On secularism
Secularism is in fashion these days. The Law Minister thinks that if the High Court verdict on the 5th Amendment to the constitution is upheld, we will revert to being a secular state. But the Judge who issued the verdict specifically said:
Some of the areas that the court condones are closed-transactions. For instance, incorporation of Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim or resting trust on the Almighty Allah in the fifth amendment do not fall under the purview of illegality since the court feels that these could also have been done constitutionally.
So the Judge says Bismillah and trust on Allah stays in the consitution, and indeed the Law Minister assures everyone that the constitution will continue to begin with Bismillah. And yet, this verdict is about secularism?
Secularism ki khay, na mathai dey?
Jokes aside, it’s about time we discuss these questions: What is secularism? Why do we want it? Why have we failed to achieve it?
Can’t you guys can’t come up with a better issue that addresses the real problems of the common people? Its the unbearable population and declining resources like water and arable land.
Only in poor countries like Bangladesh you hear about religion rearing its ugly head into governance. Its the surest sign of backward reactionaries using religion to exploit the the least developed section of the people.
What do you get in return? Insane psychopaths like JMB blowing innocent people and themselves up for what?
[Reply]
M Haque Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
It is more juicy than water (issue). It can provoke more interest than food, security, justice that causing us to suffer on daily basis.
Playing again and again on this issue reverberates only a kind of popular politics that also engulfed, otherwise intelligent and human right bloggers. No respite for us from those politicians and their disciples here.
[Reply]
Our’s is ” Dharmoniropekhkhota”. It’s really about state policies, and of course as such it’s political . We failed to achieve it because we didn’t want it. Secularism was not one of the points of Six Point program led by Sheikh Mujib. AL was never known for their love of Socialism pre 1971. Similarly secularism never made it to priority action point of AL during or pre 1971 movement and liberation war. Yet both were made pillars of our fundamental state policies.Even Sheikh Mujib’s policy decisions and actions created definite concerns about government’s willingness to practice Secularism. Islamic Foundation was established in March, 1975 with an objective to propagate Islam in the state. Bangladesh applied for OIC membership and Sheikh Mujib participated in OIC conference in Lahore ( February 1974 ). Bangladesh secured founder memebership of Islamic Development Bank in early 1975. Govt under Bangabandhu provided state fund for Madrasas. Dr. Qudrat-e-Khuda commission on education did have recommendations for Madrasas.
Religion plays an important role in our social life. Religious festivals like Eid, Puja, christmas are celebrated with due fanfare all over the sub continent. Some are celebrated as social events participated by state functionaries like President and Prime Minister. We like it or not ,religion has blended into our political culture. Even AL has affiliated organ called Awami Olema League!! We heard Motia Chowdhury announcing that AL will not enact any law which contradicts “Shariah” !! BNP of course roams around hand in hand with Jamat. We have seen even AL signing freindship with Islamic outfit in race to win power. Secularism in classic definition means separation of religion and state. But now days it probably means a tool to power. We are already experiencing rise of Hindu and Islamic fundamentalists in the sub continent. Democracy alone will not help establish Secularism. We have witnessed how secular (!) India got ravaged by communalism. Miniority rights are shamelessly ignored. Human rights violations are ripe everywhere. We probably have to focus exactly here, Human Rights. Secularism may have a chance where rights violations are addressed and are in check. AL led mohajote yet to honour their election pledge ( menifesto ) and establish National Human Rights Commission. Looks like we may have to wait .
[Reply]
I wonder if the secularist who thinks Bismillah needs to stay in the constitution would tolerate the Gayatri Mantra, “Probhu Jishu muktir ekmatro poth” and some appropriate Buddhist equivalent side by side on the preamble as well.
And Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism as state religions alongside Islam.
[Reply]
Kgazi Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I am a diehard believer in separation of church and state.
However the word “bismillah” in BD, is in used in same light as “In God we trust” in USA. Its a term of good wishes and blessings, not a negative threatening term like say “naray takbir” or “bande mataram”. If USA can say In God we trust, then why not bismillah in BD?
