“WHY AM I AN ATHEIST?” of Bhagat Singh at crossroads in the Madras Presidency. 1931 – 1934

- Dr.V.VENKATRAMAN

[The writer is the Principal and Head, Research Centre in History, Raju’s College, Rajapalayam, Tamil Nadu]

Bhagat Singh, the rebel mounted the gallows with smile on his face and ‘inquilab lindabad' on his lips on 23d March I931 at 7.00 p.m1 Bhagat Singh's fearlessness and sacrifice electrified the Indian political atmosphere at a time lethargy had set in Thecry of' ‘Long live Revolution' was popularized in this countiy by him. Bhagat Sing raised the slogan in a British Court of Law, and the echoes are heard even today, everyday in every Indian heart.2

Gandhi made the following statement, six days after hanging of Bhagat Sing, “There never has been in living memory, so much romance round any life as had surrounded Bhagat Singh.” The romance continues even today3. Bhagat Singh, who was borne on 28 September 1907 at Lyallpur Banga in West Punjab, is a household name in the country4. He was born in a family which had produced a galaxy of freedom fighters. His uncle Ajit Singh, his father Krishna Singh and his grand father Arjun Singh were also involved in the struggle for freedom5. The patriotic life of Bhagat Singh is well known to the people of India and there is no need of reproduction of the facts, which related to his patriotic life.

Bhagat Singh and his reammates were in Lahore Jail for two years from April 8, 1929 to March 23, 19916. Bhagat Singh was charged for murder of Saunders A.S.P. and throwing bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly on April 8, 1929. Later, the Government of India formed a Special Tribunal for conducting the Lahore Conspiracy Case in the Lahore Jail7.

During his stay there in Lahore Jail, Bhagat Singh wrote four manuscripts. (1) The Idea of Socialism; (2) Autobiography; (3) History of Revolutionary Movement in India; (4) At the Door of Death. Among the four manuscripts of Bhagat Singh, Why am I an atheist?, written by him was a semi-biographical sketch, published after his execution, on 27 September 1931. Bhagat Singh planned to write a full-fledged book on the Science of the State, but he could not complete the same8.

Bhagat Singh wrote a lengthy article entitled, Why am I an atheist?, it was a reply to a question raised by Bhai Randhir Singh, a Ghadarite, who was imprisoned in Lahore jail in 1930-31, and a God fearing religious man seriously discussed with Bhagat Singh on the existence of god in the condemned cell of Lahore Jail. Randhir Singh lost his temper and said tauntingly; “You are giddy with fame and have developed an ego which is standing like a black curtain between you and the god.” Then Bhagat Singh replied to Randhir Singh on the existence of god by writing this article, Why am I an Atheist? The content of article is self-explanatory in nature9. Later, the article of Bhagat Singh was translated into many Indian languages between 1931 and 1934.

The booklet in Tamil Why am I an Atheist? (Nan Nathikar Yen?) was translated by P.Jeevanantham10, Secretary to the Madras Provincial Atheists’ Association, Madras and published by the Pahutharivu Publishing House Limited, which was constituted by E.V.Ramasamy11 at Erode. The book was originally written by Bhagat Singh from the Lahore Jail with the permission of the Lahore Jail authorities, when the Lahore Conspiracy Case was going on. The booklet consists of 46 pages in Tamil, which includes the editorial which appeared in the Kudiarasu, a Tamil weekly edited by E.V.Ramasamy at Erode, in its issue dated 29th March, 1931 in connection with the execution of Bhagat Singh and his fellow men in the Lahore Jail on 23rd March, 193112.

In the preface of the Tamil booklet, the publisher stated that though he did not approve of the political doctrines of Bhagat Singh in toto, their object in publishing this booklet was to apprise the people of Tamil province in general and Congress men in particular of his views regarding god. Bhagat Singh wrote this book to his father intimating his stand on worshiping god. It is very interesting to study the fact that the original version, written by Bhagat Singh in English was not prescribed by the British Raj13. When supporting the deeds of Bhagat Singh, the Kudiarasu published an article on 29th March, 1931. E.V.Ramasamy, the editor exhibited his sympathy over the martyrs14 . He said, “There is none who has not evinced sympathy regarding the execution of the heroic Bhagat Singh this week. There is none again who has not censured the British government for their action in having executed him.” Further the paper stated, “. . . It is our strong conviction that India really wants only Bhagat Singh’s doctrine. For, as far as we know, we think that Socialism and Communism alone constitute his doctrin.15”

By stating the inner content of Bhagat Singh’s doctrine, the editor strongly supported the doctrine of Bhagat Singh, he sayd : “If we should state the trueth as far as we are concerned, we think that the fact Bhagat Singh had to give up his life and disappear instead of living for a long time in a country wherein there are foolish and ignorant people, who have no responsibility or care, as well as selfish persons, who without earing for the consequences, are content with securing honour for themselves somehow or the other, witnessing their activities and experiencing suffering every second labouring under the obstaclesd placed by them, will result in great peace and benefit to Bhagat Singh. We even feel soory that we could not attain this bliss116.

