 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Secularism: Correct Interpretation is Necessary Published on May 15, 2005
The interesting discussion was initiated when one of our members of Mukto-Mona sent an email to the forum on Apr 22, 2005, claiming that there was a problem with the word 'Secular' in Mukto-Mona:
In response, I
I don't think the word "secularism" or "secular" has been wrongly used on the MM site. SECULARISM, in my opinion, in dealing with the social problems of the day, relies upon human reason, not upon "divine" faith; upon fact, not upon fiction; upon experience, not upon a supposed supernatural revelation. It can discover no value in what are termed spiritual proposals as a remedy for existing evils. Hence, Secularists can recognize only that as being socially useful which tends to the physical, mental, moral, and political improvement of mankind as members of the general commonwealth. Thus, The dictionary definition "not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature" does not seem to contradict with the mission that MM has taken. You may feel that some articles in our site perhaps do not fall under a "strict" definition of "secularism", but to me they are not "anti- secular" either. Many progressive sites are using the word "secular", though they mainly support as leading organizations for non- religious people i.e. freethinkers. For e.g, The Internet Infidels, a widely popular organization who are using the Internet exclusively to promote agnosticism, atheism, freethought, and metaphysical naturalism. The name of their web-site is "Secular Web". Check : Also check : Paul Kurtz's web site - Council for Secular Humanism that promotes rational, human-based viewpoints on important social and ethical issues. http://www.secularhumanism.org/ The above two sites deal with a lot of religious articles and eventually promote naturalistic or more specifically, "anti-religious" view-points. But that does not restrict them for being secular, hence the name of their sites, i.e, secular web or secularhumanism.org should be quite self-explanatory to all. However, in Bangladesh, (to be precise in sub-continent) we use the word quite differently (read wrongly) if its original (root) meaning is to be considered. The "secular" leaders of our country contradict the essential motto of "secularism" in each and every action. I will cite some examples for the erudite readers in this article. But before going there, let's discuss some necessary aspects of politics. Politics, according to my opinion, should be wholly secular i.e non-religious by nature. Politics means solving people's problems through a government. The institution of government is maintained by the taxes which people pay and by the co-operation which people give. If a government functions properly, people can have their problems of food, comfort or security solved easily. Indeed that is the purpose which a government should fulfill. A government would discharge its duties well if it were allowed to be secular. But the interference of religious belief and spiritual considerations with the functions of a government, foils the purpose. When people's attention is divided between god and government, they are more habituated to raise their hands in prayer to god for food and peace than to hold the ways of their government responsible for unemployment and insecurity. Our politicians need the thrust of "religious sentiment" to fool people, as they know faith in politics provides easy explanations for all phenomena and can be used as a weapon to silence the restless inquisitiveness of "ignorant people"; clever politicians are therefore, interested to transfer the demand of common mass towards heaven, rather than putting in an effort to solve those in this mundane world. We frequently hear sermons like "Allar Mal Allay Niye gechey" (Allah has taken back his own creation) from the mouths of our reputed ministers either on the incident of killing of a kid by stray bullet or after a massive accident that carries hundreds of human lives. Our politicians are greedy; they are motivated towards money, power and use the vote of the ignorant masses, and hence they try to establish a wrong interpretation of secularism. Even the so-called "secular" party, Awami Leage put "Allah Sharbo-shoktimaan" (Allah is all-powerful) in the top of any of their leaflets, web-sites etc. [http://www.albd.org/]. Shiekh Mujibur Rahman, first President of Bangladesh who was popularly recognized as Bangabandhu (Friend of Bengal) and father of the nation revived the Islamic Academy (which was banned in 1972 due to their collaboration with Pakistani army during liberation war) and upgraded it to a Foundation (in March 1975) and increasingly attended many of the Islamic gatherings. It can be mentioned that in its early days especially at the party's third council meeting held in Dhaka on 21-23 October 1955, the same Awami League showed the courage to drop out the word 'Muslim' from the name of the party to make it sound secular. However, the sprit of secularism and courage was not maintained by later Awami leaders. Towards the end of his rule, Mujib made frequent references to Islam in his speeches and public utterances by using terms and idioms which were peculiar mainly to the Islam-oriented Bangladeshi - like Allah (the Almighty God), Insha Allah (God willing), Bismillah (in the name of God), Tawaba (Penitence) and Imam (religious leader). As the days passed, Sheikh Mujib even dropped his symbolic valedictory expression Joy Bangla and ended his speeches with Khuda Hafez, the traditional Indo-Islamic phrase for bidding farewell. The process of using Islam to uproot secularism gathered huge momentum during the military regimes of General Ziaur Rahman (1975-1981) and General H.M. Ershad (1982-1990). During the regime of Zia, his party, BNP scraped secularism from the four state principles and inserted "Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim" (in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful) in our constitution. The principle of secularism was replaced