General Dutta Asks For End To “Islam Is State Religion” In Constitution
Retired Major General C R Dutta, who commanded sector 4 which comprised most part of greater Sylhet in 1971 independence war, has demanded the government revoke the constitutional recognition of Islam as the state religion.
The administration of the then military dictator HM Ershad in 1988 approved a constitutional amendment, making Islam the state religion amid howls of vehement protests from political and social platforms including other ethnic groups.
“I demand that the status of Islam as the state religion be annulled. We didn’t fight for independence to make Islam the state religion,” Dutta told a commemorative meeting of the 89th birth anniversary of General MAG Osmani, the commander-in-chief during independence war. He said the country’s original constitution, passed in 1972, must be reinstated to resolve political problems. “The four principles of the 1972 constitution like democracy, secularism, Bengalee nationalism and socialism should be reinstated,” he said. [bdnews24.com]
September 1st, 2007 at 5:36 am
CR Dutta’s statement was the lead news on bdnews24. It was the first time in long time that I was woken up by morning SMS delivery (BDNews sends the morning headlines to all Grameenphone subscribers at 8 am, so I have made that my alarm clock) and had a reason to smile.
September 1st, 2007 at 8:38 am
As if repealing the constitutional provision (declaring Islam our state religion) would solve all our political problems. How naive! The recognition of Islam as state religion in the Constitution has hardly had any impact on the governance of our nation.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:38 am
I agree with Karim bhai, but I also agree with the major general. being a secular country, in my eyes, means a country which values freedom and respects all religions instead of one.
I also find it sickening that in this day and age, religion causes so much controversy. People should just find God in whatever way they want and leave everyone else alone.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:40 am
I would also appreciate it if UV would raise the issue of Taslima Nasreen. Her exile is a matter of great shame for our country.
[Admin: Taslima has already been discussed a few weeks ago when the hyderabad incident happened. http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/08/09/taslima-nasreen-attack/ ]
September 1st, 2007 at 10:03 am
No, repealing the constitutional provision, brought forth during an illegal army regime, would not solve “all our political problems”– nor is that what General CR Dutta is suggesting. Repealing “Islam as state religion” provision would be a first step towards treating all our religious communities with equality.
And I disagree strongly with your assertion that “Islam as state religion” has had no im[act on governance– if governance is defined as how we treat our citizens.
Finally, the provision has been a key reason Vested Property Act (aka Enemy Property Act) is still on the books, and available to be used against Hindu community to appropriate their land.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:06 am
Quadir wrote: “People should just find God in whatever way they want and leave everyone else alone.”
I agree, and the sight of millions praying during last lailatul qadr is such an example.
The constitutional provision is an invitation to commit state/private abuse against those who do not follow the “state religion”.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:14 am
Meanwhile, ey Ershad, je amader etho dhongsher pothe niye gelo…
Ajke dekhi DAILY STAR e bishal half-page editorial by none other than Hossain Mohammed Ershad.
Post flood action plan: Some thoughts in retrospect
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=2066
Hashbo, na kadbo, na rage chithkar korbo.
I’m sorry, Noor Hossein.
September 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
hahahahaha hats off to Ershad! now if only he hadn’t stolen so much public money…
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Yeah, Ershad is not such a bad guy. As Rumi bhai noted in a different blog, he went to see his hospitalised jharudar minister the other day. Bipoder bondhu bole kotha.
September 2nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Accha. “Islam as state religion” ki ethoi sporshokathor bishoy. DP blogger-ra ki ethoi bhoi pai? Karo kono mothamoth nai, othocho apnarai 1 shoptaho age kotho huunkar charchilen (dui pokkhei, ebong ami o thader majhe chilam).
September 2nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
That this topic can even be broached in a credible way may reflect something postive about the post tareq-khaleda-nizami era, whatever it’s other shortcomings are.
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
what GCRD said is partial truth, not the whole truth. He was a sector commander and I was a teenage organzier of liberation war.
I’m very sure to assert that nation didn’t fight for state religion as Islam nor did we fight for secularism. The majority even just before the fateful 25th March, didn’t long for liberated Bangladesh. We voted for AWL for democratic right and economic justice btwn two wings of Pakistan. We voted for six-point manifesto of Sheik Mujib and that was completely free of secularism talk.
We and Mr. Chitta didn’t fight for Beerptrotik title of Mr Chitta and ChittaRanjan street at Dahaka city. Yet, he got it, we don’t mind. We’re more generous than him. But unfortunately Mr.Chitta and the likes are not real secularists. If someone is secularist he or she should have respect for other religions and their adherents. Islam as state religion doesn’t affect other religions and state affairs anyway as our national animal tiger recognition doesn’t affect other animals and it’s just just the recognition that majority’s religion of the state is Islam.
Those who see something very wrong in that, they aren’t true secular and tunnel-visioned individuals who niggardly fail to accept the facts.
Thanks.
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
EDR Bhaijaan,
Bhoi na, more like awe at the size of the topic. Frankly the secularism issue is a can of worms that goes beyond asking for the abolishment of Islam as state religion.
Firstly, it’s such a meaningless thing to begin with. Only our much-joked-about HME could have come up with it. Like someone saying that the national vegetable will hereon be aloo, begun or peyaj. Tar maaney ki? Eokhon thekey shobai ke peyaji khaitey hobey? Bajarey peyaj dekhley kintey hobey?
I’m sure this amendment has had some effect on governance in Bangladesh, as you put it. I look forward to hearing more on that from you. Question is, was governance any different before the amendment? Would it have deteriorated slower or not at all if the amendment was never passed?
Add to that the fact that he ties in the 1972 constitution with socialism in it. “Socialism” in BD is not understood as the system practised in UK and Scandinivia, but more as the communism practised in former Eastern Europe and North Korea. Obviously he’s just torpedoed himself there too.
I’m all for equal rights for Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Buddhists-atheists-animists-whathaveyous and an end to discrimination based on religion or lack of a religion. But by bringing in “secularism” with its multiple meanings to multiple audiences, people are further delaying that goal.
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Its Retired Major General C R Dutta’s right as a citizen to call for a constitutional change and if in due process of making constitutional amendments all the parties involved agree to it (such as a 2/3rd majority of MP’s), then it should be no problem to change it. But the current CTG is not equipped to handle a constitutional amendment. We will have to wait till the elected govt. is sworn in.
While I respect his role in 1971 war, and I agree that Ershad has done many things to gain political advantage, perfect examples of this are this amendment and making our holiday in Friday, but people’s opinion about identity and what should or should not be in their constitution change over time, and it may or may not reflect the opinion of constitution formulators or writers in 1972. But if the required majority of MP’s agree to this proposal in our upcoming elected parliament, reflecting the opinion of their constituents, then any constitutional amendment should be welcome.
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
If, once Islam is state religion it cannot be undone, how would people feel about:
* Joint state religion status for Islam with Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc.? Would that be acceptable, then? Presumably fine, as having a state religion is really irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, makes no difference to daily life etc. So no problem to have more than one.
* Would people feel more / less / equally comfortable if, whenever the Prime Minister or President, CA, Chief Martial Law Administrator (just in case) comes on TV, instead of only Arabic writing on the wall behind them next to the national flag there was also a Sanskrit Om, a Cross, a picture of Buddha etc? Why should anyone mind? Everyone is equal, right?
* If in addition to politicians, journalists and the media celebrating the country as a “moderate Muslim nation”, they also called it a “moderate Hindu nation” and a “moderate Buddhist nation” etc? Would remind the USA that Bangladeshi Buddhists are not extremists like the ones in Sri Lanka. And just think of the oil that could be bought at a discount from the friendly Christian state of Texas …
* If together with Bismillah opening the constitution and Zia’s insertion of “belief in the almighty Allah” (a full 10 years before Ershad’s state declaration - why blame him alone?) there was also Om Sahayata Shanti Namoh, and a new constitutional ammendment explicitly citing belief that salvation of the soul only comes through Jesus Christ? Why should people who don’t believe that mind? I’m sure it wouldn’t make them feel that the constitution isn’t theirs as much as their neighbor’s if it advocates religious beliefs they don’t hold.
* And if we can’t have a whole new set of additional state religions, what if the state religion of the 3 Hill Tracts Districts is declared to be Buddhism to reflect the character and national sentiment of the majority (however dwindling) of the local population? No problem, presumably, as the only reason there is a state religion is to respect the sentiments of the majority. Maybe there should also be a sign when entering Shankharibajar or Gopalganj that the State Religion for the next few square kilometers is Hinduism only.
* And since no-one is using the national parliament at the moment, how about some construction work so that, in addition to the mosque in the building that apparently represents every citizen of the country, there is also a mandir, girza, buddhabihar etc.? Oh, and also an empty room so that people like Taslima Nasreen can go and hang out with like minded folks as well.
