Nastik: Why I Am Not an Atheist Paperback

by Kushal Mehra

Nastik chronicles the transformative journey of a modern Indian sceptic who initially embraced Western neo-atheism. It begins with the protagonist’s disillusionment with religious dogma and his subsequent adoption of Western neo-atheism, characterized by a staunch denial of theism and a critique of religion’s influence on society. As the narrative unfolds, he encounters the rich tapestry of Indian philosophy. He discovers the nuanced perspectives of nastik schools of thought in Indian tradition, such as Charvaka,

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy

200 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2024

Reviews

[Karthik Govil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nastik is an Indian take on Eastern religions as a whole but it trades the indigenous roots for the global perspective. It may be possible that the "Eastern" religion in practice is not well understood by the author either.

Let's start with the great: the book offers a good theological opposition to the Abrahamic religions; all of which are of Jewish origin. This "monopolized monotheism" and assumption that the Universal God is also one's personal God has been the most catastrophic assumption for humans.

The book even goes after Buddha's belief in the Varna system, although this may be reflective of his belief before sanyas.

The author, although, makes many errors in this itself. He confuses atheism, which is a belief, with Mimansa, which is a philosophy. This is comparing apples to oranges. The Mimansa is arguing philosophically that even if there is no greater Brahman, there should not be a lack of practice with a personal deity.

The book presents the side of the 4 horseman of atheism in full, for a whole chapter, without any comment. On the other hand, he presents the Indic side with minor critiques, and doesn't even go into what the scriptures say.

The book doesn't refer to the scriptures of the Hindu faith beyond a point either. It doesn't even refer to the Charvak school scriptures, or make the effort to have the manuscripts translated.from someone else.

The assumption that Japanese society is not plagued with modern caste problems is also a big assumption. While Japan may have mitigated most of their problems of their system through prosperity and freedom at the bottom level, the legal protection to the Eda community was not given until the 2010s afaik.

The book is unable to critically analyse Indic scriptures either. While varna-jati-kul based discrimination has no place in modern society, the book even mentions the scriptures that say it was due to diseases. But it doesn't go into the functional aspects of the system from back then, only the dysfunction of it (or at least it doesn't go into positive functions deeply enough). The Manusmriti can be reinterpreted to mean "we stay away from those with diseases" and "kingdoms run by degenerates" (like the USA). But maybe that's the conversation of another generation, one which has read more scriptures.

Besides, one's jati/kul identity is what roots them to the ground of this country (this bhumi). It is not blind visit to temples. It only produces blind faith and no improvement in one's life. One could maybe detach this jati/kul identity from the Vedas, Upanishads, Dharmshastras, etc. This is where Jatitva comes in, and it promotes the practice of regional butchering techniques, local meat and plants, dishes, our tribal identity (Agarwalrana, Valmiki samaj, etc). These achievements towards making dharma could be celebrated without practicing dharma. And the Vedas should be seen in a new light, under this method. To simply focus on the dysfunction, whether is it community temples or other institutions, is lost.

This caste practice is also why pluralism between Buddhism and Shinto exists. Many sects like Nichiren Daishonin emerged actively opposing the Shinto priestly class. Social reform has led to Japan's indigenous religion being the least practiced. Their texts don't hold precedence over the people either. The book ignores this yet again in an attempt to homogenize the Hindu society.

Whether it is secularism of the old or hindutva of the new, when the conversation shifts from coalition to homogenization it repulses the people and opposition forments. We saw many regional movements from Maharashtra, Assam, Punjab, UP, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and others when it came to opposing Indira Gandhi. Each was regionally chauvinistic and this led to the Ram Janambhumi movement afterwards. Now, Hindutva is doing the same homogenization which will have many regional-atheist revolts. The only certainty is that Muslims, a homogenizing force themselves, will not be a part of this conversation, being the foreign faith in practice.

The book only focuses on the "plurality" aspect of Eastern religions, but it doesn't go deep into the question of identity either. It is because of the lack of identity that otherwise comes with Jewish religions, that Eastern religions are more pluralistic. A Jew/Christian/Muslim is born one. An Eastern religion person becomes who they are through their practice. That is also at the root of "multiple sampradayas in the same family"; no one person practiced two sampradayas at once. This is what many raitacharyas get wrong on Indic religions, or their rhetoric doesn't reflect it.

The author could have put their own beliefs aside and tried to see this side of the world for what it is. Eastern religions focus on non-violence and non-meat (like Cao Dai in Vietnam, etc), they focus on a non-personified larger entity, they are about the communication is done through a deity between these two. They also, almost all, worship nature. But this also does not apply to all of them. There is more than simply western constructs of secularism and pluralism that hold us together. That is still not left explored enough.

