Why I Am An Atheist? (By Bhagat Singh)

[Sabir]

Please read more about Gandhiji or any other person before making coments.

For thousand years Indian population was indifferent about politics. They did not bother who is ruling them or who is taxing them. It was only headache for the kings and the soldiers. Common people hardly thought of a rebellion. Of course there are sporadic incidents but if you consider massive partcipation of common Indians against any invader, it is Gandhi who made the miracle.

 

[Oracle]

Too long for me to read that. Why I Am An Atheist? Whatever I have heard and known is that Bhagat Singh was against partition. This is the reason Nathuram Godse killed Gandhi. It is also said, according to my knowledge, that his ashes still lies somewhere in Pune, and the day Pakistan and India becomes a single state, his ashes are to be submerged into the Ganga. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Edited

 

[warriorextreme]

Too long for me to read that. Why I Am An Atheist? Whatever I have heard and known is that Bhagat Singh was against partition. This is the reason he killed Gandhi. It is also said, according to my knowledge, that his ashes still lies somewhere in Pune, and the day Pakistan and India becomes a single state, his ashes are to be submerged into the Ganga. Please correct me if I am wrong!

nathuram godse killed gandhi and not bhagat singh..
and yes nathuram's ashes are still preserved because his last wish was to submerge his ashes in SINDHU (now in pakistan) only when india and pakistan are one again.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Too long for me to read that. Why I Am An Atheist? Whatever I have heard and known is that Bhagat Singh was against partition. This is the reason he killed Gandhi. It is also said, according to my knowledge, that his ashes still lies somewhere in Pune, and the day Pakistan and India becomes a single state, his ashes are to be submerged into the Ganga. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Oracle baba.. When did Bhagat singh kill Gandhi? What are you smoking?

 

[Oracle]

Sorry, these 2 names confuses me. I am editing my earlier post. Sorry guys!

 

[warriorextreme]

Sorry, these 2 names confuses me. I am editing my earlier post. Sorry guys!

hehehe i have already quoted it

 

[Oracle]

nathuram godse killed gandhi and not bhagat singh..
and yes nathuram's ashes are still preserved because his last wish was to submerge his ashes in SINDHU (now in pakistan) only when india and pakistan are one again.

Thanks WE, this is what I wanted to confirm.

 

[Tshering22]

Tshering,

Gandhi was like Dalai Lama. He was useful to the british, in the sense that he channeled the independence movement in the non-violence direction thus stopping it from going towards armed rebellion. Obviously, british could not have handled a massive coordinated rebellion in 1900s. The same role is being played by Dalai Lama today.

But Gandhi has to be credited for first creating a independence struggle as a mass struggle. Before him, it was just a few elites with no mass support. Gandhi took the movement to masses and villages.

Firstly, I would suggest you not to compare His Holiness with that politician-wannabe for it is offensive to us followers.

Secondly, Even if the whole country was awakened by Gandhi, the weakling path he showed would have got thousands massacred at the hands of British rulers had the WWs not happened and we would still be colonies. It is only and only Nazi Germany as an external force that forced the British to de-colonize and partly the US post WW2 who pressed British to do the same.

Do you think that "satyagrah", "dandi march" and his false interpretation of the term "ahimsa" (Ahimsa means general non-violence in daily life, not spinelessness or not fighting for justice) could have stopped blood thirsty Imperialists who did not mind razing thousands of people down to bone in colonies stretching from Pacific islands to Africa to India? Puhleese...

 

[warriorextreme]

Firstly, I would suggest you not to compare His Holiness with that politician-wannabe for it is offensive to us followers.

Secondly, Even if the whole country was awakened by Gandhi, the weakling path he showed would have got thousands massacred at the hands of British rulers had the WWs not happened and we would still be colonies. It is only and only Nazi Germany as an external force that forced the British to de-colonize and partly the US post WW2 who pressed British to do the same.

