Challenges of blending Islam with secular democracy in Bangladesh

From:
Political modernity is believed to have begun with the separation of religion from the State. Bangladesh is not the only country where the concept of the secular State and politics has faced serious challenges in recent years. The rise of Hindu nationalism in India continues to be a threat in Indian politics.

Tuesday’s ruling by the Bangladesh supreme court, restoring “secularism” to the country’s constitution and paving the way for a ban on religion-based political parties, is, therefore, of historic significance both for the country and the subcontinent. There are other important aspects of the ruling, especially the one that makes army takeovers “unconstitutional”.

But, more than anything else, it is the return of “secularism” to the country’s constitution that is the high point of the judgment. It reflects the new nation’s struggle to blend Islam with secular democracy and nationalism. The country has a mixed record in achieving this, but the successes seem to outweigh the failures.

However, the legal battle over the fifth amendment shows deep divisions within the political class in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party is clearly upset with the ruling, especially because it makes its founder, Ziaur Rahman, look like a tinpot dictator.

The BNP’s ally, the Jamaat-e-Islami, has even more reasons to be unhappy. As the biggest religion-based party, it may face a ban if the ruling is written into the constitution. But the issues that the ruling raises are not political; they are central to the nation-building process in Bangladesh. Repeated army takeovers and martial laws once threatened to make the country a banana republic. In recent years, the rise of religious fundamentalism made the world worry about Bangladesh.

The court ruling brings an assurance of a change that Bangladesh desperately needed. But only a vigilant public can defend the rights that the constitution gives it.

The moment for grand visions and grander actions for Bangladesh and India

Mahfuz Anam, editor, daily Star, writes this op-ed in the Times of India.

The history of mutual suspicion, petty bickering on trade negotiations, cavalier attitudes on border killings, dangerous gamesmanship with arms smuggling, etc, of the last three decades of Bangladesh-India relations would not normally justify the agreements that Sheikh Hasina penned sometime ago in Delhi. Only vision would.

A vision of a South Asia doing what ASEAN did several decades ago, of trusting neighbours rather than of subverting them, of fighting poverty and not using it to justify other failures, of a thriving marketplace of goods and services rather than of counting items in the negative list. In the latest agreement, Bangladesh has moved towards such a vision. Has India responded? For us, the jury is still out.

Take the two biggest concerns of the two sides: for India they are security and connectivity with the north-east; for Bangladesh water sharing and trade imbalance. There is a feeling that the clarity and precision with which Bangladesh responded to its neighbour's concerns were not reciprocated in equal measure by India.

On Indian security concerns, Bangladesh's commitment was unequivocal: it will not permit the use of Bangladeshi soil for activities inimical to any other country, basically meaning India. It was in dramatic contrast to the past when India's worries about terrorist links and arms transit fell on deaf ears. India desperately needed friendly borders in the east that Bangladesh has now assured and is following up by decisive deeds. Sheikh Hasina has launched the most determined and widespread actions against internal militants and extremists and is systematically dismantling the terrorist infrastructure.

The permission for the use of the Chittagong and Mongla ports for shipment of Indian goods to the north-east is a very important step forward. With Bangladesh's present position on Asian highway and railway routes, the regional and sub-regional connectivity scenario is set to undergo a fundamental change. On Bangladesh's priorities water sharing and trade imbalance there is no dramatic progress.

On Teesta water sharing, the positive development is that the ministerial level joint river commission meeting will be held within March, 2010. But it still leaves us with an uncomfortable ambiguity about the outcome. On the Tipaimukh dam issue, sadly, there was nothing new. The Indian prime minister reiterated his government's earlier stand that India will do nothing that will harm Bangladesh's interest. Such broad and generalised expression of good intention is definitely welcome.

However clearer wording that further activity on Tipaimukh would only be undertaken after consultation with Bangladesh would have helped assuage remaining worries. On enhancement of economic and trade relations, especially giving Bangladeshi exports (which are meager to start with) zero tariff access, the issue remained mired in the politics of an ever narrowing negative list which will now come down by 47 from 260 items, which earlier was higher still.

