values of our society are concerned, I am an extreme sceptic. But
this question does not concern my person alone. It is being proud of my
ideas, my thoughts. It cannot be called empty pride. Pride, or you may
use the word, vanity, both mean an exaggerated assessment of one’s
personality. Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I
ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I
wish to put my ideas before you. First of all, let us differentiate
between pride and vanity as these are two different things.
I have never been able to understand how unfounded, baseless pride or
empty vanity can hinder a person from believing in God. I may refuse to
acknowledge the greatness of a really great person only when I have got
fame without doing any serious efforts or when I lack the superior
mental powers necessary to become great. It is easy to understand but
how is it possible that a believer can turn into a non-believer because
of his vanity? Only two things are possible: either a man deems himself
to be in possession of Godly qualities, or he goes a step further and
declares himself to be a god. In both these states of mind he cannot be
an atheist in the true sense of the word. In the first case, it is not
an outright rejection of God’s existence; in the other, he is affirming
the existence of some kind of supernatural power responsible for the
working of universe. It does not harm our argument whether he claims to
be a god or considers God to be a reality in existence above his own
being. The real point, however, is that in both cases he is a theist, a
believer. He is not an atheist. I want to bring home this point to you. I
am not one of these two creeds. I totally reject the existence of an
Omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing God. Why so? I will discuss it
later in the essay. Here I wish to emphasise that I am not an atheist
for the reason that I am arrogant or proud or vain; nor am I a demi-god,
nor a prophet; no, nor am I God myself. At least one thing is true that
I have not evolved this thought because of vanity or pride. In order to
answer this question I relate the truth. My friends say that after
Delhi bombing and Lahore Conspiracy Case, I rocketed to fame and that
this fact has turned my head. Let us discuss why this allegation is
incorrect. I did not give up my belief in God after these incidents. I
was an atheist even when I was an unknown figure. At least a college
student cannot cherish any sort of exaggerated notion of himself that
may lead him to atheism. It is true that I was a favourite with some
college teachers, but others did not like me. I was never a hardworking
or studious boy. I never got an opportunity to be proud. I was very
careful in my behaviour and somewhat pessimistic about my future career.
I was not completely atheistic in my beliefs. I was brought up under
the care and protection of my father. He was a staunch Arya Samaji. An
Arya Samaji can be anything but never an atheist. After my elementary
education, I was sent to D. A. V College, Lahore. I lived in the
boarding house for one year. Besides prayers early in the morning and at
dusk time, I sat for hours and chanted religious Mantras. At that time,
I was a staunch believer. Then I lived with my father. He was a
tolerant man in his religious views. It is due to his teachings that I
devoted my life for the cause of liberating my country. But he was not
an atheist. His God was an all-pervading Entity. He advised me to offer
my prayers every day. In this way I was brought up. In the
Non-cooperation days, I got admission to the National College. During my
stay in this college, I began thinking over all the religious polemics
such that I grew sceptical about the existence of God. In spite of this
fact I can say that my belief in God was firm and strong. I grew a beard
and ‘Kais’ (long head of hair as a Sikh religious custom). In spite of
this I could not convince myself of the efficacy of Sikh religion or
any
religion at all, for that matter. But I had an unswerving,
unwavering belief in God.
Then I joined the Revolutionary Party. The first leader I met had not
the courage to openly declare himself an atheist. He was unable to
reach any conclusion on this point. Whenever I asked him about the
existence of God, he gave me this reply: “You may believe in him when
you feel like it.” The second leader with whom I came in contact was a
firm believer. I should mention his name. It was our respected Comrade
Sachindara Nath Sanyal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in
connection with Karachi conspiracy case. Right from the first page of
his only book, ‘Bandi Jivan’ (Incarnated Life) he sings praises to the
Glory of God. See the last page of the second part of this book and you
find praises showered upon God in the way of a mystic. It is a clear
reflection of his thoughts.
According to the prosecution, the ‘Revolutionary Leaflet’ which was
distributed throughout India was the outcome of Sachindara Nath Sanyal’s
intellectual labour. So often it happens that in revolutionary
activities a leader expresses his own ideas which may be very dear to
him, but in spite of having differences, the other workers have to
acquiesce in them.
In that leaflet, one full paragraph was devoted to the praises of God
and His doings which we, human beings, cannot understand. This is sheer
mysticism. What I want to point out is that the idea of denying the
existence of God did not even occur to the Revolutionary Party. The
famous Kakory martyrs, all four of them, passed their last day in
prayers. Ram Parshad Bismal was a staunch Arya Samaji. In spite of his
vast studies in Socialism and Communism, Rajan Lahiri could not suppress
his desire to recite hymns from Upanishads and Gita. There was but only
one person among them who did not indulge in such activities. He used
to say, “Religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of
human knowledge.” He is also in prison for life. But he also never dared
to deny the existence of God.