The paper praised the sacrificed of Bhagat Singh and his fellow patriots, and appreciated the real meaning of Bhagat Singh to the Governor of Punjab. The letter clearly clarifies the consciousness of Bhagat Singh’s mission. It reads: “Our war will certainly continue until the Communist party attains power and differencesf in status among the people disappear. The war will not terminate with you killing us. It will certainly be waged both publically and secretly17 .

Further, we are under the only impression that even in regard to god, he had no faith in the saying “All is God’s work” and he had self-confidence. Hence we would say that this doctrine of his cannot constitute an offence under any law and that even if it does no one need to be afraid. Because we are convinced that this will cause no less or hardship whatever to the public. Even if per chance some such thing is likely to result, we are trying to give effect to this doctrine only with a feeling of sacrifice, which agrees to subject us to any amount of suffering, without deliberately entertaining prejudice against any particular individual or any particular class or any particular country and without causing harm to the body of any particular individual. That is why we say we need not care for or fear anything.18”

Bhagat Singh wrote the above letter to the Governor of Pubjab, when he was arrested in June, 1929 after the Central Legislative Assembly Bomb episode. Bhagat Singh was a very confident and fearless person, when he was produced before the Special Court for conducting Lahore Conspiracy Case being held in the Lahore prison from April 1929 to March 193119 .

The editor of Kudiarasu, further clarified his stand of supporting the doctrine of Bhagat Singh by making the following statement. He writes, “we say that if poverty should go, capitalism and labour should certainly go even as we say that, if untouchability should go, the distinction that constitutes Socialism and Communism and nothing else. It is only these doctrines that are the doctrines of fpersons like Mr.Bhagat Singh.20 ”The editor further praised the sacrifice of Bhagat Singh and exhorted that in every province, least four persons like Bhagat Singh should be hanged. The hanging of Bhagat Singh and his fellow patriots gave a new fillip to the national movement more than the Gandhian way of non-violence.21

The paper said: “It so happened that Bhagat Singh, who would otherwise have fallen ill in the ordinary course suffered, died, and been reduced to ashes, lost course, suffered, died, lost his life so as to far helpful in showing to the Indians may even to the people of the world, the path that leads to real equality and peace. We heartily praise Bhagat Singh saying that this is a great achievement which is ordinarily beyond the reach of any other person. At the same time we sincerely request our government to choose such sincere persons even her after and execute them at the rate of atleast four persons for every province22.

The paper vehemently criticised the wrong doings of the British authorities for executing the real martyrs and condemned boldly Gandhi for not taking care of the execution of Bhagat Singh. E.V.Ramasamy, the once the staunch supporter of non-cooperation movement, came forward to criticize the Gandhian way of non-violent satyagraha during Civil Disobedience movement in 1930s by analyzing very deeply the doctrine of Bhagat Singh in his paper tghe Kudiarasu on 29 March, 1931, just after a week of the execution of Bhagat Singh.23

E.V.Ramasamy, the President sof Madras Provincial Atheists’ Association, Madras requested his fellow atheist P.Jeevanantham, Secretary of the same association to translate the original version of Bhagat Singh’s “Why am I an Atheist?” in to Tamil. The main purpose of translating Bhagat Singh’s doctrine was to circulate the same among the Tamil people in general and the atheists in particular24. The Kudiarasu was one among the pro-justice party journals of Tamil province which came forward to write editorial on the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh and his fellow comrades. P.Jeevanantham, a prolific communist writer paid much attention towards the doctrine of Bhagat Singh and translated the whole book of Bhagat Singh verbatim. The booklet in Tamil was published from Erode in 1934 by E.V.Ramasamy and circulated among the Tamil speaking population25.

Why am I an Atheist? Content Analysis

C.N.Saravana Mudaliar, Tamil translator to the Government of Madras sent his office memorandum No. 504, Public Department dated 16 October 1934 to G.T.H.Bracken, the Chief Secretary to Government of Madras along with the translated objectionable passages found in the booklet entitled Why am I an Atheist? of P.Jeevanantham. He marked the very objectionable passages in red color, and suggested the Government of Madras to take immediate actgion by forfeiting the booklet which contains seditious matter against the government26.
The booklet consisted of 46 pages, out of which the first forty pages are the translatewd version of Bhagat Singh doctrine on god. The remaining six pages are the content of the editorial published in the Kudiarasu on 29 Martch 1931 by E.V.Ramasamy.