Overall, the book is not the best at making a comprehensive argument on Eastern religions. It does, however, provide a political toolkit to bring "pagan unity" across the globe. But it is too nascent, and the book only does this latently, ie by mistake.

So it may be a good addition to the growing pool of "Indic" literature, but I doubt the longevity of this text in the long run. It may inspire many at best.

The book is criminally underrated in leftist circles, which is sad. It is where the book belongs, and it should be circulated in those circles more. Because even if every Bharatiya reads it, only one side will adopt it.

The book isn't bad, but it is overreliant on twitter thinkbros. It has started a political conversation, but let's see how it evolves and whether the entire country is able to take part in it.

[Anirudh Kulkarni · Rating 3 out of 5]

First half was insightful and interesting.
Second half got a bit more academic and dry.
Would have loved if the author had actually expanded on the concepts of 'Nastika' and 'Nirishvaravada', instead of just introducing those terms superficially.

[Jarin Jove · Rating 2 out of 5]

I use to occasionally watch Kushal Mehra’s Youtube podcast around 2017 – 2018ish and I enjoyed watching many of his informative interviews with interesting intellectuals, researchers, and journalists in India and I enjoyed learning of his life story from what he explained on his Youtube channel. I have a generally positive disposition when it comes to Kushal Mehra and his friends in their group podcast on Youtube. He even once shared my blog post critiquing the Ex-Muslims of North America organization and the Ex-Muslim movement in the West more generally. He and his two friends are far better orators than I’ll probably ever be. I tend to stumble on words and I’m not very quick in responses during discussions or debates compared to popular Youtube debaters like Alex J. O’Connor. This review is not an attempt to insult him, but just my honest thoughts. I try to never hold back from outspoken critiques that I have with any work. Not to say that I try to exude hate, I don’t. I just want to be as forthright with what I view the material to be, because my review is for people who wonder if a book is worth their time and not to cuddle the author’s feelings. Generally speaking, most true creative people have a survival-of-the-fittest mentality to creativity and view an inability to accept criticism as an acknowledgement that the person doesn’t belong in the creative space. If you can’t take criticism of your work, then what is the true value of your work to other people?

All that said, this book is boring and nearly put me to sleep near the tail-end of each chapter. I enjoyed the parts of a very lengthy chapter one where he went into his life growing up in India and the usage of Samkhya-Karika aphorisms that he cited to make his case, but then he meandered and kept going into long-winded pabulums about the importance of critical thinking without much substance. His second chapter on New Atheism was even worse. First of all, why did he choose to title it “Neo-Atheists”? Like, what? Why add even more confusing lingo to what is historically viewed as the New Atheist movement? Nevertheless, I liked some portions of this chapter where he described the acute differences between New Atheism and its predecessors in Western culture; but then he went into a very boring Wikipedia-style explanation of each of the four’s backgrounds and then gave a very shallow set of statements about how Atheism+ may have led to Wokeism without any evidence or valid reasoning to believe such a claim. Overall, Chapter 2’s latter-half felt like a waste to fill-up space. Why did he essentially repeat Chapter 1’s conclusion about emphasizing the importance of critical thinking? This was dull, uninspired, and boring. If you want to inspire critical thinking, then maybe give a critique of God is Not Great instead of just providing a short quote?

Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 were both really boring to read through. He mostly provides extremely basic information and it reads more like he’s giving miniature reviews on each subsection of other people’s books. That’s not why I bought and read your book, Kushal Mehra. Most of these chapters contain a summarization of other books with pros and cons about them regarding their research into religion from a neutral vantage point. That’s great for a brief book review about all these different books that he comments on, but he doesn’t give his perspective, his opinions, and his judgments on them. This is a boring slog, because it reads like he tried to make an academic approach but confused academia for neutrality. Assessing pros and cons of various religious theories is fine, but he needs to give his perspective on what he actually thinks about it and then give his reasons why he thinks these arguments add value to other people’s lives. All he did was give dull summaries that you could read off of Wikipedia about these other books. These two chapters feel like excessive padding throughout most of it. There’s some value with his opinion on why a viewpoint of pluralistic neutrality is harmful to Afghan children suffering under the Taliban in Chapter 4 of his book, but this sort of material is too small and too far between extremely boring Wikipedia-style summaries of other books that read like pointless book reviews that aren’t getting to the point of the main thesis of his book.