You cannot keep everyone happy. If secularist cannot tolerate bismillah, then the atheist cannot tolerate “In God we trust”. And they do complain – but that doesnt mean USA will remove it from their coins, and bills. I think we should keep it, just as USA does.
Bottomline is, as Ripon says – there are more dying issues to talk about in parliament than bismillah.
[Reply]
Interesting that when secularism comes up, a section of bloggers write “isn’t there something more important to discuss?”, as if blog discussions are a zero-sum game where one blog post is taking away from the oh so sliver-thin and rare space devoted to “real issues”
[Reply]
jyoti Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Indeed.
It’s also interesting to see where we get most comments. Take April 2009, when we wrote about women’s rights in Dhaka streets — a very real issue for anyone familiar with the city. How much generation did that generate? Seven comments. By contrast, two posts on Khaleda Zia’s house got over 120 posts between them.
[Reply]
M Haque Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Was it realy on classical or theoretical discussion on secularism or politics that surrounds it these days?
[Reply]
Recession Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Jyoti:
“Take April 2009, when we wrote about women’s rights in Dhaka streets — a very real issue for anyone familiar with the city. How much generation did that generate? Seven comments. By contrast, two posts on Khaleda Zia’s house got over 120 posts between them.”
That is how general public feels. What can you or any one do! Democracy and so you can’t really blame. But you did your part. keep writing. Anyone who feels interested will join the debate. Nothing to fee sad regarding the number of comments.
[Reply]
Kgazi Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
naturally, since this blog has declared that we will not criticise Hasina or her regime, to allow ‘democracy’ to flourish without criticism !! , we are only left with the spiritual issues to criticise : )
Except, my comment criticised the focus on bismillah in parliament more than other issues, incl Dhaka street women.
[Reply]
jyoti Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Say what, UV is not critical of the government? You don’t think warnings about post election violence or deterioration in law and order not enough criticism? How about asking the Home Minister to resign? Or warning against the creation of personality cult around Sheikh Mujib?
This is not criticism enough for you?
[Reply]
And of course, people like KGazi flooded the streets and newspaper columns when secularism was dropped from the constitution or a State religion declared, pleading, “Why are you all wasting time with distracting issues that are far less important than the real issues of hunger, education, womens rights etc …”
[Reply]
Kgazi Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Secularism was never dropped from the constitution Udayan.
In God we trust.
But, in politics, do we trust?
Black money, laundering, river grabbing, trafficking, mastani, cadares! student terrorism, chhintai. Are these trademarks of the constitution? Why does bismillah worry us so much more than these black politics??
[Reply]
Udayan Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Wasn’t “secularism” in the constitution as one of the principles of the state replaced (not appended) with “Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions” in 1977?
Wasn’t a constitutional ammendment passed in 1988, “The state religion of the Republic is Islam”?
Doesn’t this mean secularism was “dropped” from the constitution?
Of course, all of us who have any kind of opinion about this subject sit around doing nothing but obsessing over this all day, and we don’t think about any of the other issues you mention at all … in fact, I can’t find a single other subject that Jyoti (the author of this post) has ever written or commented on in UV or elsewhere …
[Reply]
Kgazi Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Udayan, constitution says:
“”5 [2A. The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic.]
{{That clarifies secularism . “state religion” is just a cosmetic term, just as the constitution also says}}:
“”3. The state language of the Republic is [Bangla]“”
{{Doesnt mean, one cannot speak english or urdu. The consttn also specifically says}}:
“”41. 1 a)every citizen has the right to profess, practice or propagate any religion;
b)every religious community or denomination has the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions”".
Doesnt that establish secularism??
Whether one issue is important or not depends on the context and the time. The debate on secularism is of course important as it will decide the course this country will take however at this moment, is it the most important thing?