If the answer to all of these is “sure, no problem”, then fine.
If not …
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
15 Bitorkito: To prevent tyranny of the majority with acceptable safe-guard of minority rights is the founding principle of democracy. The question is what is acceptable.
I will make a deal with you, give me a Bangladesh with 10% growth for the next 30 years that takes our HDI (Human Development Index) to the top 10 or 20, then I can promise to deliver all of the above and more that you have asked for in your post, till then, like all underdeveloped countries we cannot dream for perfection, but we have to do our best to ensure equal opportunity and elimination of abuses.
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 am
Bitter Boy
12#
“He was a sector commander and I was a teenage organzier of liberation war”
Ans: Don’t take it as personal attack. But I am very Curious to know the URL of your Teen age freedom fighting status:).Have you fought as bitter boy?
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 am
CR Dutta is an old soldier, so he will understand the significance of the following comment most:
“Hack on Algy!!!”
As others have suggested elsewhere, this will not solve all (or perhaps any) problems, but it will rectify something.
NOTE: This is an old cavalry cry given to officers when they did something particularly well(this being cavalry, that almost always meant something brave as well). Essentially it means “good job, keep doing what you’re doing!” I wish there was a way to get this message through to him.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I thank one of our valliant freedom fighters for raising this issue of Islam in politics of Bangladesh.
Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and a plethora of people of various beliefs live in this golden Bengal and all have contributed significantly in its War of Independence in 1971.
Thieves and immoral corrupt politicians and generals like Ershad have used Islam to woo mostly poor uneducated teeming millions to whip up support for fledgling military backed dictatorships. In the end these autocrats have been toppled through popular uprisings.
Currently, the defeated forces of 1971-the Jamaat-e-Islami are getting a free ride under the miltary backed fascist government. In the last decade or so The Jamaat-e-Islami has recieved enormous amounts of finacial asistance from Islamic countries including IDB to own banks, industries, pharmaceuticals, financial institutions and madrasahs to Islamize Bangladesh.
Consequently, we have seen the rise of militant Islam in Bangladesh which has gone advertently unoticed by US, Britain and donor agencies like WB/IMF who continue to poke their nose in internal matters and legitimize autocracy. Foreign diplomats and reps of donor agencies are calling the shots through their implants in the military-backed puppets which has started brewing simmering discontent among the public.
The consequence could be worse than Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan. Or is it part of a masterplan to destabilize Bangladesh for their geopolitical greed?
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I agree strongly with General CR Dutta, lot of minorities sacrificed immensely for the freedom of Bangladesh where as opportunist like Ershad didn’t shed a single ounce of blood for the country but rip benefits to the max, this apauling ploy by Earshad was nothing but a bitter slap to all the minority citizens of Bangladesh and appease the Islamist, the reinstatement of the 1972 constitution would make a great symbolic gesture towards the right path.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Khilji wrote:
“I will make a deal with you, give me a Bangladesh with 10% growth for the next 30 years…”
This is a false dichotomy. Pushing for a secular state is not contradictory to that goal. In fact if you make it a more tolerant nation (remember, secularism is not just for non-muslims, but something muslims can benefit from as well), you will see that to actually be complementary to HDI goals.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:48 pm
It is revealing how little press CR Dutta’s extraordinary statement got in the local press. And here it shows how completely beaten and cowed local press are.
How opposition will paint this:
1. “Islam in danger”
2. Crazy out of touch soldier
3. Hindu. oderb tho ek pa India the, bhalo na lagle okhane bhag
Now which newspaper has the guts to even print this news?
Apparently only bdnews24 and drishtipat do.
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Sad that it had to be a Hindu who asked for it.. thought the second and third reasons would be the ones used to discredit him, not the first.
So is this topic going to be slip by silently?
September 4th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Was there a deal made in 1971 that Bangladesh will run by secular constitution? Did all freedom fighters signed that deal?
If 75% people want Bangladesh to be declared an Islamic country, will it be undemocratic to declare it Islamic country?
What if someday 75% people say they want Islamic law? Why you will not honor what public want?
Why a few intellectuals and politicians will decide if it will be Islamic or secular? AL cannot decide whether it will be a secular country or Jamaat or JP orB NP to decide it will be Islamic. I believe all these parties are doing this for party politics, but not because they believe in it.