by the words, "Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all action." Between 1982 and 1990, General Ershad made systematic efforts to continue the policy of Zia, rehabilitating anti-liberation elements and the parallel Islamisation culminating in the disputable Eighth amendment to the Constitution declaring "Islam" as a state religion. Our current prime minister Khaleda Zia and former Prime minister Sheikh Hasina both used religion as a tool to consolidate their power base following their forefathers. In India we see the same thing. The 42nd amendment to the Constitution introduced by Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, reiterated the secular character declaring India as a "socialist, secular, democratic state". The Fundamental Duties incorporated into the Constitution through the same Amendment make it the responsibility of every citizen to strive for the promotion of "the spirit of enquiry", scientific outlook, humanism and reform. The constitution of India, also abolished untouchability and its practice in any form was prohibited. Special preferences in the name of religion do not exist as per their constitution. However, in practice, such a spirit has never been followed. The controversies of Ram Janma-Bhoomi and Babri Masjid, religious clashes in different parts of the country including Gujarat, Casteism, communalism, discrimination against dalits revealed the hypocritical view of "equal respect" type secularism that is being practiced in India with "utmost sincerity". The fundamentalist forces fan the passion and emotion of the masses and distract attention from the real issues of economic and social development. Evil character Narendra Modi increased his popularity through religious riots - it’s an open secret for quite sometime now. Recently Kanchan Gupta, wrote an article in Rediff - May 09, 2005, "Secular? That's a laugh" :
Kanchan Gupta is right. Its a farce to call a country secular if it allows a Sharia Court as a parallel system of justice. Hence we understand that true spirit of secularism has never been realized nor followed in India. However, we think proper interpretation of "secularism" is not only a desired goal but it is the very breath of a nation. But what is that "true spirit of secularism" that we are talking about? A secular state is not supposed to have its own religion. It could not discriminate between its citizens on the basis of religion. State authorities would keep themselves off from attending religious functions. It would not favor any one religion. This concept goes on and on adding many ‘nots’. These values of 'nots' are the main spirit of Secularism that paraded by Western scholars as a magnificent gift to our civilization. However, the meaning had been changed by the Morarji Desai government, while he implemented "secularism" in India - changing its original content to ambiguous - ‘equal respect to all religions’. This view has been popularized among people in sub-continent lately. Our renowned scholar Ms Farida Majid feels proud in preserving such an ‘equal respect to all religions and cultures’ kind of secularism in her breath. Farida Majid should not be considered as an isolated case here. Many of "non-communal" and "liberal" thinkers like her nowadays erroneously think that just being equally respectful towards all the religion (SARVADHARMA-SAMABHAV) makes a person "secular". Look at the politics in Bangladesh and India. Our prime Minster, oppsition leaders and MPs are all proud of portraying themselves as "secular" to make use of the involvement of the state into politics quite frequently, by performing religious rituals such as taking Jumma Prayer or Mazar Jiyarat (of course with TV cameras in the back), taking part ininauguration ceremonies of mosques or temples, conducting recitations from the Quran on the eve of several cultural and even state activities, donating funds for Durga puja, Eid and other religious activities, taking blessing from Atroshi, Saidabadi, Shai Baba on the eve of election - all eventually violates the ethos of a secular nation. Such "secularism" has played havoc in the polity. The word is misused for Vote Bank Politics. Further the misuse of the word has been propagated by our famous politicians - "Dhormo-niropekkhota maney dhormo-heenota noy" (Being secular does not mean anti-Religious). True, secularism does not encourage you to be an "atheist", however, it does not encourage you to be "religious" either; rather what secularism demands is complete indifference in religious activities. The bottom line is, religion should be essentially distinct from Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that "a connection between them is injurious to both" [quotation taken from Robert S. Alley, ed., James Madision on Religious Liberty, pp. 37-94.]. This is what our political leaders will never utter, nor follow. Only few writers, I have found from the subcontinent are able to come out with clear view on "Secularism" so far. Prabir Ghosh, Bhabani Prashad Sahu, Prof. Jayanti Patel are some of them. Let me quote few paragraphs from Prabir Ghosh's monumental work, "Shongshkriti - Shonghorsho O Nirman" (Page 228), - one of my favorites:
Prof. Jayanti Patel, touching on "Indian version" of Secularism in his piece, "India: Gujarat riots - communalization of state and civic society" wrote the following:
"The connotation of the word secular should mean negation of all religions" - I personally feel that his opinion of secularism fits with the view that MM tries to uphold. We have to be strong in our mission stating clearly that "secularism", by its own definition, is neither "tolerance" nor "respect" towards all religions (the way it has been practiced in subcontinent), but it is the total denial of involvement in religious activities from the state, a complete, not partial: it is the emergence of homogeneous human outlook which is based upon verifiable facts of life, not fiction. Such a correct outlook is an urgent need in our society. Avijit
Responses:
Related articles:
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |