Bangladesh's secular nationalism asserts itself

From 1947 to 1971, Pakistan had two wings, East Pakistan and West Pakistan, separated by Indian peninsula. While West Pakistan (the present Pakistan) was multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic, East Pakistan was ethnically and linguistically homogeneous. Almost all of the people living in East Pakistan were ethnically Bengalis, speaking Bengali language. East Pakistan separated from West Pakistan in 1971 and became Bangladesh after a bloody civil war and an Indian invasion. This separation was based on a rejection of Pakistani religious nationalism and adoption of an ethnolinguistic nationalism, based on the love of Bengali language and Bengali ethnicity. Most Bengalis of the erstwhile East Pakistan felt that Pakistani religious nationalism was a hoax that claimed West Pakistanis and East Pakistanis were not only equal but Muslim brothers/sisters but refused to give Bengalis equal status and their due share in power. Religious parties' near unanimous opposition to Bangladesh's independence movement and the support they provided to Pakistan army during the civil war increased Bangladeshi misgivings to religion's role in politics. Hence, Bangladesh, unlike (pre-1971 or post-1971) Pakistan, chose to be a secular republic. 

The first constitution of Bangladesh proclaimed secularism as one of the four basic principles of the new republic (other three being Bangladeshi nationalism, socialism, and democracy). The new republic also avoided putting a crescent and a star on its flag, revealing the minor role Islam played in Bengali nationalism. Even the green color on the flag is not linked to Islam (as it is in many Muslim-majority nations' flags, like Pakistani, Moroccan, Saudi Arabian flags etc.). Green color symbolizes the lush green land of Bangladesh. Furthermore, Bangladesh's national anthem,  Amar Sonar Bangla (My Golden Bengal). is also a tribute to Bengal and has anti-religion connotations. It was written by Rabindranath Tagore in 1905 against Partition of Bengal on religious lines in 1905. Add to it many speeches/statements of Bangladesh's founder Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman and it is beyond doubt that Bangladesh's nationalism was ethnolinguistic and secular.

Despite all the above-mentioned evidence of secular nationalism, Bangladesh quickly reversed its course and dropped secularism. In 1977, fifth constitutional amendment introduced by military ruler Zia-ur-Rehman removed secularism as one of the basic principles and replaced it with the following words "Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions". In 1988, another military ruler Hussain Muhammad Ershad made Islam the state religion of Bangladesh. For the next fifteen year, religious parties role and overall religious discourse increased and it appeared Bangladesh is still part of Pakistan, with military and religious parties controlling politics and manipulating religious discourse. Awami League, the founding party of Bangladesh, despite its strong attachment to the principle of secularism, also had to accept the reality of the situation as any support for secularism was portrayed as pro-Indian and anti-Islam by its rival, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).  

While secularism seemed defeated and religious nationalism on the rise, there was one problem; religious nationalism had difficulty legitimizing Bangladesh's separation from Pakistan. It was only on the basis of ethnolinguistic nationalism that a separate country Bangladesh can be explained to the new generation. New generations were thus socialized in a much different environment (more secular) than those ruling elite that grew up in Pakistan.   

Things began to change with the arrival of the twenty-first century. It appears a new generation socialized in the secular nationalism of Bangladesh came of age and started occupying positions of power. Their sentiments were cashed by Awami League, the party of the Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman, now led by his daughter, Sheikh Hasina Wajid. Courts, media, and intellectuals also helped and promoted the secularism/restoration of 1972 constitution movement. In 2005, the high court declared fifth constitutional amendment illegal and secularism was reintroduced as one of the basic principles of the republic. Sheikh Hasina then decided to take on religious parties. She established tribunals to punish those who were involved in crimes against Bangladeshis during the war of liberation. It was a politically astute move as it not only mobilized her own voters and many others but also damaged Jamaat-e-Islami (a religious party whose leadership supported Pakistan Army in 1971 and now usually supported her rival BNP). Although, there was an outcry against the partiality of these tribunals, a large majority of Bangladeshis supported these trials and punishments awarded by these tribunals. The trails revived the dubious role played by many religious leaders, implicating political Islam and increasing the support for secularism.

Although, Islam is still the state religion (so 1972 constitution is not fully restored), secularism is definitely on the march and religious nationalism in retreat. A recent evidence of this came when pro-religion rightist BNP also came out against the political role of religion. Tarique Rehman, the current senior vice chairman and the future leader of BNP, said (See Tarique against Religion-based Politics):

We’ve learned from experience that politics of that kind doesn’t work, it didn’t during Pakistan era... There are many among us who have tried to create political essence and outline based on religion. But invariably they have failed.

Is religious nationalism a necessary condition for state Islamization?

Defining Islam’s role in state affairs is an issue that has bedeviled most Muslim majority countries (MMCs) since their independence from colonial rule. Debates about how Islam/sharia relate to constitutional provisions, policies and penal laws polarize the populace in thee countries and national consensus on this issue is a rarity. Sometimes it appears that a consensus has emerged about state Islamization in an MMC and the country has moved on to more mundane and less polarizing issues. However, soon events bring the issue back to the fore. As more MMCs democratize, new parties and social classes assume power and take a fresh look at their country’s problems. Public debates become more open in these fragile democracies and new constitutions, laws and policies are approved. Islamic precepts are part of these debates, implicitly or explicitly, because Islam is a powerful social force in these societies. Governments cannot ignore it even if they want to.

Yet, despite the similarity of circumstances in many MMCs, the success of state Islamization is varied. In some countries, it has succeeded to transform the state but in others, it’s conspicuous because of its absence. Some analysts have argued that this variance is due to differences in the popularity of Islamic movements/parties in the MMCs. They contend that popular Islamic parties cause state Islamization directly by implementing it after coming to power or indirectly by pressurizing those in power. Others have countered these arguments by pointing out that most of the successful state Islamization projects have been completed under autocratic regimes. They argue that authoritarian regimes use state Islamization to acquire legitimacy.

Source: The Islamization of Pakistan

Both these propositions have weak support. Recent news coming from the Middle East also does not support the argument that Islamic parties’ victories necessarily lead to state Islamization as Islamic parties have largely failed to Islamize the state even after winning elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey. Similarly, linking autocracy with state Islamization is difficult as most autocratic regimes in the MMCs have brutally suppressed Islamists and rejected state Islamization. So, what are the causes of state Islamization? Why, in some MMCs, Islam plays a large role in state affairs, while in others it has almost no influence on state laws and policies? 

It can be argued that it is Islam’s role in the nationalism of an MMC that influences the extent of state Islamization in that country. Scholars have pointed out that the relationship of religion with nationalism and religion’s role in the state may be closely linked. Successful state Islamization by authoritarian regimes or by Islamist parties may be possible only in MMCs where nationalism and Islam are intertwined. Even in non-Muslim countries, religion plays a much larger role in the public sphere and in the governmental affairs of countries where national identity is linked with a particular religion than in countries where nationalism is based on ethnolinguistic ties or has a civic character. Religious leaders in countries like Israel, Malta and Ireland have regularly influenced political issues and legitimized this intervention on the basis of their religion’s special relationship with the state.