The absurdity is that India earns a meagre $10 to $15 million in taxes from exports from Bangladesh of around $300 million. That is what it would have cost India to give Bangladesh zero tariff. The promise of rebuilding of our railways, roads, bridges including the two ports, is welcome. The $1 billion credit line will serve to stimulate early action. However, all these are ancillary to both the functionality and efficiency of connectivity, which is a euphemism for 'transit'.

The offer of 250 MW of electricity is of extreme relevance and among the most significant gains Bangladesh stands to make. Another hopeful sign is the agreement to amicably demarcate our maritime boundary.

Predictably, the Bangladeshi opposition, led by Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party and supported by Jamaat-e-Islami, have called the agreements a total surrender of Bangladesh's interest to India. They have called for opposition unity and are clearly marking time for an appropriate moment to strike against Sheikh Hasina's government. Manmohan Singh's government must guard against the agreement getting entrapped in a bureaucratic maze, implementing its provisions soon.

As a first step, India should formally assure that, as an upper riparian state, it will always consider Bangladesh's interest and display maximum openness and transparency on water sharing. Killings on the border must immediately stop and the promised 24-hour access to Tin Bigha implemented.

On maritime boundary, it should go for a liberal interpretation and allow Bangladesh access to all available hydrocarbon and fish resources. Zero tariff access must be granted to all Bangladeshi exports. This must be followed by elimination of all inter-state taxes and non-tariff barriers. We must institutionalise annual summit and informal meetings in-between, for a few hours on one-day trips, as EU heads of governments have done.

Such a step will do wonders for our relations. The moment is opportune for India and Bangladesh to lay the foundation of a durable, mutually beneficial relationship that will transform the region's strategic and security scene.

Now is the moment for grand visions and grander actions.

If Bangladesh was guilty of being shackled to the mindset of the past, let India not be accused of having failed to think outside the box when opportunity beckoned.

Power shift in Bangladesh's politics

Received via e-mail:

FROM THE ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT

There has been a distinct shift in Bangladeshi politics in the year since the Awami League (AL) won the last parliamentary election. The ruling party appears to have worked overtime in its bid to weaken the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and marginalise its Islamist allies. The AL has also taken the bold step of seeking to mend relations with neighbouring India. These moves appear to be succeeding so far, but a backlash cannot be ruled out.

Many analysts believe that the AL has used its first year in office to neutralise the BNP, a local Islamist party, Jamaat-e-Islami, and other pro-Pakistani forces. Proponents of this view believe that the government has the full support of the security forces and thus would remain in control in the event of street protests, terror attacks or a major crisis. However, others fear that such a strategy could have dire consequences.

They believe that the AL is seriously underestimating the risks of alienating the opposition parties, who still managed to garner over 40% of the votes cast in the December 2008 parliamentary election. They fear that that the apparent attempt by the AL to marginalise Islamist groups will make the government a prime target for possible terrorist attacks.
Several of the issues that the government has put at the top of its agenda are extremely controversial.

First, the government's decision to pursue better relations with India is a marked departure from the stance of previous administrations. The initiative is likely to prove problematic, given Bangladesh's strong tradition of anti-Indian sentiment.

Second, the government plans to prosecute alleged war criminals. In practice, this means that leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh's fourth-largest political party, could stand trial for allegedly committing atrocities during the war of secession from what was then known as West Pakistan in 1971.

Third, the government has expressed a desire to revert to the core values espoused in the 1972 constitution, one of which is the prohibition of religion-based political parties.

Fourth, it has expedited criminal investigations into a grenade attack on an AL rally, which took place in August 2004, left 23 AL leaders dead and injured over 300 people. The AL believes that the perpetrators of the attack wanted to kill the party's leader, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, who is now prime minister.

Of the plans outlined thus far, the government's support for a ban on all religion-based political parties could pose the most serious threat to political stability, as such a move would marginalise these parties and their supporters, who might choose to join more extreme groups. Religion-based parties have operated freely in Bangladesh since an amendment to the constitution in 1979.

However, on January 3rd 2010 the Supreme Court lifted the suspension of a four-year-old High Court verdict that had declared illegal and unconstitutional the fifth amendment to the constitution. The amendment legitimised all successive governments after the assassination of President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from 1975 until April 1979, and it was in this period that the ban on religion-based parties was lifted.

The government has said that the latest decision will force Islamist parties to drop Islam from their names. However, the latest ruling from the Supreme Court does not affect constitutional amendments that made Islam the country's official religion in 1988 and incorporated a Koranic verse into the preamble of the constitution.