When our rivers are being taken over, grabbed, polluted
The investigation into the BDR mutiny becomes a farce with so many “mysterious deaths”
Murderers like Haji Selim being acquitted free and roaming around just because he belongs to the ruling party
Separation of judiciary undermined by a democratically elected civilian government
etc etc
So at this point, maybe a debate about Bismillah in the constitution is not exactly what should be taken top priority.
However, I am not opposed to the debate on secularism..Its indeed very important and be tackled directly.
[Reply]
M Haque, I don’t know what others are interested in discussing. I have little interest in day-to-day AL-BNP political slinging match, whether it is about Bismillah or some politician’s antics.
Faraaz, if you think it is important to talk about secularism, then now is as good a time as any.
More generally, UV strives to provide an angle or viewpoint that is not available in the mainstream media. As such, we may not have any post on river grabbing or Haji Selim. This doesn’t mean we think they are unimportant. It just means we have little more to say above and beyond what you will get in newspapers.
On secularism, I don’t see many nuanced discussion. Therefore, it is very much within the ambit of a blog titled ‘unheard voice’.
[Reply]
M Haque Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Joyoti, you are not in where you need to attract or draw bigger crowd. Daily AL-BNP issues are on sale in News papers, your best bet should be not the symptoms but the heart of the issues.
Secularism what majority would like to discuss within the ambit of AL-BNP or Jamat. Religion should be free from the state politics. Imam Abu Hanifa refused to share the state politics and was in jail. Do all the mufti of Islamic faith take that stand today? Seculariation in the West, to seperate the Catholic Church from the state control in order to open a route for freedom of religion. Also the role of churches during 17th and 18th centry! Roman empire was said to be between God and the emperor. Many are shouting parroting that notion, but muslim mosque’s role are not the same. There is no priesthood in Islam you can be an authority with your knowledge of religion that is your scholarly aptitute and you command an authority of your knowldge and fikh and with that you uphold the principles of Islam and the justice to human kind. That is Sharia’. there are laws coming from non-Muslim minds that are more Islamic than laws coming from Muslim minds in Islamic Countries. In that case my choice is former. I want justice, that is my islam, my belief. Secularism of AL-BNP scholars(?) nothing but like their justification between people leaving both side of a water dam. For both of them first who is building the dam than the impact is justified. Human calamity is the last think in their minds. You side with either of them or do not like to discuss the issue it is up to you.
[Reply]
fug Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
The parrotting and simplicity of the bd secular argumentitis is annnoying, and wrongly directed. Its a national embarassment. But the fault is collective, we know that such ‘unknowing’ was socially, emotionally and politically produced over a period of time.
It is hard for the secularised to see dymanism, movement and beauty in ‘islamic’ and hybrid intellectual traditions today, locally to them. Remember that we are talking to people who see dhaka university as a bastion of liberation spirit and anarchy, rather than an extention of Aligharian program of education.
At present, I do not think that the correct approach should be too fiqhi and legalistic nor should it make huge claim which the people can’t deliver, but it should be more maqasidi and creative.
[Reply]
Most ppl have little interest in AL-BNP daily mudslinging, but ALL national issues have AL-BNP involvement, incl secularism. So if we can talk about secularism, why not talk about AL governance, or failures?
Some issues will spark greater controversy than others, like Khaleda cantonment. Therefore we cannot ignore the more-desperate issues eg student terrorism, in fear either of controversy, or anti-democracy uprise, or whatever. To me, the more controversy there is in a topic – the more successful has been the blog! cos there has been activity and exchange of opinions.
In BD context, ALL issues are important, but the question is which ones are PRIORITY to development, which can be thrown here for ‘unheard voices’ to evaluate, or to be educated?
Examples of hot topics: Why is BD traffic such a mess, and why doesnt govt do anything about it? Why is Grameen so successful in people development, and the govt is not? Does govt really CARE about people, or just themselves?
[Reply]
K Gazi,
You are absolutely wrong and naive . Yes people are interested about Al and BNP.
They are happy to stick with these party not the stupid comments you are making from dawn to dust.
Now My question.
