Part 2 0f 3 of Bhagat Singh's write up
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.