At present, a dozen political parties refer to Islam, including Jamaat-e-Islami, an important ally of the BNP. Bangladesh's Islamist parties have already threatened to launch a movement if the government proceeds with its plans. The issue is at the heart of the AL strategy to reinstate the country's first constitution, which has four fundamental principles: nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism.

Befriending India
Perhaps the most visible political change since early 2009 has been the start of a process to strengthen relations with India. This has been made possible by the fact that the ruling Congress party in India, which has long-standing ties to the AL, firmly backs the government led by Sheikh Hasina. At the same time, the government appears committed to addressing one of India's main concerns: that Bangladesh harbours terrorists wanting to launch attacks against India on Indian soil.

The AL has started to tackle this problem to improve bilateral relations. In December 2009 Bangladeshi security forces arrested and handed over to the India authorities Arabinda Rajkhowa, the chairman of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), a militant group fighting for an independent homeland for ethnic Assamese in India's north-eastern state of Assam.

For India, the arrest is a big step towards defeating the ULFA, which it has long accused of waging a proxy war in its north-eastern states on behalf of the intelligence services of Pakistan and Bangladesh. India hopes that Bangladesh will hand over other insurgents, as well as suspected members of a group based in Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Toiba, which it believes is responsible for the terrorist attack on Mumbai in November 2008.

On January 11th 2010 Sheikh Hasina made a state visit to India. Officials on both sides welcomed a number of agreements made during the visit that aim to strengthen economic and security ties. Economic statistics belie the two countries' shared history and geography. Bangladesh's biggest trading partner is China, and India is not even in the top ten foreign investors in Bangladesh.

The biggest difficulty for the AL may be to explain its new policy of engaging with India to Bangladeshi voters who have a strong tradition of anti-Indian sentiment. The government's new friendship with India has already become a big political issue in Bangladesh, with the BNP accusing the government of "selling out" to India.

Bangladesh's Big Brothers

From:

As regional and international relations take on a fresh perspective in the global scenario, where does Bangladesh stand?

In the present day matrix of global interactions, interdependence is the name of the game. All too often, though, the “inter” part of interdependence is obfuscated and the “dependence” part comes to the forefront. This is a cause of concern for the people of developing nations who find themselves caught up in the whirlpool of international political networking, and Bangladesh is no exception.

Make or break
Bangladesh is perched at a critical juncture of its existence, where fitting into the global jigsaw is as important as its hold on ‘sovereignty’. Given its strategic location on the Bay of Bengal and its proximity to both India and China, along with significant presence of mineral resources both on and off shore, Bangladesh is certainly not just an overpopulated poverty-ridden third world country. In recent years it has shown potential for palpable socio-economic growth, despite political ups and downs and natural calamities, and today it stands on the threshold of change. It’s “make or break” time, say analysts.

At this crucial point in time, it is the Awami League government which holds the reins of the nation. Riding the power on “winds of change”, it has raised people’s expectations high. However, the expectations are tinged with a degree of apprehension when it comes to international relation, regional relations in particular, as the Awami League government and its leader Sheikh Hasina, are yet to rid themselves of the pro-Indian label. Whether founded or unfounded, this stigma is there. Even if other governments have been accommodating to India’s demands, somehow it is Awami League which always bears the brunt at home if the neighbour’s overtures are too strong for comfort. And Sheikh Hasina’s recent Indian trip, along with the deals signed during the visit, has given more grist to the mill; speculations run amok.

US-India nexus
Pundits of South Asian affairs in recent times have been watching with interest the strengthening nexus between India and the United States of America. This alliance, holy or unholy as it may be perceived, is a reality stretching from Afghanistan down to Myanmar and beyond. Bangladesh finds itself caught up in this plexus of interests and experts call for a honing of negotiating skills to ensure national interests are not sacrificed at the expense of others. “It’s a matter of give and take, and we must make sure we take as much as we give, or at least get the best deal on the table,” says a regional expert, discussing the present predicament of the country.

Now that US-India ties are cemented in no uncertain terms, the relationship equations in Bangladesh have taken a new turn. While leftist leaders have long cried themselves hoarse against “US imperialism”, they may find themselves faced with a confusing conundrum to contend with. Rather any overt presence as feared by many (in the shape of US marines swarming all over the place à la old Hollywood movies), the US is likely to use its regional ally India to do its job here.