I have stopped visiting UV since it is gradually transforming to be the mouth piece of pure Right wing. even some days back this UV was crying for secularism now it is fashion to them.
In comments section you will see presence of heard core fanatics like K Gazi, Fugstar etc. But our comments are deleted.
I don’t care if UV publishes my comments or not. My point was to give message to them and that’s all.
[Reply]
sc Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Dear Akbar,
Your blanket complains about UV is utterly deplorable. Fugstar, KGazi “may be” right wingers, but denying them to express their opinion on a human right advocacy group is ludicrous. He, you, and I, all can argue against any opinion put forward by anyone in this blog. However, not allowing an opposing argument will make this site closer to fascism than human rights.
[Reply]
fug Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Sweet hearts, I do deplore the accusation of ‘rightist’ but find it common pejorative used on people who dont regard islam as a backward intellectual and social force in bangladesh. That reality should be accounted for in framing dialogue on secularisms .
Our people would do well to create or find their own typologies.
After all, the white man’s binaries and ideological schisms in the brown man’s context are really quite silly.
[Reply]
Kgazi Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Akbar Ali Khan,
If you want your comments to be published here, you need to attack the ISSUES that make Bangladesh poor. No use making linguistic descriptions against specific people or their opinions – cos that is just another MUDSLING like AL-BNP politics, that only makes BD a poorer nation.
If you want to HELP Bangladesh develop into a modern nation during your lifetime, then welcome to the debate here and make constructive criticism on WHY Bangladesh is so poor, and how to develop it during our lifetime.
Fortunately UV is open to all opinions, made in a civilized fashion, and some KEY people in Bdesh may also be reading it, that can make a change!!
[Reply]
Akbar Ali Khan Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
K Gazi,
At least I don’t need to learn from you what is the good or bad for the country.
I know my duty very well . I have no problem if some one send you garland or
shoes. It is your Philosophy. I don’t care if my comments are posted here or not.
I will not be president or prime minister by commenting in UV. Yes you were right
once up on a time there were lots of the best people in here in comment section. That’s why we came here for the best and quality materials. Gradually maximum of them is invisible . So we readers have already lost interest. But Thanks to you at least end of the day you agree that you are a fanatic right wing guy. at least you can’t deny.
[Reply]
Just few months ago before the election Mr Jyoti, Rumi and so many of you used to scream about Democracy democracy which mean to you general public want Al and BNP to be elected who the hell the CTG to decide whether KZ or SH will be stepped down from the party leadership. Now when general public want to discuss and comment on the topic what they love to these are the same people started arguing. General public demand is not anymore important to them. What a pity?
[Reply]
Dear All
Let’s get back to Jyoti’s original post and talk about ” What is secularism? Why do we want it? Why have we failed to achieve it?” .
[Reply]
- Secularism is treating all religions, people belonging to different religions, and not belonging to any religions, equally.
- We want it because every person is born equal irrespective of his color, race, language, religion, faith, sexual orientation, etc. There is no scope of holding one religion/color/sex/faith over another. 100 or 1000 years from now we might be living in Mars or in another galaxy, and the demography of believers in a particular faith may be entirely different, but secularism should still hold.
- We failed to achieve it because our country has largely been ruled by self-centered, crooked generals and politicians, and we have very few national thinkers/intellectuals/organizations who can guide us toward a more humane society.
[Reply]
tacit Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 6:38 am
I thought secularism was the willingness to keep the state and all its organs removed overtly from religious edicts.
I do not think of myself as a secular person, and in my case, it is my religion that teaches me to treat everyone equally, regardless of their religion.
Given that secularism evolved from Princes of the Church vying with their temporal counterparts in Europe, we must examine what exactly we are trying to achieve, in our country’s context.
[Reply]
On topic of secularism, please look @ stats in this post:
http://unheardvoice.net/blog/2009/05/24/india-minority/
[Reply]
Election 2008/Bangladesh
16 minority MPs out of 300
2 Minority out of 23 Ministers
1 Minority out of 14 State Ministers
Election 2009/India
136 minority MPs out of 543
22 minority Ministers out of 78
More details here, and hope to hear people’s comments
http://unheardvoice.net/blog/2009/05/24/india-minority/
[Reply]
tacit Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 6:30 am
I don’t think you can really make this comparison if you’re going to include caste-based minorities too.