In the editorial of Kudiarasu, the editor condemned Lord Irwin and Gandhi for making truce without giving any support to withdraw the execution of Bhagat Singh. It reads: “While these things are taking place on the one hand, when we see what is sbeing done by this same group of persons on the other (we find that they) are applauding the viceroy Lord Irwin, the Head of the Government praising Mr.Gandhi, who concluded a pact with him, and not stopping with being greatly satisfied with the pact, which does not contain (any) provision that Bhagavat Singh should not be executed, indulging in celebrations of victory deeming the pact to be a great victory28.

Further the editor criticized Gandhi for calling Lord Irwin Mahatma. In the fofllowing passage of his editorial he writes Mr.Gandhi called Lord Irwin a Mahatma and directed the people of the country also to call him likewise, while Lord Irwin proclaimed to the Europeans that Mr. Gandhi was a great and eminent person endowed with divine nature29 .

The paper appealed to the common people to raise the cry : “Down with Gandhism”, ‘May Congress perish’ and ‘May Gandhi go’, to show black flags in places where Mr.Gandhi goes and to create disturbances in the meeting which Gandhi addresses. Moreover, the paper criticized Gandhi for misleading the Congress and the people30 . It says: “My Gandhi had deceived the poor people. He is doing these things only to get rid of the socialist doctrines. Mr.Gandhi must go, the Congress should perish.” But our so-called national heroes and patriots danced with dizzy heads and in a blind manner with out minding anything and without realizing the consequences, just like dashing against a rock laying a wage (therefore). As a result of it, they went to prison and came back as heroes wearing the garland of victory31.

P.Jeevanantham while translating the original version of the booklet, made a sincere attempt by bringing the real facts, which are availble in the original context. In the Tamil book and its page No.10, a passage occured in Bhagat Singh’s leltter, he justified the resorting to violence. It reads, “We realized that, it was lawful to resort to violence under unavoidable circumstances and even then if a necessity arose. But non-violenc essential for all public movements for achieving the desired object of getting independence.32” In this context, Bhagat Singh, favoured violence as the only way to achieve freedom under unavoidable circumstances.

Further, Bhagat Singh narrated the goal to attain freedom for the nation and justified his plan of action by dedicating his life to the cause. He said, “Without selfishness or a desire to be rewarded either in this life or in the next and with complete self-denial. I have dedicated my life in order to attain freedom, because I have no other alternative than this. It is the time when heroic men and women come forward with such a desire and without diverting their attention to anything else even in the least and dedicate their lives for serving humanity for carrying on a strugfgle for the liberation of the poor people, who have become victims of hardship, calumny, cruelty and exploitation and are crying aloud distressingly with tears in their eyes that will be the dawn of the era of Independence33.

Bhagat Singh further stated that he was not in the mood of getting reward in this birth or in heaven by doing his recent anti-British deeds, but for sacrificing his life for the cause of the nation. He writes: “Itr is not with the object of becoming kings of kings or ofd gettiong a suitable reward in this birth or inthe next birth or in heaven after death and enjoying happiness and pleasure,that these persons put up a vigorous fight with the oppressors, exploiters and despots with sincerity, enthusiasm and ardour. On the other hand, they are following the path, which is capable of causing danger as far as they are concerned and which viewed deeply in a noble spirit appears to be a very great, unique and righteous path, only with a view to bring down the yoke of slavery from the neck of humanity and to establish peace and liberty.34”

Bhagat Singh formulated his doctrine on god, what forced him to be an atheist. In his leltter to his father, he stated the reasons for his attitude on god. Bhagat Singhsets forth the reasons for his doubting the existence of god and turning an athiest. Further he asserted that he had become an atheist not on account of arrogance or self-conceit but only as a result of deep deliberation. He said that he read some of the books written by persons such as Karlmarx, Lenin and Trotsky and came to the conclusion that the belief in the existence of god was entirely unfounded. He then asked the theists why god created the world, ‘which is full of misery, distress, hardships and cres’ and how they are going to approve the wicked acts, which he is doing every moment and which were causing misery and sorrow35.