Till that time I was only a romantic revolutionary, just a follower
of our leaders. Then came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility.
For some time, a strong opposition put the very existence of the party
into danger. Many leaders as well as many enthusiastic comrades began to
uphold the party to ridicule. They jeered at us. I had an apprehension
that some day I will also consider it a futile and hopeless task. It was
a turning point in my revolutionary career. An incessant desire to
study filled my heart. ‘Study more and more’, said I to myself so that I
might be able to face the arguments of my opponents. ‘Study’ to support
your point of view with convincing arguments. And I began to study in a
serious manner. My previous beliefs and convictions underwent a radical
change. The romance of militancy dominated our predecessors; now
serious ideas ousted this way of thinking. No more mysticism! No more
blind faith! Now realism was our mode of thinking. At times of terrible
necessity, we can resort to extreme methods, but violence produces
opposite results in mass movements. I have talked much about our
methods. The most important thing was a clear conception of our ideology
for which we were waging a long struggle. As there was no election
activity going on, I got ample opportunity to study various ideas
propounded by various writers. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader. I
read a few books of Marx, the father of Communism. I also read Lenin
and Trotsky and many other writers who successfully carried out
revolutions in their countries. All of them were atheists. The ideas
contained in Bakunin’s ‘God and State’ seem inconclusive, but it is an
interesting book. After that I came across a book ‘Common Sense’ by
Nirlamba Swami. His point of view was a sort of mystical atheism. I
developed more interest in this subject. By the end of 1926, I was
convinced that the belief in an Almighty, Supreme Being who created,
guided and controlled the universe had no sound foundations. I began
discussions on this subject with my friends. I had openly declared
myself an atheist. What it meant will be discussed in the following
lines.
In May 1927, I was arrested in Lahore. This arrest came as a big
surprise for me. I had not the least idea that I was wanted by the
police. I was passing through a garden and all of a sudden the police
surrounded me. To my own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I was
in full control of myself. I was taken into police custody. The next day
I was taken to the Railway Police lockup where I spent a whole month.
After many days’ conversation with police personnel, I guessed that they
had some information about my connection with the Kakori Party. I felt
they had some intelligence of my other activities in the revolutionary
movement. They told me that I was in Lucknow during the Kakori Party
Trial so that I might devise a scheme to rescue the culprits. They also
said that after the plan had been approved, we procured some bombs and
by way of test, one of those bombs was thrown into a crowd on the
occasion of Dussehra in 1926. They offered to release me on condition
that I gave a statement on the activities of the Revolutionary Party. In
this way I would be set free and even rewarded and I would not be
produced as an approver in the court. I could not help laughing at their
proposals. It was all humbug. People who have ideas like ours do not
throw bombs at their own innocent people. One day, Mr. Newman, the then
senior Superintendent of CID, came to me. After a long talk which was
full of sympathetic words, he imparted to me what he considered to be
sad news, that if I did not give any statement as demanded by them, they
would be forced to send me up for trial for conspiracy to wage war in
connection with Kakori Case and also for brutal killings in Dussehra
gathering. After that he said that he had sufficient evidence to get me
convicted and hanged.
I was completely innocent, but I believed that the police had
sufficient power to do it if they desired it to be so. The same day some
police officers persuaded me to offer my prayers to God two times
regularly. I was an atheist. I thought that I would settle it to myself
whether I could brag only in days of peace and happiness that I was an
atheist, or in those hard times I could be steadfast in my convictions.
After a long debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I could
not even pretend to be a believer nor could I offer my prayers to God.
No, I never did it. It was time of trial and I would come out of it
successful. These were my thoughts. Never for a moment did I desire to
save my life. So I was a true atheist then and I am an atheist now. It
was not an easy task to face that ordeal. Beliefs make it easier to go
through hardships, even make them pleasant. Man can find a strong
support in God and an encouraging consolation in His Name. If you have
no belief in Him, then there is no alternative but to depend upon
yourself. It is not child’s play to stand firm on your feet amid storms
and strong winds. In difficult times, vanity, if it remains, evaporates
and man cannot find the courage to defy beliefs held in common esteem by
the people. If he really revolts against such beliefs, we must conclude
that it is not sheer vanity; he has some kind of extraordinary
strength. This is exactly the situation now. First of all we all know
what the judgement will be. It is to be pronounced in a week or so. I am
going to sacrifice my life for a cause. What more consolation can there
be! A God-believing Hindu may expect to be reborn a king; a Muslim or a
Christian might dream of the luxuries he hopes to enjoy in paradise as a
reward for his sufferings and sacrifices. What hope should I entertain?