I disagree with his summary of the Bhagavad Gita and I have no idea how he took away that it was about objective moral values espoused by Lord Krishna; Krishna imparts on Arjuna to follow his Dharmic duty in selfless service without any desire for a reward, that is true. However, the beginning has Arjuna contest that mass murder and civil war between dynastic factions is objectively morally wrong because it leads to mass death, cruelty, stupidity, pain, and hardship. Arjuna doesn’t want to contribute to a cycle of human stupidity and that was honestly the most surprising beginning that I’ve read of any religious book in my life. Krishna’s explanation is a counter to that viewpoint. Krishna’s argument is that you shouldn’t think about the consequences, you should just follow your duty to your faith with the explicit understanding that the other side is following their duties to their faith too. It is subjective, cyclical human behavior in nature, and it goes on from the past into the future of human activity, it happened prior to our births, and it will continue even beyond our lives; but Krishna firmly asserts that selfless service to your community is the highest form of a human ideal. Even if all that cruelty and stupidity is true, we must keep striving selflessly to serve others without regard for ourselves as part of a human ideal. Why? Because selfless service ultimately helps the welfare of the world more than acting selfishly towards others and seeking only profits. Therefore, according to Lord Krishna, going to war in the service of Caste duties is justified on the basis of selfless service to others and to the entire world. In modern times, due to rightful criticisms of the bigotry of Casteism, Hindus of India and Hindus throughout the world have replaced Caste duties with national pride to one’s country. A Hindu of India interprets Lord Krishna’s message in terms of selflessly serving their countrymen of India, whereas I – a Hindu Indian American – interpret it as selflessly serving my fellow Americans. Additionally, whenever I see unfairness towards anyone, then I call it out to the best of my ability as an American. There can be overlap, such as agreed upon support for democratic norms and values throughout all democracies; however, Secular nationalism is a coherent position to have in the modern world. Nevertheless, I’d argue that the Bhagavad Gita is clearly subjective on the basis of one’s own perspective and what selfless service means to each of us as individuals. I’ve read the Bhagavad Gita twice from start to finish and I never viewed it as arguing objective morals, because Lord Krishna acknowledges that each side will follow Selfless Service as the ideal.

I think the biggest problem is that this honestly reads like a wannabe-academic pretending to know how to write an academic book. To actually write an academic work, you need a thesis and to give credible arguments for that thesis, while acknowledging both its limitations and possible places where the writer can be wrong. Kushal Mehra’s book spends most of the time giving random summaries of all these various books without giving an opinion on them or sometimes even explaining how they’re relevant to his specific chapter. That’s what truly made it a boring, meandering mess. All these subsections are perfectly fine and helpful for a neutral book review of these varied topics, but it’s at the expense of the specific defined purpose of each chapter and it provides no argument at all for his opinions on different topics.

He has some good arguments against pluralism by pointing out Islam’s problems, such as with Bacha Bazi in Afghanistan, but then he makes a total self-contradictory argument regarding our shared Hindu faith. If everyone in India is a Hindu, and even Muslims are Hindu, then is FGM and Bach Bazi also Hindu? You can’t have it both ways, Kushal Mehra. Hindus and Muslims have totally separate sets of beliefs with different consequences as a result of inherent beliefs. Hindu practices are about regulating the senses and primarily materialized from over 5000 years of Yoga practices, Islam emerged in the 7th century from the deluded ravings of a warlord. Likewise, if everyone is Hindu, then does that mean the Hindu-Jewish tradition of longstanding 2400 years of uninterrupted peace celebrated by both religions as a respect for mutual differences; should this be applied to Islam and Christianity in India simply for being Indian, despite both these two religions having mercilessly persecuted Jews for centuries? Or the fact that Islam mercilessly persecuted both, while Christianity had a mixed history of European Christian persecution of Indians and compassionate American Christian aid towards Indians? These religious faiths are far too different and I find peace can come more from respecting differences than deludedly trying to find the sameness in everything. Without clearly defined barriers and definitions for the basic ideas behind religion, religious value systems become meaningless buzzwords.

True peace doesn’t need faux-unity and sometimes divisional barriers don’t create contempt between groups at all. Judaism is most similar to Islam, but was persecuted by it for hundreds of years. Judaism and Hinduism have clear, strict differences and there’s been uninterrupted 2400 years of peace in which both religious groups have an unspoken rule to never have a violent conflict with each other as part of a mutual and longstanding respect for each other’s religious traditions, likely an openness to criticism of each other’s religious traditions is what maintained these 2400 years of peace, and an acceptance of atheism in both of the respective religious traditions may have played a factor. I believe these facts alone undoes much of the pabulum spewed in Kushal Mehra’s book.

Overall, I’d give this book a 1.5 / 5, so a 2 / 5 in total.

