Untold Facts

Fundamentalist Everywhere!

Ghost everywhere

A NGO chief based in Bangladesh, a renowned lady, expressed her deep concern in agony in an interview with a foreign Radio media on the 23 April morning (Dhaka Time) that she has been long worried about huge presence of MOULOBADI or ‘Fundamentalist’, meaning Muslim ‘Fundamentalists’ in all institutions in Bangladesh.

The ghost in others views

My first reaction was that she has kept her line of thinking with Joy, Waliur Rahman, etc. of the Awami League variety and lobby. Sheikh Hasina’s son Joy invented fundamentalists in the institutions like Army, BDR etc. that he considered hindrance to ‘lasting secularism’ in Bangladesh. Waliur Rahman loathed them, as well, in the same institutions. The propaganda kept not only in tune with what the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, a trained physician Moni made a hunch recently that Bangladesh must not go ahead to last as the ‘Moderate Muslim country’ but remain absolutely secular! Personally, I took them nothing in out of tune as Sheikh Hasina as well soon after taking oath in January stated in quite clear terms with a journalist of The Statesman (Kolkata) that she would make certain that Bangladesh becomes a secular state. Neither do I expect that the Hasina Government would go for anything except secularism, much less make Bangladesh a moderate Muslim country. That is why nothing to wonder that they would tolerate any bit of MOULOBAD or “Islamic Fundamentalism.” One would wonder further about Joy’s bashing the Muslim women in Bangladesh wearing Hijab, and his lamentation was that Hijab use in recent days increased by 500%! He would know his methodology for enumeration of the Hijab.

BAL’s Agenda

There is nothing wrong or unbecoming of the Awami League for they maintain a semblance of establishing secularism in Bangladesh. What is not becoming is that they have to do so not only in rhetoric in air but also reverting back to the 1972 Constitution. That would mean that they have to amend the Constitution and scrap off the 5th Amendment, in particular. They have that strength of 2/3rd majority in the Parliament to do the scrapping off. It need not take a full session but just may be only hours, not even hours as the 4rth Amendment Hasina’s father Sheikh Muib did in 13 minutes in January 1975. That 4rth Amendment, we recall, provided for death knell of pluralism and multi-party democracy in Bangladesh. In about only seven months tragically though Mujib had his own death knell for betraying the people of basic freedom and for turning the country into ‘Animal Farm’ of the BAKSAL variety.

The fiasco of earlier majority

In 1975 Mujib had overwhelming majority in the Parliament that he secured in March 1973 election through vote rigging, stealing of ballot papers, snatching ballot boxes and above all through terrorizing all candidates of the tiny opposition and all his political opponents. Hasina’s cadres have been engaged quite effectively for terrorizing the people, the political opposition elements, in particular, since almost the day one of her term in the first week of January 2009 just as Mujib had engaged his fascist cadres soon after he returned to Dhaka on the 10th January 1972 from his captivity in Pakistan. Hasina’s second term in almost all accounts appears clearly a simile of what had been Mujib’s rule as in that began in early 1972 and ended tragically in mid August 1975.

Majority in Parliament and majority aspirations

The crucial difference in case of Hasina is that she has to go against the people’s sacred psychological belief in Islamic values to pure secular values. Mujib did not have to encounter this sort of difficulty or popular opposition as he went from one brand of secularism to another brand of the same secularism from multi-party to one party BAKSAL rule. For Hasina going back for the secularism of the 1972 variety would mean going against the Islamic aspirations of the majority people (90%). Will that be an easy task to go for?

Misunderstood Western secularism

The West is used to a sort of secularism in the recent political exercise. But it remains debatable if they are at all secular in the sense that they are 100% non-religious in politics. In reality that is not true. First, their society is overwhelmingly based on Christian ethics and morality. Second their legal system is not isolated but embedded in Christian values and morality. The US Constitution is no doubt secular so far as written words are concerned. But the conceptual bases had origin in belief in religion, in fact, Christianity. The US Constitution presumed that ‘men are created equal’ that clearly implied that they had a belief in lone supreme God, not in any way atheist they had been in the presumption for writing in words the Constitution over two hundred years ago. In fact, no human society or State can isolate State from belief system of the people concerned that if attempted to do so will only bring disaster in the management of the State.

Islamic jurists’ no to secularism

Earlier Hasina had her own definition of secularism quoting a sentence out of context from the Surah Kaferoon of the Holy Quran. That according to all Islamic jurists was a wrong translation and judgment made on wrong interpretation. One could only guess if she holds on the same stand of her own interpretation of secularism not acceptable to the right- minded Islamic scholars. That the Awami League gave written commitment to the people in their words that ‘no laws repugnant to the Quran shall be enacted’ was in it of their latest distancing away from secularism. What secularism would they go for now? Scrapping off BISMILLAH from the top of the Constitution? Scrapping of Article 8(1) of the Constitution that says Absolute faith and trust in the Almighty Allah?

Islam for religious tolerance

Islam stands for tolerance of other religion or belief system that does not mean that that is secularism but just only to let other belief stay along with Islam. But whoever would accept Islam it is made incumbent that such Muslims must enter into the faith in full and not in part (FIS SILME KAFFA). The reason is obvious in that Islam is a complete code of life inclusive both of worldly matters and spiritual aspect of individual life of the unseen after world.

Tolerant Bangladeshi Muslims

Historically people of this region now we call Bangladesh lived tolerantly with people of other faiths except at times some conflict as any conflict could be there in any human society for conflict of interests. The British being the foreign ruler colonizing the people for 190 years (1757-1947) created issues of conflict between the two major religious groups, Hindus and Muslims. It is further well known that they promoted a ‘class’ for making their agents in land holdings in a new feudal set up, in a new model of schooling, businesses, elite professions, etc. that for one reason or the other overwhelmingly favored the high caste Hindus and deprived the Muslims. The deprivations so made for nearly two centuries forced the Muslims to look for separate identity and entity. 1947 had been obvious that made East Bengal/ East Pakistan. The war of 1971, no matter if one would term as independence war or others as bid for secession of East Pakistan from federal Pakistan was a fact of latter history mainly underpinned by economic reasons. Thus Islam or the belief system of the majority people had in no measure been a matter of any score except in view of some ultra left.

Secularism in 1972 Constitution

Amazingly, the post 1971 Government of Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) framed the Constitution of the independent country included secularism as one of the four State principles. Some group maintained that that was a goal the 1971 independence war had in view. Others say that secularism was imposed on the framers of Bangladesh constitution by Delhi for they wanted Bangladesh to be a secular republic just as India made herself. It is a matter to ponder that though India is said to be secular her constitution does not have any article for secularism as any one of the set state principles enforceable by law of the country. The term secularism has been casually mentioned in the preamble of the constitution of India. How could then the framers of the Bangladesh constitution made that secularism an article of basic principle to follow inviolably in all State affairs? During the three and a half years of that Sham secularism, people experienced the worst of everything from politics economics and cultural matters. The majority Muslim people had yet additional others in dishonoring by the State even the verses of the Holy Quran, Muslim heritage, the Quranic learning in Madarasas, etc. The brand of secularists ended in killing pluralism and democracy that gave birth to lone party dictatorship of the notorious BAKSAL. The notoriety thus faced the obvious down fall curiously through a army coup d’etat by the patriotic army of the country in mid August 1975.

1972 follies rectified

The subsequent post 1975 government realized the follies of the pre 1975 government in important issues, one being the most unpopular anti-Islamic policies in the cover of secularism. That led ultimately to the amendment of the Constitution by the duly elected parliament in April 1979 known as the Fifth Amendment that replaced secularism for fundamental Islamic faith as one of the basic principles of the State of Bangladesh, having also provided for otherwise equality of all minority religious rights. The subsequent 8th Amendment of the Constitution giving Islam the status of State Religion further made the Constitution more responsive to the overwhelming majority (90%) people of the country.

5th Amendment responded to People’s aspirations

In the backdrop of amendments of the Constitution and development responsive to the people’s aspirations over the last three decades, it is useless to talk about dropping off the Islamic principles for reverting back to sham secularism of the early 1970s.

Muslims are a distinct identity

Muslims have their own way of life and living distinct from other religious groups. There is no valid point in condemning the religious Muslims as Fundamentalist as long as they do not obstruct others to practice and lead their lives, as they would wish to do. Any such condemnation, it should be noted, that is, condemning Muslims’ own way of religious practices and ways of life can not conform to one’s basic human rights, apart from violation of the Constitution and so also violation of UN charter, as well. The pejorative use of terms for Hijab or outer garment of young ladies used to better cover up their sex beauty from sexually passionate distant males, growing and keeping long beard and using special round cap worn by men as head gear, etc. if looked down upon as symptoms of so-called Fundamentalism, the Nuns and Rabbis can not escape the same condemnation that none is used to.

Religious people are not anti-socials

In fact, those who are strict in observances of Islamic religious practices are hardly seen engaged in anti-social works for internal restraints are integrated in their physical body and inner mind. The corrupt persons of various genres are in the main those of secular persuasion.

Taqwa deterrent against moral erosion

In the vicious cycle of serious moral erosion in our society, the Islamic ‘Fundamentalists’, I am sure, must fare better in moral standard. If fundamentalists are everywhere and it means majority in Bangladesh turned fundamentalist or keep on constantly practicing the very core of first essential of Islamic practices, Taqwa or self restrain in all day to day dealings, that would be a good signal for the society to get rid off sooner than latter of the unprecedented floods of moral erosion.

Author: M.T. Hussain