India, over the past years, has grown in stature and clout and all indications are that the US is very much behind strengthening India as a regional power. If India has the ability to emerge as economic and strategic super power in the region, and it is proving so, it has full blessings and backing of the US. After all, India has all the features which the US values – democracy, economic strength and more. In fact, among the emerging powers of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), India enjoys a strong reputation for democracy.

Analysts contend that the US is giving India leeway regarding Bangladesh. Whether it is its business interests or otherwise, it finds it more expedient to utilize India’s services in this regard. After all, India and Bangladesh share a multitude of commonalities in culture, methods of business and transactions, etc. It is not as if the US is giving up its interests in Bangladesh, say analysts, it has long being eying the gas, oil, coal and other mineral resources of the country, as well as the deep sea port and more. It is likely to work to this end through consortiums with India and thus ensure its interests in Bangladesh.

The US also wants to see a consolidation of Bangladesh’s image as a moderate Muslim country. It has always portrayed Bangladesh in this light. This is perhaps a departure from the Indian propensity to identify Bangladesh as a haven for “Islamist militants” or “terrorists”. But the US realizes that the sheer homogenous nature of Bangladesh’s demographic composition is unique – to a greater extent it enjoys one language, one religion and one culture.

Confirming US interests in Bangladesh, there are reports that US President Barack Obama is likely to visit Bangladesh at the end of this year or early next. This will be on the last leg of his scheduled visit to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. He has reportedly met with seven Congressmen in the US concerning Bangladesh. Three points are supposed to have been highlighted during this meeting – Bangladesh’s possible role as a moderate Muslim country; the relationship between the present government and Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammed Yunus; national unity and to what extend democracy is actually being practiced in the country. In the meantime, the Awami League government is lobbying hard to ensure Obama’s visit to Bangladesh. If he does actually come, all pending issues between the US and Bangladesh will be finalized prior to the visit.

Inscrutable China
In the meantime, China may be maintaining its characteristic inscrutable silence, but it has its eyes wide open where regional developments are concerned. If there had traditionally been more than a degree of coldness and tensions between China and the US, things have relaxed to a great extent. Trade relations have stepped up and the vibes between the two powers are more positive than they have ever been in the past. However, it is not the same story where India and China are concerned. Tensions prevail and relations are strained. The borders between the two are more often than not on alert.

It is the animosity between India and China that had made India all the more determined to strengthen its position in Bangladesh, whether through transit, use of the port, trade facilities or more. The US, on the other hand, would rather maintain its cordial bilateral ties with China. If interests conflict, says analysts, there is always India to do the needy. “With India and the US,” elaborates the analyst, “It’s a sort of ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ kind of deal.”

However, the equations may not be all that simple. India and the US may have conflicting agendas in certain areas where Bangladesh is concerned. India’s actions concerning its insurgency-ridden northeastern states added to its present understanding with the Bangladesh government, may well result in a backlash in Bangladesh. The situation in Bangladesh could grow volatile and India has always propagated the idea of Islamist terrorism in Bangladesh. The US, on the other hand, is not against the Islamic forces in Bangladesh, be they Jamaat-e-Islami or other Islamic groups which represent the nation’s moderate stand. They be want to see a Muslim majority sans the stigma of terrorism.

Observers of the region feel that China is none too pleased with recent developments between Bangladesh and India. It is not happy with the position India is assuming in the region either. If its interests are threatened or hurt, China is not one to sit back and lick its wounds. Its power should not be underestimated. It is a dark horse, but has proven to the world that it is a force to contend with. And if India flexes its muscle in that direction, say analysts, China will show India exactly how powerful it is. The US, in the meantime, will be friends to all and reap the benefits.

Hasina’s government is also aware that proximity with India may rub China up the wrong way. This is not something that Bangladesh can afford. To appease the Chinese, Bangladesh is reportedly already planning all sorts of trade and business deals with China. Perhaps the construction of the deep sea port may also go to China. Other big infrastructural contracts with China are also in the pipeline.