Bhagat Singh argued that the god should protect the sufferers from their hardship. In his statement, which is available in the pages 28 and 29 of the booklet36 , he said, “Let him (god) see well with open eyes everything from the very dark, ill-ventilated and cruel prison cells – from the formidable hunger granaries, which tormet cores of human beings sitting and living in hovel and huts, eat, suck and swallow them up and belch from the labourers who keep watching in a spirit of tolerance nay in a manner indicative of a lack of sensibility, the cruel capitalist demons ceaselessly sucking their blood and the human capacity being abused to an inordinate extent in such a manner that even an ordinary person would dread to think of it, and become the victims of exploitation from the mentality which would rather choose to throw kin the sea and destroy the article manufactured excessively than distribute them for satisfying the needs of the people who manufactured them, to the gigantic palaces of the Emperor which have been raised on the foundation of the very bones of human beings and let Him say “all is well”37 .

Further, Bhagat Singh said some doubts on the Hindus and their irrational beliefs by treating their fellow Hindus on the basis sof their previous birth. He stated, “Well! Hindus! You say that all those that are suffering today belong to the group of persons who committed sin in their previous birth. You say that, all those that belong to the class exercising power, who control, oppress, crush and treat under foot the people today, were hightly virtuous and great persons in their previous birth, they are exercising dominatiofn and enjoying ruling powers in this birth, they are exercising domination and enjoying ruling powers in this birth.38”

Bhagat Singh made frequest questions on the existence of god why god is not preventing a man from committing a sin or an offencew even when he commits the same. By stating the above, he writes: “It will indeed be an easy thing for him to do so! Why should he not have averted the incoloable and excessive grief -the unfortunate result – which fell to the lot of the people of the world on account of the recent Great War, either by killing the War Lords or by putting out the fire of revolt which was raging high in their minds? Why has he not created some sort of good feeling in the minds of the British people, urging them to grant independence to India?39”

Further he questioned the god why he does not kindle a philanthropic feeling in the hearts of all the capitalists, make them convert all private properties into the public properties of their own accord and protect the laborers nay humanity itself, by releasing them from the bondage of capitalist. You may like to know whether the programme enunicated by the socialists is a practicable one. If necessary, I am prepared to leave the responsibility for making it practicable to your god alone who is omnipotent. The people generally approve of the nature of socialism and the benefit derived there from. But they oppose it saying that it is “ impossible” and “impracticable”. Hence, cannot the omnipotent god intervene in this matter and organize and set right everything?40 ”

(To be continued in the next issue…)

GOD AND MAN – PERIYAR E.V.RAMASAMY

The State and administration have become subordinate to Brahmins out of selfishness. The brahmin has also subordinated himself to evil things. He simply concentrated, his being to be recognised as superior by birth. For the sake of it he protects god. Yet, he does not endeavour to rise up above others in any quality He is not worried at all to be superior in the display of virtues in life.

Similarly, those who attribute greater qualities to god say that god is the supreme being. But they do not come forward to prove anything greater in god than in men.

For a religion there must be a god, heaven, hell, divine powers, incarnation of religious heads, priests, symbols and caste marks. Without these there can be no religion in the world. Even these are not sufficient for the Hindu religion. Hinduism needs innumerable gods; variety of heaven; different hells; different births; sufferings; different 'Gurujis' and so on. The devotees who have attained 'Moksha' (Heaven) personally contact ing god are also needed for the spread of Hinduism. These are the same with Vaishnavism and Saivism which form the two wings of Hinduism. There may be differences in names. But so far, as the functioning is concerned it is almost identical. It seems as though one has copied the other. To cite an example, in Vaishnavism, the reason for Ramayana is almost similar to what is said of Kandapuranam in Saivism.

The intercourse, god Vishnu had with his wife is said to be the cause for Ramayana. The intercourse, Siva had with Parvathi is said to be the cause for Kanda puranam. Let me illustrate further.

It is said in the story that Rishis came to meet Vishnu in day light. It seems Vishnu was with his wife Lakshmi in bed during day time. The gate keepers who had the knowledge of what Vishnu was doing with Lakshmi during the day time, did not permit the Rishis to enter the private chamber of god Vishnu. Getting angry the Rishis cursed the gate keeper. To rid them of the curse, it is said that Ramayana took place.

Similarly the worshipful god Shiva is said to have had intercourse with his wife Parvathi at a stretch for more than hundreds of years. The Devas in the Indralokam were very much worried about Parvathi. They thought that the semen of Siva excreted into the womb of Parvathi would cause great havoc. So they thought, it was their foremost duty to separate the couple, even before their act of intercourse was completed. They somehow succeeded in their attempt. But the semen excreted from the penis of Lord Siva created a number of inexpressible ugly scenes and at last resulted in the birth of another god, the son of Shiva, Lord Muruga. Yet some people attribute that Murugan was born to get rid of the 'Rakshasas'.

For the birth of Rama, Devas prayed to Mahavishnu. For the birth of Muruga, Devas prayed to Paramashiva. Rama killed the Rakshasas and Murugan killed the Asuras.