I do not understand what difference it made calling it Islamic country in constitution. I can see the big cities having more and more unislamic activities day by day. I can see media is almost becoming western. There is simply no Islamic values in any of the movie or TV serials. Personally I want it to be changed. But the right way is not to declare country Islamic, ban all these anti-islamic activities. Right path is to give “dawat” to people. IF you are successful, if people change, if majority changes, then I do not see a problem of changing the constitution and these anti-Islamic activities.
But remember declaring a country Islamic does not mean the 25% who did not support have no rights. They probably have same rights as we see now in a secular society.
These are my thoughts, pure and simple. Actually these are my belief. You always have the right to disagree. But tell me what is wrong in my thoughts.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:49 am
21 & 22 Eyshob_Dinratri: I hate to bring in 1947, but I always see things in historical perspective. If prior to partition our so called secular Congress leaders like Neheru, Patel and others listened to devoutly religious Gandhi, Badshah Khan, Abul Kalam Azad and gave Jinnah and other Muslim leaders proper role in Congress party so it would have Hindu-Muslim face, representing the Hindu and Muslim population, then Jinnah would not leave his Hindu-Muslim unity platform under Congress in disgust, go back to UK and later come back to join Muslim League, and we would not find ourselves in this mess.
Secularism is not the magic bullet that many think it to be. But in any case, it is not for me judge, as I said, let the public and their elected representatives decide.
What I meant by my comment is that a more important goal for Bangladesh is development and more toleration comes from economic uplift and education, not with indoctrination of one more foreign ideology.
Speaking of foreign ideology, I am much more comfortable with a Hindu or a Buddhist ideology, as they are native indigenous ideas. Despite all the rough edges that we see today in Hindu movements in India, Buddhist movements in Sri Lanka and of course Islamic movements in a global scale, these are wounded civilizations, as V.S. Naipaul calls them, they are trying to go back to their roots and existential anchor, making a lot of erratic movements in the process, trying to make up for lost time, in search of their past greatness, looking for a proper role in this mechanistic modern world - but I have hope that eventually all three will find their soul and regain their greatness, without help from imported ideas like secularism.
(Rest edited for relevance…)
September 4th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Re. Post 24, subjugation, persecution, oppression, murder, backbiting, backstabbing, neglect, adultery, rape, domestic violence and a whole host of other immoral and unIslamic activity goes on in villages too. These aren’t just big city problems. And they featured in real life before the wide and more diverse influence of the media permeated the country.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Despite #24’s cliched “false dichotomy” between the West and Islam, he does have a point with regards to the call for democracy and the call for secularism. Which makes me ask another really awkward question (which will probably get a lot of support from people who don’t usually agree with me): was the 1972 constitution ever put up for a referendum (a la Iraq 2005) or a national, broad-based discussion or anything? Why or why not?
September 6th, 2007 at 4:28 am
#24 Layek Ali has excellent points, that the GOVT added a majority-religious umbrella in const to provide a moral guideline to people, not to use it as a threat against minorities.
In a recovering nation BTW, it is probably best to keep religion as LOW PROFILE as possible - to focus more on development than on division.
But my puzzle was why did Gen.Dutta wait 15 years to make that demand, why not during the “democracy” years 1991-2006?
WHY NOW? Did Gen, Dutta feel that this govt can get things DONE, more than previous govts?
But this certainly is not an issue for an interin govt CTG, its more a parliamentarian debate for future democs.
September 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
AsifY, the 1972 constitution was not put to any referendum or any broad-based national discussion at all.
How democracy, the one thing that everyone supporting the Liberation War agreed on, would be practised was not clear. We were to have a westminster style government, but what kind of powers would the president have? How would the judiciary be made independent? Did the cabinet work under the Prime Minister, or was the Prime Minister merely the first among equals in the cabinet - the constitution didn’t say.
And yet, the constitution stipulated that the state would be based on nationalism, secularism and socialism - ideas as laudable as they might be, national consensus on them was questionable. In terms of the state’s core principles - the meaning of Bangali nationalism was not clear, leading to the CHT issue; secularism, as laudable a goal as it is, was not something Awami League openly subscribed to until the War (the draft constitution based on the 6-points formula Mujib presented to the Pak regime had provisions calling for a state founded on the Quran and Sunnah); and socialism was added very much as a result of Cold War politics.
Abul Mansur Ahmed said in his memoir that the lack of clarity on how democracy would work, and the inclusion of ideas that if democracy could work would find their place in politics eventually, would lead to serious trouble. One sees that prediction coming true in many debates we seem to never be able to end.