I know that will be the end when the rope is tightened round my neck
and the rafters move from under my feet. To use more precise religious
terminology, that will be the moment of utter annihilation. My soul will
come to nothing. If I take the courage to take the matter in the light
of ‘Reward’, I see that a short life of struggle with no such
magnificent end shall itself be my ‘Reward.’ That is all. Without any
selfish motive of getting any reward here or in the hereafter, quite
disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of freedom. I could
not act otherwise. The day shall usher in a new era of liberty when a
large number of men and women, taking courage from the idea of serving
humanity and liberating them from sufferings and distress, decide that
there is no alternative before them except devoting their lives for this
cause. They will wage a war against their oppressors, tyrants or
exploiters, not to become kings, or to gain any reward here or in the
next birth or after death in paradise; but to cast off the yoke of
slavery, to establish liberty and peace they will tread this perilous,
but glorious path. Can the pride they take in their noble cause be
called vanity? Who is there rash enough to call it so? To him I say
either he is foolish or wicked. Leave such a fellow alone for he cannot
realise the depth, the emotions, the sentiment and the noble feelings
that surge in that heart. His heart is dead, a mere lump of flesh,
devoid of feelings. His convictions are infirm, his emotions feeble. His
selfish interests have made him incapable of seeing the truth. The
epithet ‘vanity’ is always hurled at the strength we get from our
convictions.
You go against popular feelings; you criticise a hero, a great man
who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one
will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be
considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless
criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of
revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism; as
he has risen above, all that he says in the field of politics,
religion, Ethics is right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to
take it as truth. This is not constructive thinking. We do not take a
leap forward; we go many steps back.
Our forefathers evolved faith in some kind of Supreme Being,
therefore, one who ventures to challenge the validity of that faith or
denies the existence of God, shall be called a Kafir (infidel), or a
renegade. Even if his arguments are so strong that it is impossible to
refute them, if his spirit is so strong that he cannot be bowed down by
the threats of misfortune that may befall him through the wrath of the
Almighty, he shall be decried as vainglorious. Then why should we waste
our time in such discussions? This question has come before the people
for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long
discussions.
As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it
clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers,
not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a
believer, I know in the present circumstances my life would have been
easier; the burden lighter. My disbelief in God has turned all the
circumstances too harsh and this situation can deteriorate further.
Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I
need no opiate to meet my end. I am a realistic man. I want to overpower
this tendency in me with the help of Reason. I am not always successful
in such attempts. But it is man’s duty to try and make efforts. Success
depends on chance and circumstances.
Now we come to the second question: if it is not vanity, there ought
to be some sound reason for rejection of age-old belief in God. Yes, I
come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power
always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help
of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, [mystical]
philosophy creeps in. As I have indicated, one of my revolutionary
friends used to say that “philosophy is the outcome of human weakness.”
Our ancestors had the leisure to solve the mysteries of the world, its
past, its present and its future, its whys and its wherefores, but
having been terribly short of direct proofs, every one of them tried to
solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find wide differences in the
fundamentals of various religious creeds. Sometimes they take very
antagonistic and conflicting forms. We find differences in Oriental and
Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various
schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim
religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India
itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from
Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects:
Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charwak is yet another independent
thinker of the past ages. He challenged the Authority of God. All these
faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to
be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of
developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing
ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, –
lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are – we cling to orthodox religion and
in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.
It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticise
every tenet of old beliefs. Item by item he has to challenge the
efficacy of old faith. He has to analyse and understand all the details.
If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of
philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and
even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because
Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say
blind belief is disastrous. It deprives a man of his understanding power
and makes him reactionary.
Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of
old beliefs. If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it
collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new
philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive
work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct
the pillars of new philosophy. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I
lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the
Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient
time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a
matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the
efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments. We believe in nature and
that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There
is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy.
Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists:
1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent,
Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know,
first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full
of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person
lives in peace.
2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any
law, He is not Omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one
Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few
tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in
history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets
are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes
condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.
One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it
and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful,
eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of
killing people? How can you support his doings which surpass those of
Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why
the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a
place of constant and bitter unrest. Why did he create man when he had
the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions? You will
say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the
hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all
inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing
ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator
bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to
be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death.
That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind
of pleasure?
Open your eyes and see millions of people dying of hunger in slums
and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons; just see the
labourers patiently or say apathetically while the rich vampires suck
their blood; bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a
man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich
nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of
distributing it among the needy and deprived. There are palaces of kings
built upon the foundations laid with human bones. Let them see all this
and say “All is well in God’s Kingdom.” Why so? This is my question.
You are silent. All right. I proceed to my next point.
You, the Hindus, would say: Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this
life, must have been a sinner in his previous birth. It is tantamount to
saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in
their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their
hands. Let me say it plainly that your ancestors were shrewd people.
They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and
snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyse how much this
argument carries weight!
Those who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate
three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted
upon a wrong-doer. These are: revenge, reform, and deterrence. The
Retribution Theory is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent
theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely
accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at
reforming the culprit and converting him into a peace-loving citizen.