When Rama was engaged in killing the Rakshasas, some how the number of Rakshasas went on increasing suddenly. When Arumugan was engaged in killing the Asuras, they too are said to have increased in number all of a sudden.
Rama's wife Sita was an adopted virgin. Similarly Murugan's wife Valli devi was also brought up by others.

Even in the stories related to the Acharyas of Vaishanavism and the Nayanmars of Saivism there is practically no major difference. The way in which they lived their life, the way in which they attained salvation are almost identical.

The book titled ‘Baktha Leela’, which is the puranic literature of Vaishnavism and the book titled ‘Periyapuranam’ which is the puranic literature of Saivism are almost similar.

If there is a story about a potter in Vaishnava purana, there is a potter in the Saivapurana also. The Vainava potter was called Gora Kumber. The Saiva potter was called Thiruneelakantar. Their stories are also similar. Gora Kumbar was not in terms with his wife. Thiruneelakantar was also not in terms with his wife. Mahavishnu brought Gora kumbar and his wife to terms. Similarly Paramasivan brought Thiruneelakantar and his wife to terms. In Vainavism there is the story of an untouchable called Swarga Mala. In Saivism you have the story of an untouchable called Nandanar. Vishnu appeared in the dream of Swarga mala. Paramasivan appeared in the dream of Nandanar. Swraga Mala had the 'darshan' of Vishnu. Nandanar had the darshan of Paramasivan.

What we have to keenly observe in the puranic literature of Saivism and Vaishnavism is the role of the brahmin is ever kept high. Where as all others are treated as low and contemptible. The evil caste system is safeguarded in both.

Unless one undertakes a close study and research of these stories, we cannot say categorically as to who imitated whom. I do not deem it a useful work for me. Moreover, Saivism is dominant only in the South and is very obscure in the North. There only Vaishnavism is predominant. In North India if you say Vainavite, then only you are considered a vegetarian. The religious books, stories, their devotees, gods are almost identical. This is possible only when one imitates or copies the other. Otherwise both the Vaishnavites and Saivites should have met together and conspired together in the creation of all these identical things.

While there are a number of living beings on earth such as grass, herbs, plants, insects, worms, birds and animals it is only the man that is made to believe in god.

But all other living beings eat, grow, reproduce and die away-just as men do.
In the matter of birth, death and disappearance, there is no difference between man and other living beings. The differences are seen at the time of birth itself. Those who have conducted research in the origin of living species, categorically state, that the man and other living beings lead lives of ‘almost the same identity and similarity’. Amongst, the living beings it is only the human race that is endowed with wisdom in nature and as that wisdom had its own impact on the human mind in later years, the human race fell a victim to desires and it led to multiple types of sorrows and sufferings in life. These desires and ignorance together made man a subordinate to god. This belief in god, made in the human race unthinking, irrational and a prey to difficulties and hardship. If the evil thought of god has not been foisted on the human kind, the status of the human race would have been very much advanced by this time.

Mankind would indeed be free from worries, difficulties and sorrows. Today you cannot come across a man free from worries and sorrows in whatever state he might be. Every one is worried. To those who are atheists; who do not have any belief in god, everything appears to be natural. If one considers god as mere myth he may not have to worry about sorrows or difficulties ; such people are the real 'Gnanis (Wisemen). To attain such a state and renounce everything is not an easy task. He may get wisdom, he may be a perfect renouncer, yet, he may slip and flatter just because he is amidst others.

The state of one being free from worries and misery is the real meaning of salvation (Moksha). As such, those who call themselves the idols of renunciations, can never have belief in god. The more a man has belief in god, the greater will be the burden. Such a man will have no end to his desires and deeds.

Why do people worship god nowadays? Generally the belief in god is due to the personal problems. Whether one is intelligent or not, he expects something from god and in anticipation of getting his objectives fulfilled he reposes stronger faith in god.

Even those who proclaim that, they have renounced everything, want to get into Heaven, I would only say that such people are like those who pray for a third eye on their back.

It is only to fulfil, some want that, devotion, prayer, faith, pooja and other religious rituals arise. What business have you with god, if you really have no desire or want? It is no wonder that the faith in god is deeper and quite congnisable particularly amongst those who commit mistakes, blunders, illegal and unlawful acts. The cheats in society, the fraudulent elements and the avaricious sections are generally seen to worship god with sincerity and devotion and with pomp and show.

I have my experience as a prisoner in more than ten jails where I saw the murderers and ordinary prisoners keep pictures of god in their cells. Some had religious books. I came across a murderer who had regular baths in the morning and prayed for half an hour daily in the Rajamundry jail. He used to chant something. In fact, he was an educated rich fellow before he came to prison. When I asked him what he was doing and why he did so he replied that he wanted to get out of the prison early.

