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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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?

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?

But who cares who the winner is – there is room for improvement on which I agree with you, and will help all of us.

So, if India really isn’t more secular than Bangladesh, isn’t that a good thing for you guys?

Tanoy – glad you agree.