[Reply]
fug Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
good point on castocracy.
heaven forbid that the bangladeshi, after his entire social history be duped with a socially constricted singular hinduism originally designed to appeal to british demographic ‘justice’.
[Reply]
Sudhirmoy Ghosh Reply:
May 31st, 2009 at 1:16 am
OK, let’s take out caste, and you still have a number that’s valid for comparative discussion. Are you prepared to do that?
Let’s keep in caste, because it’s an example of how the Indian state has made conscious efforts proactively to redress the effect of centuries old discrimination and its effects on access to wealth and educational opportunities.
That’s more impressive than just saying “my personal beliefs mean I treat everyone equally” – and voila, by magic, everyone has equal access to everything.
[Reply]
how have these stats got anything to do with secularism by the way?
[Reply]
@fug, The statistics are a view into shifting electoral math of secularism.
[Reply]
you mean noncommunalism. i see. you should say that.
[Reply]
Sudhirmoy Ghosh Reply:
May 31st, 2009 at 1:18 am
Funny how those hell bent on being obstacles to pluralistic societies will vary their interpretation of what is meant by “secularism” as it suits them.
When did secularism, as defined in South Asia, ever mean anything other than “noncommunalism”?
When Bangabandhu roared “e desher manush ke mukto kore charbo inshallah” was that a “secular” comment that those worried about our after-life would find abhorrent?
So, Fug, are you pro or anti a “non communal” society?
[Reply]
fug Reply:
May 31st, 2009 at 6:29 pm
what do you think?
do you have any interesting questions?
[Reply]
naeem Reply:
May 31st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
You just said it for me.
[Reply]
Naeem,
I think these type of Mathematics are Just insult to the community.PM , President, MP what ever you say should not be elected on the name of religion, cast and those nonsense. Let any people should be elected . Forget about from which Cast he is representing. I don’t think by electing Minority MPS more India has done very big things. But yes India has reached in the stage where they elected a sikh PM and Muslim president (Manmohan singh and Dr Abul Kalam azad). But It was not their religion but for their efficiency and commitment for their country.
I believe we have quite good numbers of educated efficient and dedicated Hindu scholars. But why we can’t involve them in mainstream. why Name of Suranjit sen Gupta or Debspriya Bhattcharjee are even discussed for the post of speaker or Chief Advisers. Are they inefficient? If we discuss about their names, we will not do mercy to them rather we will show our broad mind. We need to go a long way still now
[Reply]
naeem Reply:
May 31st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
@Akbar, Mathematics of Proportional Representation, as well as Affirmative Representation, are very relevant to my personal politics.
[Reply]
The effects of literacy and religious legacy are powerful variables in election outcomes of minorities in Bdesh or India. At the end of the day, people’s votes will determine election results, regardless of how ‘proactive’ the govt is in creating election secularism (number of minority elected), as opposed to social secularism (miinorities in religious harmony). Last thing we need is govt to assign ‘minority quotas’ for election winners, as in ‘women quotas’, and we dont want govt to ’show off’ secularism to UN or whatever, by doing something silly like that.
But how do you measure SOCIAL secularism, in India or BD?
Not by election results (Naeem?), cos thats governed by other variables – voting methods, caste system legacy, minority legacy, minority literacy rates, religious preference of voters, etc.
So in order to get a Bangladesh-India comparison, Can we measure secularism by SOCIAL discrimination of minorities, eg burning muslims in Barodha, minority crimes, ‘hate crime’, land and job access, education and marriage rights, temple mosque proximities etc??
Maybe that would be a more interesting and justifiable comparison?
[Reply]
Tanoy Dutta Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Gazi ,
Creating woman or Minority quotas is one of the biggest mockeries.
[Reply]
The way to do a social comparison would be for Bangladesh to produce a report like the Sachar Commission.
[Reply]
naeem – until then, nobody should say India is more ’secular’ than Bdesh.
Tanoy – glad you agree.
[Reply]
Many of you on here don’t actually like secularism.
So, if India really isn’t more secular than Bangladesh, isn’t that a good thing for you guys?
[Reply]
naeem Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
@Udayan, Many of us “on here” do like secularism.
[Reply]
tacit Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I definitely don’t like secularism. On the other hand, I think non-communalism is a fundamental qualification for any politician to possess before he becomes a serious candidate for holding public office.
[Reply]
Udayan Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I think most of us in South Asia who speak of “secularism” mean “non communalism”. Gandhi talked of “Ram Rajya” as a means to achieve a non-communal society, and was definitely not a secularist in the western sense of the word, but many Indians would regard him as “secular” in how the word is usually used in that part of the world. He was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic who disagreed with his non-communal stance, not with his religious views.
I don’t think anyone is advocating a France or Turkey style Burkha or Turban ban for South Asia.
However, secularism in the South Asian context also means pluralism, which doesn’t just mean acceptance and tolerance of those different to the majority or those with power, it means empowerment and encouragement of those beyond the core to come forward and participate openly in all aspects of the state (and society) and to feel free to bring their identities with them. I think this is where the mental block for a lot of people starts.
At the recent oath-taking ceremony for the Indian cabinet, ministers were given the choice of how to approach the line which says “I swear in the name of God …”. Some chose to just say “I swear …” (there are several declared atheists in the cabinet), some invokved a Hindu phrase of their choice, and Sultan Ahmed said “I swear in the name of Almighty Allah”.
Let me repeat the question I asked earlier. Are those non-secularists in Bangladesh who justify Bismillah in the constitution and having an official religion, happy to include invocations from other faiths in their constitiuion and have other religions share “state” status?
[Reply]
rumi Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Udayan,
“Let me repeat the question I asked earlier. Are those non-secularists in Bangladesh who justify Bismillah in the constitution and having an official religion, happy to include invocations from other faiths in their constitiuion and have other religions share “state” status?…”
If you ask any sensible person, a well thought answer must have to be an emphatic YES.
I guess, Bismillah above the preamble, i.e. before starting of the constitution and special mention of ” Almighty Allah”, is an less hidden, more official and less hypocritic form of Western practices to give precedence to Christianity. When ” In God we trust” is mentioned, it means the father God. Similarly christmas is an official holiday, not dewali, Chanukkah or Eid.
The practice, I guess, is based on democratic values of privileg for the majority while ensuring the rights of minority. You practice the majorities religion nationally but do everything to protect the right of all others to practice what they want.
Mohammad Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Udayan ,
Communalism may have a religious contrast in south asia, but it may be racial or tribal in africa. So non-communalism may never have the same meaning as secularism. Gandhi was a firm believer of multi religious communities. He believed UNITY is possible between Muslims and Hindu’s hence create a secular society which will of course be non-communal. Communalism with a religious contrast thrived under colonial rulers to support their divide and rule policy. It’s ironic that Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah ardent supporters of western secularism in fact sponsored religion into politics. Don’t forget Jinnah too was frontline leader of Congress. Partition based on ” Two Nation ” theory does not support secularism. Post partition communal mayhem exposed nexus between religious extrimists and politicians. We like it or not politics has unbreakable link with religion. What we do not want is a theocracy. We definitely do not want government to be elected by religious clergy. That does not mean that religious values that shape up the societies will not influence government policies. We do not have a single secular country which is “Godless”. US constitution may not contain the word “God” in it’s entire constitution but majority of it’s states has divine refrence in their State Constitutions. South Carolina even has ” Protestantism” as state religion !! Still secular !! ” Christianity ” is the official state religion of Norway and has a secularised society ! Global Peace Index rates Norway the most peaceful country in the world. So having “Bismillah” in our preamble may not have any adverse effect on secularism. That’s of course if we adopt “Secularism ” as a value not an ideology of politics.
fug Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 4:50 am
wow this thread is really going places.
secularism can mean noncommunalism, but its a proxy for other values also not excluding atheism. Generally in the non- european non-christian setting it is a socio-intellectual capitulation thats been well analysed and diagnosed by people like Ashis Nandy.