You can find a number of corrupt people in Vainavism, Saivism, Islam, Christianity perform pooja, chant something, and offer regular prayers to god. They will not miss or forget god anytime. I need not say much about the business people who offer prayer with greater a show.

It is nothing but the existence of desires and unfulfilled wants that is responsible for the faith in god. Belief in god is not in any way useful to help others.

MARRIAGES - periyar

In our country, and particularly in Hindu society, a marriage is a function causing a lot of difficulties and wastage to all people concerned. But those who conduct the marriages and those who are getting married do not seem to notice the difficulties because they think that social life necessities wasteful expenses and difficulties and therefore they must necessarily face inconveniences and hardships. In the midst of wasteful expenses and difficulties, the people concerned derive a kind of pleasure and a feeling of elation. This has become a social practice.

Performance of religious rites to get legal validity for marriage is not a convincing justification

The wastage and difficulties caused by a wedding are not confined to those who celebrate the wedding ; those who come to attend the wedding also face these hardships; when they come to attend the wedding, their routine work is also affected.

 In 90 per cent of the weddings, the persons concerned forget their financial position, borrow recklessly and spend lavishly to satisfy their vanity and get flattering compliments from others. Incidentally they cause difficulties to others.

‘Wedding feast, jewellery, expensive clothes, procession, pandal, dance, music – money is spent on all these to satisfy the vanity of the organisers. Whatever may be the amount of money spent on weddings and however pompous each of the items may be, the mirth and joy associate with these are over in two or three days. In a week’s time, the prestige and honour connected with these are forgotten.

But the wedding expenses leave many families crushed; for many poor families these expenses leave an enormous burden and the debts remain uncleared for a number of years. Since our women do not have the benefit of education and they are traditionally used to bondage, they do not mind the consequences of the wedding expenses and the burden of the amounts borrowed.

In the Nattukottai Chettiar community and in the Brahmin society, the wedding expenditure is enormous; so are the preliminary arrangements. The people of these groups do not do any manual work and suck the properties of others like leeches. At present they may not feel the wedding expenses burdensome. But there is no doubt, that in the near future, they are going to feel the wedding expenses burdensome and they are going to suffer the consequent mental anguish.

A wedding indicates that a man and a woman are going to live together as husband and wife and it need not imply anything else. When this is so, I am not able to understand why people make elaborate preparations for it, spending lavishly and face difficulties. Though some say that they conduct only inexpensive weddings or reformation weddings, each function proves to be a culture wedding, and I don’t find economy or reformative principle it.

I am not able to understand why relatives, friends and acquaintance are invited for a wedding and when money is spent on a feast.

They say that some of the wedding rites are intended to be cited evidence in case legal problems arise later in the married life of the couple. This is not a convincing justification for the performance of religious rules. There is a law concerning wedding is known as Civil Marriage Act. The expense of the marriage conducted according with this Act will come to only three rupees.

When a man and a woman sign in the presence of the District Registrar with two witnesses who know this couple, the function is over. This kind of wedding is a safe and binding one. A traditional wedding is not so safe. When a dispute arises between the couple who are traditionally married, the man may declare in a court of law that he never married the girl, or that he had her as a concubine only.

The decision of the judge in a such a case will depend upon the evidence given by witnesses and not upon the declaration given by the girl’s party that the two people were traditionally married. Many such marriages have been annulled. In some cases the benefit received by the party which seeks legal remedy, is only marginal. But a registered wedding cannot be denied; the evidence provided by the registration as a permanent one.

Further such a wedding is a safer wedding than a traditional one. The man or woman cannot easily have it cancelled and think of a remarriage. Therefore a registered wedding is a brief one and it is also economical and safe. If friends and relatives have to be informed about it, a press notification could be given in advance, and after the registration a press notice could be given that the two people concerned are married.

Therefore it would be good for those who wish to have an expensive wedding or a reformative wedding, to have the wedding registered.

 Moneys spent in marriages can be given to the couples as an insurance for the welfare of their children

I would say that holding a feast, buying and distributing new clothes, making ornaments just for the wedding are all unnecessary and wasteful. If the money intended for the wedding expense is not borrowed and belongs to either of the marriage parties, the amount could be deposited in a bank in the bride's name for many years so that the accrued amount could be used by her to bring up her children and educate them. Such a procedure would be highly rewarding to her.

 The rich people in our country would spend a thousand or ten thousand rupees for a wedding, but they will be ignorant of and indifferent to the way in which they could bring up children in a healthy way without taxing the mother.

