tks
0
Part 3 of 3 - Bhagat Singh write up
(someone sent this on March 23rd and I thought I will share here)
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.
(someone sent this on March 23rd and I thought I will share here)
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.