@Kgazi, India is more secular than Bangladesh.
[Reply]
naeem, self-aggrandizing by India and anti-BD accusations may make one think so, but I have read too many negative reports against India to believe that, without statistical reports.
But who cares who the winner is – there is room for improvement on which I agree with you, and will help all of us.
[Reply]
naeem Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@Kgazi, There is room for improvement on secularism and minority rights in both India & Bangladesh. As a Bangladeshi, my focus is Bangladesh, and that is where I would be effective in this struggle (although secularism struggles in all of South Asia are linked, not be negative comparison, but by positive example). I write about minority rights in Bangladesh: op-eds in Daily Star, and the chapter on Ethnic & Religious Minorities (alternating chapters in alternate years) in Ain o Salish Kendra annual human rights report for last few years. I have also written on Muslim minority rights in India, in context of security scare. Those have been published in Indian press.
[Reply]
I find it interesting that most people on this blog, who would like to be seen as “liberal, enlightened, secular intellectuals” judge the secularism of a nation based on isolated incidents of a Sikh PM and a Muslim President or how many Muslim/Christian lawmakers are there in the Parliament. This is a gross understanding of secularism in its original form. Barring upper, elite so called intellectual class, I dont think we in Bangladesh have failed to uphold secularism at all. While this elite is busy arguing about statistics, historical development of secularism, Bismillah in the constitution so that they look a bit more educated and intelligent and liberal, the masses of Bangladesh, who do not have such pretensions have gone ahead and shown the way forward. The vast majority of people in Bangladesh do not discriminate based on religion. In the road side tea stalls, drivers, guards, peons all go to have tea and a nice chat even if the owner of that tea stall is a Hindu. I have seen this happen, and thats what gives me hope.
Number of Muslim MPs, Hindu MPs (in the case of Bangladesh) mean nothing if criminals like Narendra Modi in India and Haji Selim in our case are given a clean chit just because they belong to the ruling party. The problem in this part of the world is not so much of secularism but more of justice or the lack of it and lack of accountability of the Government. There media in our case is full of such pseudo intellectuals who would rather debate on statistics and bismillah rather than grill the government on its actions, and serve the rights of the people to know.
According to these pseudo intellectuals, our Father of the Nation is also not secular because his surname is “Rahman” which is a name of Allah as said in the Quran. That also undermines secularism right?
[Reply]
Bangladesh names Anup Kr Chakma Ambassador to Myanmar
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=93947
Maj Gen Anup Kumar Chakma, serving as Master General of the Ordnance of Army Headquarters, was made ambassador to Myanmar. He was commissioned in the Infantry Regiment on December 25, 1977 and promoted to the rank of Lt Col in 1992.
He was promoted to colonel in 2000 and commanded a sector of the Bangladesh Rifles and an infantry bridge before being elevated to the rank of Brig Gen in 2001. Anup Kumar Chakma was later made Maj Gen in 2005 and appointed the Master General of the Ordnance of Army Headquarters.
[Reply]
In practicality, this is a step back. Sending a Major General ( Esp a Master General of Ordinances) out as ambassador to countries like Australia, Thailand, Europe, Middle east is a form of forced retirement/ punishment. Sending to Burma would be the worst possible punishment.
[Reply]
Religion can be Secular too !!!!!! :
The law minister ruled out the statement of a section of politicians that the 1972 constitution is against Islam as one of the four pillars of the constitution is ’secularism’.
“Islam itself is a secular religion as it acknowledges rights of every citizen irrespective of their religious faith, culture, creed and caste,” the minister said.
The Financial Express / Friday , 17th July / 2009
[Reply]