Even a High Court Judge in India does not know the amount of trouble that a mother takes to bring up a child. If a husband is kind to his wife and shows concern for her health and happiness, he must adopt the contraceptive method. Otherwise, he must be one who could manage to see that at the time of delivery and in the bringing up of children, she does not have much trouble. This arrangement will mean some expense. He will have to appoint a paid nurse. This does not occur to the rich men in our society.

But, they spend a lot of money in buying useless clothes and ornaments for the children. But, even people of ordinary families would rather spend enormously for weddings, nuptials and the ceremonies connected with the birth of a child than provide facilities for a proper up bringing of children.

Therefore, the proper thing to do now is to drastically cut the expenses mentioned above and spend money on a proper upbringing of children with the help of nurses.

An institution must be started to train hundreds of women to become nurses. Otherwise a nursery or children's home should be started where children could be nurtured hygienically and enabled to imbibe good habits and good behaviour.

It will be clear to all people who think about these proposals that by their adoption, parents will derive a lot of comfort and pleasure and children will have good health and imbibe good qualities and learn proper behaviour. Therefore may the people who wish to conduct inexpensive and reformative weddings pay attention to all these things.

(Kudi Arasu – September 10,1933)

The Agnostic Question

- Lachlan Kent

Atheism is increasingly viewed in the media as an extreme position on the existence of God. Some have even gone so far as calling us atheists (whoever “we” are) religious fanatics. Not surprisingly, I differ on that account of atheism, as probably do you if you are one, and here’s why.

I am not just an atheist; I am also an agnostic. That might sound at first like the kind of garbled language used by religious adherents to justify their position on any number of contemporary issues (my current favourite being the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane’s claim that his “sexuality” is expressed as “self giving”, another example of how the Catholic Church distorts normal sexuality); but I assure you it is a sound position if you take into account that there is a difference between the “facts” and the evidence”.

I, like everyone else on this pale-blue dot, am agnostic about the facts. God may exist. Jesus may be the Son of God, whatever that means. Mohammed may have received the last and final revelation. The Jews might have a Covenant with Yahweh. Durga might indeed have eight arms. None of these things are impossible in my world and I accept that I am agnostic about them because, to my mind, there is no evidence either way. I don’t know and neither do you, whether you’re religious or not.

On the other hand, it is on the evidence brought forward by religion that I am staunchly, sternly, stoically, and extremely atheist. I do not accept the gospels as either the literal or lateral word of God. I do not accept the contradictory and cobbled – together – after – the – fact testimony of people who claim to have seen Jesus reanimate and then ascend unto Heaven. I do not accept that Muhammad was channeling the Creator simply because he said so. I do not accept that Moses conversed with God despite what he may have believed at the time.

I have degree in psychology and instead accept the very real and disturbing possibility that all the so-called evidence for God can be more parsimoniously explained by, firstly, the psychopathology of individuals and then, secondly, the normal social psychology. If I were to act as judge or jury in the case for God, not only wouldn’t I use scriptural or even current testimony to inform my judgment, I also wouldn’t accept them as evidence in the first place!

However, being extreme on the evidence for God does not make me extreme on the facts as they stand. Creation exnihilo is as mysterious today as it was 2000 years ago and I cannot discount the possibility that intelligence or consciousness may have played or continue to play a role, for two reasons; firstly, scientists can’t explain consciousness and so don’t really know what it is; and secondly, scientists are still only guessing whether there was a time before the big bang or universes beyond. The good scientific evidence for a conscious-less creation remain inconclusive, and so I remain agnostic. “Not guilty, your honour!” And not because God didn’t do it but because there remains reasonable doubt.

Of course, that reasonable doubt is exploited by monotheism to the point of becoming “unreasonable undoubt”, i.e. faith, but atheists are in no position to deny that doubt exists, no matter how anti-atheist their leanings. Doubt is in fact one of the hallmarks of atheism, is it not?

And so it is on this moderate middle ground that atheists, I believe, can extend a warm, conciliatory hand to the professed agnostics by safely admitting that we’re all agnostic about the facts. God may have done it but, based on the evidence, we have to acquit him of creation at this stage of the trial.

And saying “not guilty” makes you an atheist whether you call yourself an agnostic, an atheist or (like me) both.

Courtesey : The Australian Atheist

GOLD IS OUR GOLD POLICY RATIONAL?

Characteristics of gold

Gold is a chemical element with the symbol of Au and atomic number 79. Au is derived from the Latin word aurum, which to mean is “shining dawn”. It is a dense, soft, malleable and ductile metal with a bright yellow lustre. It is malleable of all metals in that, one gram can be beaten into a sheet of a square meter or an ounce into 300 sq.ft. Gold leaf can be beaten thin enough to become transparent.

Light transmitted through such leaf appears greenish blue. It readily forms alloys with other metals. It is not easily corroded. This metal occurs often in free elemental (native) form, as nuggets or grains in rock, in veins and in alluvial deposits. Less commonly, it occurs in minerals as gold compounds, usually with tellurium. It is a valuable and most sought after precious metal.

Its use

Gold had been used from time immemorial as jewellery and as coinage. It led to the gold standard as an international currency, but it has been given up by most countries after  First World War and the remaining countries including U.S. after Second World War. It has the advantage of being a liquid asset, which could be cashed any time, any where. It is a medium of exchange, a universal currency. It offers insurance and protection to the holder.

Possession is ownership.  It is a collateral for loan all over the world as is evident from the number of pawnbrokers with banks joining as institutions lending against gold.

Gold has been used in India even as medicine and it has been considered to be beneficial for health. It is stated, that it can be used in nuclear medicine for treatment of cancer and for other illnesses.

Gold salts have been used in indigenous medicine and gold alloys used in restorative dentistry. Gold offers significant employment in jewellery trade and has promoted the skill of Indian goldsmiths from time immemorial known even in Rome at the height of its civilization. Egyptians worshipped the Golden Calf.  Temples in India have golden roofs.

Where do the stock of gold lie?

The total stock of gold in the world is 18,000 to 20,000 crores tonnes. The largest stock of gold is officially held  in the U.S. and Russia, while  still larger stocks are held in India and China more amongst its people than in the custody of the Government. Notwithstanding such heavy stock, every additional gold production and imports from other countries are according to the latest statistics consumed by India to the extent of 35 per cent and China 40 per cent. Whenever the gold import is restricted, smuggling takes over, as it is most convenient for smuggling, because it occupies less space combined with heavy value. India and China convert part of the imported raw gold into jewellery and export them.  Even so, net addition to its holding each year is significant.

Lure of gold

Gold all over is used as a symbol for purity and is a sign of wealth and prestige.  In Utopia, a classic from Thomas More, describes in one imaginary island, gold is so abundant that it is used to make chains for slaves, tableware and lavatory seats. When ambassadors from other countries arrive, dressed in ostentatious gold jewels and badges, the Utopians mistake them for menial servants, paying homage instead to the most modestly dressed of their party. Bible describes New Jerusalem city as paved with gold.

Story of Midas indicates the value of the metal in the minds of the people. Gold  has always been ridiculed by persons, who have contempt for ostensible wealth, but there is a craze for gold all over and more so in the East. Because of its value, the swindlers and fraudsters have always made money out of the gullible by offer of conversion of base metal to gold.

Economics of gold

Economists have been believing, that India by importing gold and diverting active earnings to idle assets,  has been a loser. It is for this reason, when Mr. Morarji Desai was the Finance Minister, he tried to popularise 14 ct. gold (as against 22 ct. mostly in use of the 24 ct. gold). It was a failure.  Many attempts have been made to divert the attention of the public from gold.  But there has been obstinate resistance to them.      

Average saving rate in India is 35 per cent,  which should be most welcome for development. But unfortunately 56% of the saving are physical savings with cash savings in fixed deposits,  insurance and provident fund and other pension scheme adding upto to 44 per cent. The physical savings are mostly in the form of gold, silver and other precious metals including stainless steel, apart from semi-durables like fridge, geysers and air conditioners.

Much needed infrastructure is possible only out of cash savings totally inadequate for further development, so that India has to depend on foreign investment, which should not have otherwise been necessary.

All the same, stock of gold gives India economic strength and could be a valuable fortress, if they could be mobilised for better use. The growing adverse balance of trade  due to our import of both fuel and edible oil with exports not balancing the imports, India has been having a continuous current account deficit, which has been draining our wealth and causing alarm. The solution should lie in curbing the import of luxuries and fuel oil. 

Substitution of import of fuel oil with oil resources, which India has in plenty, besides  by solar, biomass and other sources of renewable energy should be the effort, besides  augmenting exports. But the Government  has decided to curb import of gold. It can hardly be a solution, because the import will continue through unofficial sources by way of smuggling. It is, therefore,  hardly a solution.

A rational gold policy is vital

Considering the attachment people have for gold and large stock, which India has of gold, a gold policy which will take advantage of the faith of the people in gold will be more relevant than the present short-sighted policy of curbing imports. The better promotion is to promote gold bonds and create faith of people in such bonds.

Though they will be paper gold,  which would entitle them to return of gold at any time of their choice, they will give them ownership of gold, protect them from theft and being exposed to risk to life. The existing stock of gold in individual  hands, if made available to  the banks and the Government, will play a significant role in our  development.