A guiding principle in humanity’s journey from the darkness of the past to the light of civilization is the state system. The state is a common institution or collective, encompassing all people under its jurisdiction. Regardless of any individual assessments or distinctions, the state considers all of its members as equals. The constitution is the charter of this institution, a legal document that defines how it operates, what it should or should not do, and how it manages its citizens. Apart from the constitution, the state also has other important elements, such as its official name, flag, anthem, symbols, emblems, and various constitutional institutions.
Now, if a group of members of this institution wants to add their own group logo to the state emblem or incorporate their religious seal into the constitution, flag, or anthem, would it be justifiable? When someone seeks to do this, they fail to recognize the truth that the state belongs to everyone. Such individuals might be anarchists, ignorant or narrow-minded, or extremists. They may want to hijack the state with the majority’s power and force. By tagging symbols of a particular religion or nation onto the state and constitution, they inherently marginalize other ethnic and religious groups, turning them into minorities and subjecting them to inequality.
Is the state only for the majority citizens? If not, then there is no reason to think that the constitution should be adjusted according to majority-minority considerations. The state is not a statistical bureau for religious majority surveys. In fact, the establishment of the state rejects the majority-minority divide. The constitution of the state should be designed to ensure equal rights and dignity for everyone. In a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, any special tag associated with a particular faith will serve as an injustice to other beliefs and an obstacle to impartiality. Thus, when the state is viewed through the lens of one religion and its symbols are colored with that religion’s influence, it creates divisions among citizens. Considering the state as a “religious state” based on the majority’s religion leads to coercion, and this is where religious fascism arises. The intention to create turmoil in the name of majority religious dominance is a hallmark of religious fascism.
The inclusion of secularism in Bangladesh’s constitution came from the vision of a non-discriminatory and inclusive society. In English, secularism refers to non-religiosity, but in Bengali, it has taken the meaning of inclusivity or pluralism. The word “secularism” carries a negative image in our society, with a sense of distrust surrounding it. As soon as some hear it, they believe the nation is falling apart, and that religion is being erased. This negative perception is partly due to the extreme anti-religious stance of some self-proclaimed secularists. Religious political parties and religious extremists have propagated the idea that secularism equates to atheism and has thus created a distorted image of it among the public.
In this country, secularism is often equated with secularism in the Western sense, but in reality, they are not the same. While Western secularism aims to make individuals secular (secular-minded), our concept of secularism does not aim to do so. A secular state does not support or favor any religion, while a secular state ensures equal rights, dignity, and support for all religions. Secularism does not oppose religion, nor does it make people indifferent to religion. Instead, it defines the nature of the state and its constitution as a common institution for all citizens, without endorsing any specific religion. This means that religion will continue to exist, but no particular religion’s symbols will dominate the state, constitution, or state functions. The state should be free from religious control, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their beliefs, can coexist peacefully and practice their religion or culture freely.
Secularism does not mean atheism; rather, it signifies a belief in an inclusive state. However, individuals generally cannot be secular in the same way a state can. A secular individual can still be a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Christian and remain loyal to their faith. Likewise, religious individuals should not impose their religious symbols or practices on the state. Thus, secularism belongs to the state, not to individuals. A state can have religious citizens, but it must remain secular in its functioning. Just as money has no religion or gender, the state should not have a religion. The state’s duty is to treat all religious groups impartially, ensuring equal treatment for all its citizens.
In simple terms, secularism is like a lens through which the state looks at its citizens, so that it does not see their religious identity. This ensures that citizens are not treated differently based on their religion. The only “inferiority” in secularism lies in the state’s detachment from any religious identity—this is not the individual’s inferiority. The state’s secularism means that “religion is for individuals, and the state is for everyone.” By attaching religious symbols to the state, this slogan becomes false and unrealistic. Hence, anyone who accepts the principle that the state is for everyone must also embrace secularism.
Article 2(k) of the current constitution addresses the issue of state religion: “The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but the state will ensure equal status and equal rights for the practice of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions.” The key point here is that the constitution first declares Islam as the state religion (and no other religion). Then, how can other religions be equated with Islam? By granting Islam the status of the state religion, the other religions are immediately relegated to a lower status. How, then, can other religions claim equal status? This creates a contradiction in the constitution, which is an absurdity. If this constitutional inconsistency is to be resolved, either all religions should be declared state religions, or the controversial state religion article should be abolished.
Article 12 of the constitution talks about secularism and religious freedom: “For the implementation of the principle of secularism, (a) all forms of communalism, (b) any state support of a religion, (c) religious exploitation for political purposes, and (d) any discrimination or oppression against individuals of a particular religion shall be eliminated.” But how can the state give political status to one religion while maintaining impartiality toward all religions? By doing so, it grants a religious political status, which facilitates the exploitation of religion for political purposes. Yet, the constitution also talks about eliminating all forms of discrimination and communalism. In this context, the state’s recognition of Islam as the state religion contradicts the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and secularism.
This form of constitutional manipulation, initiated by military rulers, has been perpetuated by subsequent governments, who have failed to correct it. The political machinery has kept this incoherence intact, exacerbated by vote-driven politics and the dominance of the majority. The constitution, thus, continues to serve as a political tool that upholds the interests of the majority and hinders the realization of an inclusive, non-discriminatory society.
This country does not belong to any particular religious group. Just as Muslims cannot demand an Islamic state, Hindus cannot demand a Hindu state, nor can any other religious group make similar demands. We want this country to be a place for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and all believers, as well as for non-believers and atheists. Belief or disbelief is a personal matter; the country belongs to everyone.
The notion of a state religion undermines inclusivity and equality in the constitution and state system. It creates a contradiction in the constitution that needs to be addressed. The majority’s attempt to dominate other religious groups is undemocratic and a manifestation of fascist behavior. The state should be a neutral institution, free from religious dominance, where all citizens can live without being categorized by majority or minority status.
Following the people’s uprisings, the call for a non-discriminatory Bangladesh resonates through the air. A transitional government has been formed to address these aspirations, establishing various reform commissions, including one for constitutional reform. Before initiating any reforms, we must ask ourselves, what kind of change do we really want? Do we truly want to create a pluralistic, inclusive state where all religions, cultures, and beliefs coexist peacefully, without discrimination? We must ensure that Bangladesh becomes a state for all its citizens, regardless of their beliefs.