[E.T. · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5 I have been listening to Kushal’s Carvaka podcast for years, and when his book came out I had to read it. The main problem with the book is that it attempts too much and seems to lack depth at times because of that. Ironically, it also reminded of a text-book at times.
The title suggested that Kushal was going to discuss on a niche subject- a-theism in India vs anti-theism in the West/Abrahamic faiths. When I read Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk’s “Snow”, i was aghast to see that even he envisaged only 2 categories - believers (Muslims) and atheists. What happened to all the shades in between - to the moderates, the nominal / cultural Muslims ? Compare that to India, where I and many like me are neither religious nor atheist and unbothered by it. This was a discussion worth having.
But, soon it became a lot of things - evolution and necessity of religion, on universal moral principles and whether they exist, freedom of religion, caste/gender discrimination in religions and the “eighth-class” (Anand Ranganathan’s words) treatment meted out to Hindus by courts. Each of these topics is a raging debate and difficult to do justice in one 250 page book.
Also, caste जाति is totally different from guilds/varna in other societies. Religion has to be judged from its practices and not scriptures. The infinite no. of divisions within castes and the prevailing endogamy are unique to Hinduism/Indic faiths. There is discrimination and classes in Abrahamic religions too, but not to this level - their hatred towards non-believers is another matter! No amount of quoting scriptures will convince me that “religion of peace” has gender-equality and is tolerant - it is irrelevant and actual practice is what matters. Ditto for casteism in Hinduism. I think Kushal got it wrong here.

[yoursbibliophilic · Rating 3 out of 5]

ನಂಬದಿರ್ದನು ತಂದೆ, ನಂಬಿದನು ಪ್ರಹ್ಲಾದ
ನಂಬಿಯುಂ ನಂಬದಿರುವಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ನೀನು
ಕಂಬದಿನೋ ಬಿಂಬದಿನೋ ಮೋಕ್ಷವವರಿಂಗಾಯ್ತ
ಸಿಂಬಳದಿ ನೊಣ ನೀನು - ಮಂಕುತಿಮ್ಮ

Prahlaada believed but his father didn’t believe,
but you believe and believe not, an undependable hybrid,
their salvation they won through pillar or image,
but you are a fly in mucus-Mankuthimma

Kushal Mehra’s “Why I Am Not an Atheist” presents a compelling critique of atheism, blending philosophical reasoning with personal reflections to challenge widely held secular perspectives. The book’s central argument is that Western form of atheism is not the only rational alternative. Mehra contends that Western atheism oversimplifies the belief systems, failing to appreciate their cultural & existential significance. In doing so, he challenges its assumed status as the default rational position. Instead, he advocates for an alternative rooted in Indian philosophical traditions, particularly the Nāstik schools, as a more nuanced framework for skepticism. In doing so he “challenge the culture of negativity that so often dominates our conversations about faith & disbelief & instead focus on the quieter, more nuanced journeys that get overshadowed by their more sensational counterparts”(Loc:200)

Acknowledging both the benefits & flaws of religion, Mehra argues that religion functions as a necessary social & psychological construct. Rather than endorsing Western atheism, New Atheism, or Atheism+, he promotes Dharmic skepticism, which offers a more balanced & introspective approach to disbelief.

Overall, this book is a thought-provoking work that challenges binary debates on belief & atheism, encouraging open inquiry & philosophical flexibility. “This book celebrates human progress; it is a testament to the power of introspection, questioning, & self-discovery & a reminder that sometimes the most profound transformations occur not in the spotlight but in the quiet corners of our hearts & minds”(Loc:219) However, the author’s writing style could be more structured. At times, the book reads like a collection of reading notes hurriedly compiled rather than a carefully developed argument with a slow, methodical build-up to prove his hypothesis.

[Jay Mehta · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book explores Indian philosophical traditions and their nuanced approach to atheism, contrasting it with Western atheism, particularly neo-atheism. It delves into what it means to be a "Nastika"—one who rejects the belief in a divine creator deity, the authority of the Vedas, and concepts like karma and rebirth while still engaging with rituals, festivals, meditation, and yoga.

Based on core philosophies like Samkhya, Mimamsa, and Carvaka, as well as Buddhist and Jain perspectives on the creator theory, Kushal provides a panoramic view of atheistic traditions in India. His exploration of atheism extends to Western neo-atheism, critiquing figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett (the “Four Horsemen”) for their often reductionist approach to religion.