Do you think that "satyagrah", "dandi march" and his false interpretation of the term "ahimsa" (Ahimsa means general non-violence in daily life, not spinelessness or not fighting for justice) could have stopped blood thirsty Imperialists who did not mind razing thousands of people down to bone in colonies stretching from Pacific islands to Africa to India? Puhleese...

exactly my point of view...ahimsha does not mean to tolerate those who do not belong in any way to us...if you let those who treat you worst than animals to treat you even worse then it is hinsa of your own soul..which is worst..
gandhi's theory was totally wrong and it is reason of our cold blooded society today...did gandhi's theory stoped jaliyanwala baug massacre??
answer will be no and no for all such situations...gandhi even did not care about lakhs of people who were massacred in pakistan just after partition...it was sardar patelji who showed pakistan tit for tat...he even did biasing with him and chose nehru over him which was one of his biggest mistakes...

where ever Bhagar singhji is,he would be so upset about todays situation of India and its spineless people

 

[smartindian]

Firstly, I would suggest you not to compare His Holiness with that politician-wannabe for it is offensive to us followers.

Secondly, Even if the whole country was awakened by Gandhi, the weakling path he showed would have got thousands massacred at the hands of British rulers had the WWs not happened and we would still be colonies. It is only and only Nazi Germany as an external force that forced the British to de-colonize and partly the US post WW2 who pressed British to do the same.

Do you think that "satyagrah", "dandi march" and his false interpretation of the term "ahimsa" (Ahimsa means general non-violence in daily life, not spinelessness or not fighting for justice) could have stopped blood thirsty Imperialists who did not mind razing thousands of people down to bone in colonies stretching from Pacific islands to Africa to India? Puhleese...

bhagat singh was a true freedom fighter as same way gandhi was also a freedom fighter . of course there way may differ . but ultimate goal was to free india from British. if gandhi was un successful some other leader would had emerged. he would had approached freedom struggler in different way . here my point is both fought for sake of India , both should be respected.

 

[warriorextreme]

bhagat singh was a true freedom fighter as same way gandhi was also a freedom fighter . of course there way may differ . but ultimate goal was to free india from British. if gandhi was un successful some other leader would had emerged. he would had approached freedom struggler in different way . here my point is both fought for sake of India , both should be respected.

i think gandhi's ahimsa was appealing for common peace loving indians..that does not mean he was right...one can not say if he was not unsuccessful then other leader would have emerged...today congress has failed just like it did for many of their terms to maintain prices of basic needs like food..but still they will be chosen next year...gandhi had great force but he did not use it well or we would have got independence decades before 1947

 

[Sabir]

Gandhi used the force best possible way. He said that he prefered violence over non-violence of a coward. He always kept selected Satyagrahees in forefront who were trained to maintain 'Ahimsa' even when there was provocation and immense torture. To follow the path of 'Ahimsa' you need to win over your natural instinct which is beyond the capacity of ordinary man. If you consider Bhagat Singh's episode of throwing non-leathal bomb in the assembly even it can be said an act of ahimsa. He knew he would be punished to death for it, but still he made it sure not to hurt any person in the assembly. He he wanted he could have killed many in that day by bombing or firing. He could not have been given death twice for that. But he chose not to hurt anyone. His intention was to draw the attention of Indian population, to awake them and motivate them to agitate for throwing away the British. For that purpose he invited an immature death for himself. Unfortunately , Gandhi did not realise this act of non-violence is no different from his own policy. One reason is that the government did not publish non-leathal nature of the bomb on that time. Only during the trial it came out.

Gandhi did not try to save Bhagat Singh is a totally wrong information. Irwin mentioned how stubbornly Gandhi demanded for it. But government did not yield. The killing of Sunders went against Bhagat Singh (along with Sukhdev and Rajguru). The only person who accompanied Bhagat Singh in the Assembly that day was Batukeswar Dutta. He got life sentence. He died after independence.

Coming to the topic it is conscience that made Bhagat Singh an atheist. Not any complex theory of any book. I believe, we should (and we can) give more importance on morality and our duties as human beings rather than worshiping any God or Allah. Worshiping God when our moral character is so pathetic, in my opinion is the greatest deception of our society. Hope oneday will come when people will drag out the Purahits and Moulavis from the temples and Mosques and send them to do some constructive work, houses will be built for poors after demolishing all houses of Gods.......

 

[The Messiah]

Bhagat Singh is left wing ? I didn't know that!