But what in essence is God’s Punishment even if it is inflicted on a
person who has really done some harm? For the sake of argument we agree
for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth
and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any
other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly
Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack. Tell me, has this
tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative
effect on human man? How many of them have you met who were donkeys in
their previous births for having committed any sin? Absolutely no one of
this sort! The so called theory of ‘Puranas’ (transmigration) is
nothing but a fairy-tale. I do not have any intention to bring this
unutterable trash under discussion. Do you really know the most cursed
sin in this world is to be poor? Yes, poverty is a sin; it is a
punishment! Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who
proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous
sins. Did it not occur to your All Knowing God or he could learn the
truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships?
What, according to your theory, is the fate of a person who, by no sin
of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is poor
so he cannot go to a school. It is his fate to be shunned and hated by
those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and
the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards
society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the
consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society? What is
your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were
deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance
these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas,
these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears. If they committed any
sin, who was to be held responsible? Who was to bear the brunt? My dear
friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes.
They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have
robbed with the help of such theories. Perhaps it was the writer Upton
Sinclair who wrote
(Bhagat Singh is referring to
Sinclair’s pamphlet ‘Profits of Religion’ – MIA transcriber) somewhere
“only make a man firm believer in the immortality of soul, then rob him
of all that he possesses. He will willingly help you in the process.”
The dirty alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power
brought the boon of prisons, gallows, knouts and above all such theories
for the mankind.
I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is
about to commit a sin or offence. It is child’s play for God. Why did He
not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from
their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great
calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into
the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I
ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with
altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of
the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity
from the shackles of money. You want to argue the practicability of
Socialist theory, I leave it to your Almighty God to enforce it. Common
people understand the merits of Socialist theory as far as general
welfare is concerned but they oppose it under the pretext that it cannot
be implemented. Let the Almighty step in and arrange things in a proper
way. No more logic chopping! I tell you that the British rule is not
there because God willed it but for the reason that we lack the will and
courage to oppose it. Not that they are keeping us under subjugation
with the consent of God, but it is with the force of guns and rifles,
bombs and bullets, police and militia, and above all because of our
apathy that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin,
that is, the exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What
is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero! A
Genghis Khan! Down with Him!
Now another piece of manufactured logic! You ask me how I will
explain the origin of this world and origin of man. Charles Darwin has
tried to throw some light on this subject. Study his book. Also, have a
look at Sohan Swami’s “Commonsense.” You will get a satisfactory answer.
This topic is concerned with Biology and Natural History. This is a
phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in
the form of Nebulae gave birth to this earth. When? Study history to
know this. The same process caused the evolution of animals and in the
long run that of man. Read Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ All the later
progress is due to man’s constant conflict with nature and his efforts
to utilise nature for his own benefit. This is the briefest sketch of
this phenomenon.
Your next question will be why a child is born blind or lame even if
he was not a sinner in his previous birth. This problem has been
explained in a satisfactory manner by biologists as a mere biological
phenomenon. According to them the whole burden rests upon the shoulders
of parents whose conscious or unconscious deeds caused mutilation of the
child prior to his birth.
You may thrust yet another question at me, though it is merely
childish. The question is: If God does not really exist, why do people
come to believe in Him? Brief and concise my answer will be. As they
come to believe in ghosts, and evil spirits, so they also evolve a kind
of belief in God: the only difference being that God is almost a
universal phenomenon and well developed theological philosophy. However,
I do disagree with radical philosophy. It attributes His origin to the
ingenuity of exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their
subjugation by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being; thus claimed
an authority and sanction from Him for their privileged position. I do
not differ on the essential point that all religions, faiths,
theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such
institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and
exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has
always been a sin in every religion.
As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in
his imagination when he realized his weaknesses, limitations and
shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying
circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and
also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with
his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated
colours of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury
and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a
danger to society. He was the cry of the distressed soul for he was
believed to stand as father and mother, sister and brother, brother and
friend when in time of distress a man was left alone and helpless. He
was Almighty and could do anything. The idea of God is helpful to a man
in distress.
Society must fight against this belief in God as it fought against
idol worship and other narrow conceptions of religion. In this way man
will try to stand on his feet. Being realistic, he will have to throw
his faith aside and face all adversaries with courage and valour. That
is exactly my state of mind. My friends, it is not my vanity; it is my
mode of thinking that has made me an atheist. I don’t think that by
strengthening my belief in God and by offering prayers to Him every day,
(this I consider to be the most degraded act on the part of man) I can
bring improvement in my situation, nor can I further deteriorate it. I
have read of many atheists facing all troubles boldly, so I am trying to
stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last; even on the
gallows.
Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray.
When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you
will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I
consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such
petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.” Reader and friends, is it
vanity? If it is, I stand for it.
.jpg)