Published on The Daily Star
Bangladesh At 40: Looking Back And Moving Forward-part III
The constitutional commitment to secularism was grounded in our long struggle to rescue Bangladesh from the abuse of religion for political gain. Throughout the phase of Pakistani rule, greedy, corrupt and immoral political elites quite cynically attempted to use religious slogans to mask their anti-democratic rule. The abuse of religion reached its most degenerate form in 1971 when genocide was committed on large numbers of innocent Bengalis, in the name of religion, by a leader and his forces who were totally irreligious in their personal character and motivations. The founding fathers of Bangladesh were, thus, determined that in an independent Bangladesh no scope should be provided to similarly abuse religion for purposes of political gain. Secularism, as it was interpreted in our constitution, was thus never designed to interfere with the practice of religion by any individual or community or to discourage religious education. Nor did we go so far as to discourage any reference to religion in our public educational institutions or public sphere as is the case in some countries such as France with a strong commitment to secularism.
This attempt to discourage the abuse of religion for political gain did not prevent the post-liberation government from being slandered for discouraging religion, putting locks on the mosques or banning religious education. Even in the election campaigns of the last decade we have heard the slogan that the sound of the azaan will be replaced throughout Bangladesh with the sound of the conch shell.
This deliberate misinterpretation of the approach to secularism as incorporated in our constitution, led to the legal excision of this provision from the constitution by the post-1975 regime and its replacement by the constitutional proclamation under the 8th amendment, emphasising the supremacy of the religion of the majority community. These constitutional assertions of supremacy of one religion may not have derogated from the secular foundations of our constitution or legally arrogated a particular religion into a guiding principal of our jurisprudence but it served to encourage politicians and parties seeking political power and private material gain to abuse religion to promote their political fortunes and slander their opponents. This same abuse of religion had culminated in the genocide of 1971. Whilst this tendency has not yet led to another genocide in Bangladesh the recent emergence of terrorism has demonstrated that violence in the name of religion has the potential to escalate into a threat to the functioning of a democratic society. Pakistan’s experience should have taught us that when ambitious politicians and generals deliberately manipulate religious beliefs to both capture power and perpetuate their anti-democratic rule, sooner or later ideologically motivated fundamentalists will use these same slogans for imposing their beliefs on the people by terror rather than the ballot box.
The recently enacted 15th amendment to the Bangladesh constitution which once again restored secularism as a founding principle of the state, is a positive development even though some of the cosmetic interventions elevating a particular religion remain intact. Perhaps more significant than the amendment to the constitution is the decision of this government to push ahead with the trial for war crimes committed by certain political elements who explicitly collaborated with the Pakistan army in the genocide they inflicted on the people of Bangladesh in 1971. It was an affront to both the rule of law as well as the commitment to the construction of a more secular polity that those political elements who collaborated in genocide at a defining moment in Bangladesh’s history, remained unanswerable for their role in 1971. However, if justice is to be done after all these years it had best be done through due legal process so that those who are being made answerable for unspeakable acts against their own people cannot claim political victmisation. It was this willingness by the current Prime Minister, during her first tenure in office, to ensure due process of law in the trial and sentencing of the assassins of Bangabadhu, his family and his close colleagues, which gave credibility to the outcomes of the judicial process and left it above legal or political challenge.
In the final analysis we cannot expect to construct a secular society out of a few amendments to the constitution. The substance of a secular society demands that we not only tolerate the practice of all faiths but do not discriminate against minorities in the distribution of political and economic opportunities. If Bangladesh is to avoid Pakistan’s exposure to ideologically inspired terror the mainstream political parties will collectively need to decide that religion should not be exploited for partisan gain. Whilst all people should be free to pursue their religious beliefs religion cannot be manipulated to divide the country into political categories of believers and unbelievers. Once we introduce such variables into political life then those who are obsessed with the conviction that they are the truest believers will feel encouraged to assert their right to annihilate not just minorities but, as we are witnessing in Pakistan today, even those of common faith who they feel do not share their interpretation of the religion.