[This was published in African Herald Express
on 22 May, on 23 May in Masmaspace.com and on 24 May in Dhaka Courier in 2013]
It was a class of third year (Horns) in
political science. Professor Dr. MR Gaznabi, a renowned political scientist,
entered timely in a very befitting mood and poise and without taking a pause said
‘today I will dwell upon an interesting but somber topic named secularism.
Therefore, be attentive to and careful of what I utter and pass to you all
since for a student there need under all the circumstances four things to bear
in mind that is to say (a) power of attention (b) power of understanding (c)
power of digestion and (d) power of delivery as and when required’. Students
started feeling excited with an unusual inquisitive bent of mind as if they
were going to discover/invent something new by the grace of their respectable
Professor.
Professor Gaznabi went on saying ‘In fact,
secularism denotes a clear separation between religion and functions of a
government in a state. It is by and large characterized as follows:
*Both state and religion(s) have their
respective areas of concern. One deals with the matters related to state while
other(s) concentrates on the inner overhauling and purification of mind or both
body and mind of an individual in accordance with certain set of principles,
rules and regulations, which originate from the religion in question. Such
overhauling and purification have their necessary abode in various rate and
speed in groups, societies, gilds and so on ranging from micro to macro levels.
In
political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion
and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can
refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing
laws based on scripture (such as the Bible, Torah and Sharia law) with civil
laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to
add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities.
Talks and treatises on secularism began from
the very days of the rise and dominance of the churches over the state in
Europe. But to coin a befitting word
like ‘secularism’ came first from
the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851 when he wrote the book The Origin and
Nature of Secularism’ in 1851.
*Religion(s) aims at the well-being and
salvation markedly of an individual in the next world but functions of a state are
decided taking note from realities
within and around a state in the activist world as mostly opposed to the
next world;
*If one is ever swayed by the other then its
smooth functioning gets jolted and confounded breeding excesses and irritations
as a whole;
*Here two theories are important, which
relate to Christianity in Europe.. One is ‘king is the march of God on earth’
and the other is ‘king must be subservient to the will of God through the
institutions of religion, called ‘Church headed by the chief priest There were
lot of debates, tussles, intrigues and fights between these two forces, which
lasted more than a thousand years in Europe for which middle age has been
earmarked by Dunning, a great political thinker, as ‘un-political i.e. barren
politically;
*The spirit of secularism began to dawn in
the fifteenth century and later it was Machiavelli who made the issue settled politically
and conceptually in a scientific manner in his book ‘The Prince’ and other
writings and thus became the father of political science after a long gap of
Plato and Aristotle;
*Secularism was more pointedly explained in
the context of political revolution and development in France where its root
was the word ‘Laïcité’ meaning ‘state shall neither foster, nurse and
encourage any religion nor obstruct others to follow it privately or otherwise(
but, today France is going away gradually from such water-tight separation);
and
*Today it implies that the government in a
state shall neither nurse and encourage it nor use it for its own purposes to
retain in power. It further adds that even no political party should use
religion just to get voted to power. This explanation is widely acceptable,
accommodative and responsive on all accounts.
Therefore, in plain words secularism draws a
line of separation between a government in a state and religion(s) therein
making it sure that state belongs to all believers and disbelievers of various
folds and camps in a state but religion/religions in a state belong to many
folds of believers merely.
That’s
all for the time being and you may put forward your asking, if any’ told the
Professor’.
‘Sir, is Bangladesh a secular state? asked a student sitting on the last bench in
the class.
‘Yes, constitutionally it is but factually it
is not so seeing that religion ‘Islam ‘has been declared as the state religion
by the Constitution(Eight Amendment) Act
of 1989 during HM Ershad regime and, ironically enough, it was further strengthened
by the Constitution(Fifteenth Amendment) Act of 2011 during the period
of the ongoing democratic rule of Sheikh Hasina government. More
noticeable is that there is a ministry dealing with the affairs of religions in
the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. In sequence of all
these, Khatib of Baitul Mokkaram, the principal mosque in the country, is
appointed by the government. From these
standpoints, secularism and religion together mingled at a point of
reconciliation, which one may logically call a compromise in practice.
Then what is it? readily posed another student.
‘Interestingly enough, Bangladesh is known in
the world as a ‘moderate Muslim state. More thrilling is that all our
governments, starting from HM Ershad to Begum Khakleda Zia to Sheikh Hasina,
feel proud of being so’ replied the professor serenely.
‘Is not it a great contradiction after the
spirit of secularism, Sir?’ now a girl student questioned in the fullest mood
of wonder and protest.
‘Dear students, Let me repeat honestly that it
is rather a kind of reconciliation between religion and politics after the model
of politics in Bangladesh. That’s why I think Bangladesh is a secular and
moderate Muslim country. Hence, we should be proud of creating a model in the
domain of politics and political science even in the face of different types of
crises internally and externally.
You should recall the recent saying of Sheikh
Hasina, sitting Prime Minister of the Government of the People’s Republic of
Bangladesh, who, having been faced with
the rise and 13-point demands of Hafazat-e-Islam, the largest organization of
Islamic pundits(Alams), grown-up and growing, in line with Quran and Sunnah, in a bid to pacify the majority people in the
country belonging to Islam, assured right away that ‘In future Bangladesh shall
be run in accordance with Madina Charter [it was, in fact, made by Prophet
Hazrat Mohammad (peace be upon him] in 620-622 AD through threadbare
discussions with the contemporary warring sects and communities in Madina where
the main theme was ‘ belief in Allah and nothing should go against this very
spirit, where remains no possibility for a lady/female either to become the Head
of Government/State or even to become the leader of a group. body/organization
comprising of male and female]. This must be termed a kind of bare and shameless
use of religion to gain politically’.
‘Then Sir, Isn’t it giving an apparent signal
that secularism gradually losing its appeal in reality because of the natural
power of religion over individuals, groups, societies, politics and come what
may not? put forward a student sitting in the front desk.
‘You may have lot of queries and conclusions
under the given circumstances. Even so, dear students, bear in mind all the
time that conceptually and practically secularism has seriously be distorted,
declutched and ill-applied in Bangladesh perspective; Yes, you should satisfy
yourselves with the proposition that ‘the answer is better known to those who
are in politics and to those who make law in Parliament’ concluded the
Professor in a haste and left the room ten minutes before the scheduled time of
termination.
Students were really at a loss as to what to
understand, what to digest and what to deliver if an asking is ever made to any
of them about the secular standing of Bangladesh. Should he/she/they then take
resort to the very understanding, digestion and thus carrying of the definition
and interpretation of secularism in line with the lecture of the Professor or should
they strictly follow the Constitution of Bangladesh? So, unfolding truth is
such that whatever way is preferred that’s not at all free from confusion and
misapprehension.
No comments:
Post a Comment