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.

Estimating/Measuring Religious Nationalism

Measuring the religious content of a country's nationalism is difficult. Nationalist struggles bring together a broad spectrum of ideas and groups. However, there is usually some specific culture, religion, language, ethnicity (or aspects thereof) that are prioritized, highlighted and repeatedly mentioned to inscribe them to the nation’s memory. Even primordialists, those who believe in immemorial, unchanging nations, now agree that nationalists have to choose from tens, if not hundreds, of different folk tales, martyrs and myths to help the ‘rebirth’ of the nation.

It is difficult to quantify the role of religion in a country’s nationalism but effort can be made to at least come up with criteria on the basis of which a reasonably fair assessment can be made and countries can be compared. Three criteria can be selected to assess religion’s role in nationalism of a country: founding fathers statements/actions during and after nationalist struggle; national mottos, crests, emblems, anthems, flags; and public pronouncements of leaders on national holidays. The more religion figures in these three criteria, more is its role in nationalism.

Founding Fathers' statements/actions

Period of independence is important in studying nationalism as it is the period when leaders decide, devise and employ the nationalistic myths, martyrs, narratives and slogans to arouse and mobilize people. After the independence is won, this is the period which people look back on to decide who they are.

Aviad Rubin in his article (The status of religion in emergent political regimes: lessons from Turkey and Israel, 2013) argues that the period of new regime formation is very important, ‘The conditions in place at the moment of regime formation are of crucial importance to the future status of religion in the state…Following the establishment of the new regime, the emerging political elite is likely to implement the fundamentals of its political agenda... After being solidified in institutional and constitutional arrangements, the initial structure can remain resilient for many years despite significant social and political changes.’

Mottos, crests, anthems and flags

Symbols are very important to nationalism. They define nations and make them visible. As Michael Walzer in his article (The Facsimile Fallacy, 1967) contends flags, anthems and other national symbols are required because nations had to be personified and seen before they are loved. Gabriella Elgenius in her book Symbols of Nation and Nationalism: Celebrating Nationhood (2011) argues that national symbols ‘repeatedly illuminate boundaries and raise awareness of membership’, hence they are crucial to nationalism. Geisler in his book National Symbols, Fractured Identities: Contesting the National Narrative (2005) explains why these symbols are significant part of nationalism and nation-building effort.

‘Yet national symbols perform an important function not only as catalysts for the formation and maintenance of national identity. They take on a particularly crucial importance in fusing a nation to a state. For especially in those cases where the territorial boundaries of the state do not correspond to the geographic outlines of the ancestral “homeland” claimed by a nation, or where a state is created without the ideological support structure of a nation, national symbols are charged with the difficult task of creating a nation’. 

Flags, anthems and mottos are symbols that are recognized as related to a nation’s identity both inside the nation and internationally. Flags and anthems stir emotions across nations as they are considered embodiment of nation’s history and pride. Therefore, for understanding religion’s role in the nationalism of a country flags, crests, anthems and mottos can be analyzed for their religious content. Following symbols can be particularly useful:

1.      Official country motto, crest/emblem, anthem

2.      Mottos of the three/four armed forces, anthems

3.      Mottos of the states/provinces

National Days

Similarly, national days are important national symbols. If flags and anthems are visual and auditory symbols of a nation, national days are temporal symbols of nationalism. The selection of national day inform us how a nation sees itself and what is important to a nation. Beside the basis of selection of national days, what is said and done on a national day also shows the kind of nationalism (ethnic, religious, civic etc.) a nation believes in.  Therefore, to ascertain religion’s role in a country’s nationalism, not only the selection of the national day has to be analyzed but also the speeches of the head of government/state on that day. Number of references to religion/religion-related symbols in the public pronouncements by the President and Prime Minister (or head of state/government) on the most important national holidays would inform whether the nationalism is religious or not.