Let's face it: technically we got to thank Hitler for reducing UK to cinders at the end of WW2 and weakening Brits badly so that they couldn't hold onto their stretched colonies, and this earning us our independence. Had WWs not taken place, Brits would have simply done a couple of dozen more Jallianwalah Baghs with Gandhi and his marchers and quelled any voice at all and we would still be British India today.

This i agree with fully 100%.

Had it not been for lunatic hitler the english would have not left India in 1947.

 

[The Messiah]

bhagat singh was a true freedom fighter as same way gandhi was also a freedom fighter . of course there way may differ . but ultimate goal was to free india from British. if gandhi was un successful some other leader would had emerged. he would had approached freedom struggler in different way . here my point is both fought for sake of India , both should be respected.

Agreed.

Any person fighting for India in whatever requires our utmost respect even if we might disagree with his tactics.

 

[tarunraju]

I don't intend to be non-serious, but lend this a reading:

 

[hit&run]

This is a biggest bull$hit i have heard from many including Khalistani Sikhs in Punjab that because of Gandhi Bhagat Singh wasn't saved. Bhagat Singh's death was traumatizing setback to all Indians, even today. When people's emotions ran high they tried to find a culprit so that they can vent off their frustration on him. Gandhi was one of them, being demonized by white press all the time and always a subject of suspicion/critisism of Indians because of impossible looking mission of freedom he took into his hands. Propaganda by colonial press against Mahatma Gandhi after the death of Bhagat Singh was like hitting two birds with one stone. How English brain divided and ruled us could have been a better guide for today's Indians, who are blindly considering cunning revelations and doctored events of that time as honest.

People were helpless in front of British power, did nothing but stood besides the mighty walls of the Jail where he was hanged.

Bhagat Singh took the charge himself to become a martyr so that he can wake up sleeping Indians. To be martyr, was his mission and this is what he planned with his group. He never debated his innocence nor he opposed is conviction in court rooms but debated what he wanted to. He wrote a letter to the Viceroy asking him to be executed by firing squad and not by hanging; like POWs. Prannath Mehta visited him in the jail on 20 March, four days before his execution, with a draft letter for clemency, but he declined to sign it.

What was Gandhi supposed to do?

It is a disrespect of Bhagat Singh's vision and mission that he could have been saved by any means. Bhagat Singh was not a mighty capitalist with abundance of resources. His could have fled from Parliament but surrendered voluntarily with his friend. He could have been aware of the repercussions of his detention. His group was almost busted and demoralized remaining became informers. Freedom doesn't come cheap and only resource he was having was exposure of his ideology to the masses and sacrifice of his own life.

If Gandhi was afraid of Bhagat Singh's Influence then he was not suppose to go to jail and see him, then he must not be having any effect on British with this same logic. Bhagat Singh was hanged because colonial Dracula wanted to hang him. Where was Mohd. Ali Jinnah and JL Nehru at that time? Did Gandhi compromised his mission after negotiating Bhagat Singh's death with Britain?

 

[Sabir]

Excerpted from Gandhi's article in Young India.



Bhagat Singh and his two associates have been hanged. The Congress made many attempts to save their lives and the Government entertained many hopes of it, but all has been in a vain.

Bhagat Singh did not wish to live. He refused to apologize, or even file an appeal. Bhagat Singh was not a devotee of non-violence, but he did not subscribe to the religion of violence. He took to violence due to helplessness and to defend his homeland. In his last letter, Bhagat Singh wrote --" I have been arrested while waging a war. For me there can be no gallows. Put me into the mouth of a cannon and blow me off." These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism.

But we should not imitate their act. In our land of millions of destitute and crippled people, if we take to the practice of seeking justice through murder, there will be a terrifying situation. Our poor people will become victims of our atrocities. By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions.

Hence, though we praise the courage of these brave men, we should never countenance their activities. Our dharma is to swallow our anger, abide by the discipline of non-violence and carry out our duty.

March 29, 1931

http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/onbhagatsingh.htm

 

[Sabir]

Bhagat Singh is left wing ? I didn't know that!
This i agree with fully 100%.

Had it not been for lunatic hitler the english would have not left India in 1947.

I think the 'The Hindustan Socialist Republican Association', the name of the organization itself suggests that. It was inspired by the Balsevik revolution in Russia. The Assembly bombing was planned as a protest of introduction of Trade Dispute bill.