One of the book’s key arguments is that religion, despite its flaws, is inevitable in human society. Mehra examines why secular groups often fail to form cohesive communities and uses frameworks from Jonathan Haidt and Sam Harris to evaluate religion's moral dimensions. The book is particularly compelling in its balanced discussion of the good and bad sides of religious practices, including their social cohesion and discriminatory tendencies, particularly towards women, across all religions, including Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.

However, the book is not without flaws. Some sections feel repetitive, and there are noticeable editing and formatting errors. While the discussion on caste is insightful, it lacks textual evidence that explicitly states the differentiation regarding birth-based superiority. Additionally, while the chapter on "The Complexity of Indian Society" is well-written, it feels tangential to the book’s central thesis.

Despite these shortcomings, it is a thought-provoking read encouraging critical engagement with religion, philosophy, and society. Kushal's personal reflections, particularly in the concluding chapter, “Why I am a Hindu,” add a human touch to this intellectual journey, making it a valuable contribution to contemporary discourse.

[Guru · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed the author's podcast with Amit Varma and that's what led me to the book. Mehra, an active podcaster himself with his Carvaka podcast, has some unique and interesting perspectives on religion, especially the differences between the mono-theistic and polytheistic religions. The book makes some good points about the monotheistic lens used to "evaluate" religions and traditions and how it is unfair for many Eastern societies. I didn't agree with all the points the author makes but the perspective was refreshing.
The book has copious amounts of material which the author refers from the modern works of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. to the Upanishads and Baba Bulleh Shah's poet. All this makes from an interesting follow-up reads - I would highly recommend the book's bibliography.
Where "Nastik" falters is in the narrative, which meanders from one topic to another. Even within the topic there are often many paths and while these rabbitholes are excellent to get into, I think the book form is not best suited for them. This could have been excellent as a set of podcast episodes.

[Elusive Man · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a Hindu Atheist myself, a lot of Mehra's views resonate with me. Being from the 'Hitch-slap' generation, a lot of what he writes makes perfect sense. The central insight of the book - that monotheistic dogma and Dharma treat atheist very differently - is well taken. His knowledge of religion also come across as quite extensive and nuanced.

Where the book falters however is in its incoherence and fleeting nature at times. It could have been more streamlined, perhaps split into two volumes.

All in all, a good read, especially for the militant Indian atheists who take their cues from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchen whilst ignoring the Indian knowledge systems that don't subject them to the kind of condemnation that monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths do.

[Prasad GR · Rating 2 out of 5]

A voluble book written in an academic style that should ideally have been a booklet or, even better, a pamphlet! Kushal Mehra repeats words, phrases and ideas ad nauseam until the reader is nudged to skim through paragraphs, pages and entire chapters altogether. Brevity is an art lost on this writer for sure.

Thanks to this massive challenge, I just couldn’t relate to the many ideas he discusses in the book. And the excessive focus on the differences between Western atheists and their eastern counterparts just distracts from the main thrust of the book.

Nevertheless it is packed with numerous insights that might interest the discerning reader who has the patience and is prepared for a not so pleasurable read.

[Sunil Kumar]

First the good points: Informative, eclectic has diverse viewpoints. Enriched my understanding on certain topics from a contrarian perspective. The author elucidates why he is a nastik and remains a Hindu in comparison to the rigidity of Abrahamic faiths. For a deep dive into the discourse around Sanatan Dharma and misunderstandings, Aravindan Neelakandan is more exhaustive.

Lags in certain parts. Mr. Mehra seems to swerve in all directions of the ideological spectrum, so a bit unclear on that front. Worth reading once.

[Laxmi · Rating 3 out of 5]

It helped me with a preliminary understanding of various hindu philosophical traditions, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the author was trying to convince me that his way is the best way. This, despite the book being all about accepting pluralistic points of view. There were some inconsistencies in his arguments and some sources quoted were problematic. Nevertheless, I learnt a few new things.

[Hemen Kalita · Rating 3 out of 5]

My interpretation : An Indian who wanted to be different from his peers in India became an atheist. Later he went to the USA and again in his desire to be different from his peers in the USA embraced the Indian version of atheism–Nastik. Thats all.

[Namita · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first half made me be like “wow I’m Hindu”, the middle made me wonder if he was trying to speed run logical fallacies, the end made me think he was very late on submitting his draft, the very very end made me be like “wow I’m Hindu”

Idk man

[Sakthieesvar Meenakshi Sundaram · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book despite some topics appearing jarringly sudden, thus breaking the flow of the message of the chapter

[Amogh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very informational a good start to knowing about eastern philosophies focusing on Hinduism. Got a bit repetitive in the end but overall a good read.

[bbk · Rating 5 out of 5]

5/5 bretty good :D