Bangladesh, a nation founded on the values of secularism, democracy, and social equality, is witnessing significant political and social shifts following a change in government. The current administration, led by Mohammad Yunus, has faced criticism for moves perceived as increasingly anti-secular, particularly concerning the proposed revisions to the nation’s Constitution. Recently, the Attorney General of Bangladesh, Md. Asaduzzaman, argued for the removal of the term “secular” from the Constitution, suggesting that the country’s 90% Muslim demographic should be acknowledged through a more Islamic-oriented state identity. This proposal has raised concerns among minority groups and international observers who fear that Bangladesh’s secular foundation may be eroding.
Background: Bangladesh’s Secular Roots
When Bangladesh gained independence in 1971, the Constitution was built on principles that would promote an inclusive, diverse society. The Preamble emphasized nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism. In later years, amendments introduced by different governments, particularly under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership, strengthened these ideals. However, with Hasina’s departure from office, a new political agenda has emerged, aimed at altering some of these fundamental elements.
The 15th Amendment, passed in 2011, was particularly significant. It entrenched secularism as a core value, reinforced Bangladesh’s secular identity, and declared Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Hasina’s father, as the “Father of the Nation.” This Amendment also abolished the concept of a caretaker government, creating a system that would allow the ruling government to oversee elections.
Attorney General’s Proposal for Constitutional Changes
Attorney General Md. Asaduzzaman recently advocated for removing “secularism” from the Constitution, citing that as a predominantly Muslim country, Bangladesh’s identity should reflect the values of the majority. Asaduzzaman raised this point during a court hearing on the constitutionality of the 15th Amendment, proposing that sections that establish secularism be reviewed or removed. He also questioned the designation of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the “Father of the Nation” and the framing of other elements within the Constitution that could be interpreted as politically motivated.
The Attorney General argued that these changes are democratic and consistent with respecting the majority demographic. However, opponents argue that these moves could alienate non-Muslim communities, primarily Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, who represent approximately 10% of the population.
Concerns of the Hindu Minority
Hindus, who constitute around 8-9% of Bangladesh’s population, are increasingly concerned about the implications of the proposed amendments. Reports of violence and intimidation against the Hindu community have spiked since the new government took power. Religious tensions have risen, with incidents of temple desecration and threats to Hindu community leaders becoming more frequent. Activists argue that removing secularism from the Constitution could embolden religious hardliners and pave the way for a more Islamic state that might curtail the rights and safety of minorities.
Potential Shift Toward an Islamic State
Asaduzzaman’s statements have intensified fears that Bangladesh may be moving toward adopting an Islamic state framework. Critics argue that this shift could bring about substantial changes in legal and social policies, potentially limiting religious freedoms, restricting political opposition, and increasing the marginalization of non-Muslim communities. While the Constitution of Bangladesh currently does not declare Bangladesh an Islamic state, the removal of secularism from the Constitution may signal a step in that direction.
Public Reaction and Opposition
The proposed constitutional changes have sparked protests among secular groups, human rights organizations, and political opponents. Secular activists argue that the principles of democracy and secularism should not be sacrificed to reflect religious homogeneity. Former members of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League have also voiced concerns, viewing the proposed changes as an attack on the nation’s secular identity.
International observers have raised concerns over human rights implications and the potential risks to regional stability. India, which shares a deep historical and cultural connection with Bangladesh, has expressed particular interest in these developments, especially given concerns over the safety of the Hindu minority and potential spillover effects if religious extremism escalates in Bangladesh.
Legal and Political Path Forward
Asaduzzaman’s statements have reignited debates around the legitimacy and effectiveness of the 15th Amendment. Many legal experts believe that reversing or significantly modifying it would require not only a strong parliamentary majority but also broader public support, which may be difficult given the diverse views within Bangladesh. Some advocate for a referendum, which would give the public an opportunity to voice their opinion on such a significant constitutional change.
The proposed removal of secularism from Bangladesh’s Constitution has placed the country at a crossroads, where its identity and commitment to religious tolerance and pluralism are in question. While the government argues that the changes reflect the demographic majority, critics warn that these shifts could jeopardize the rights of minority communities and diminish Bangladesh’s long-standing reputation as a secular democracy. As discussions continue, the direction that Bangladesh ultimately takes will have profound implications, not only for its citizens but for the South Asian region as a whole.