The Myanmar factor
Another interesting development in the region was the recent tensions between Bangladesh and Myanmar. The maritime boundary issue had loomed large on the scene as casus belli, the cause of possible war being Myanmar’s claim on nautical territory which Bangladesh considers its own. India has similar claims on the waters in the bay, territory rich in mineral resources. But as Indian influence grew in Myanmar and even the US took a softer stance regarding the Myanmar military junta, the border tensions defused. Some regional experts feel that India had stepped up pressure on Bangladesh, even through Myanmar, but released the pressure as it was getting what it wanted. Others see US intervention, as it has its eyes riveted on the oil and gas blocks in the bay and Bangladesh is its best bet.

Discontent
Meanwhile, within Bangladesh itself, discontent brews. Nationalist forces are going blue in the face crying foul over the deals with India. Their slogans about Bangladesh being sold out may sound like a broken record of clichés, but when the business community begins to protest, it is time to take notice.

The trade deals and business agreements between India and Bangladesh have not made the business community happy this side of the border. There is a distinct sense of apprehension that the domestic market is going straight to the hands of Indian businessmen and industrialists. As it is, Bangladesh’s poultry sector has been hit hard. If other sectors follow suit, the discontent may be manifest in more vocal and violent terms.

Dilemma over democracy
Despite degrees of dissatisfaction here and there, all seems to be going hunky dory particularly where the US-India collaboration is concerned. And the present government in Bangladesh, already in India’s good books to all apparent appearances, seems also to be winning kudos from the American side too.

However, the US has one particular concern and that is the matter of democracy. Whether through war or peace, the US has always prided itself as the champion of democracy. So when it comes to Bangladesh, it will be vigilant in its watch on democratic practice in the country.

But just how is democracy faring in Bangladesh? Antagonism continues to brew between the ruling party and major opposition BNP. BNP remains away from the parliament and the government is hardly offering them an olive branch. In the meantime, government quarters talk of a ban on religion-based politics, meaning a blow to Jamaat-e-Islami. A prohibition on Jamaat may well lead to an aggressive outburst. It won’t take much for its younger activists to turn from moderation to militancy.

The US will not condone any such detraction from democracy. It has always maintained that if democracy is to survive, a robust opposition must be allowed to flourish. But will the Awami League government allow a forceful opposition to grow? And how will India view a consolidated nationalist opposition waiting in the wings for the next election? Analysts say that they would want to see the present government at the helm for another term at least, to ensure a continuity of their agenda implementation. But what about the US determination for democracy?

Despite the intentions and the agenda, there is no foolproof guarantee that all will go according to plan. After all, “the best laid schemes of mice and men” are often known to backfire.

Bangladesh's secularism under Islam remaining as state religion

From:

Secularism was one of the four pillars on which the independent Bangladesh was founded after its liberation from Pakistan in 1971. But this pillar crumbled after the murder of the founder president of Bangladesh, Shaikh Mujibur Rahman on August 15, 1975.

When Zia-ur-Rahman became president, he introduced the Fifth Amendment in the constitution of Bangladesh. This amendment legitimised all governments that had been in power following the coup of August 15, 1975, until April 9, 1979, including the late President Zia-ur-Rehman’s ascension to the presidency. It also legitimised “Bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Rahim” in the preamble of the country’s Constitution, and ratified over a hundred military proclamations and orders. Subsequently, when General Ershad became president he brought in Eighth Amendment to the constitution and declared Islam as state religion.

The result of these amendments was change in the nature of polity of Bangladesh. It led to formation of parties in the name of Islam. It helped top leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami who were seen as war criminals in Bangladesh to return from Pakistan. All this led to massive rise in extremism in Bangladesh.

The growing Islamisation of polity in Bangladesh made Awami League suffer greatly during the rule of four-party alliance. There were several attempts on the life of party Chief Shaikh Hasina. In fact, in one such attack on 21 August 2004, Shaikh Hasina barely survived, but lost her 23 party members including Ivy Rahman. Another top party leader Shah AMS Kibria was also murdered by the Islamist forces in a grenade attack at a rally in Habiganj on January 27, 2005. The attacks on Awami League leaders continued during the whole tenure of four-party alliance.

This sinister development in Bangladesh made very difficult for other political forces to survive. It also forced Awami League to chart a different course, and on eve of December 2008 election, party clearly decided to shun Islamist forces.

The landslide victory of Awami League in Bangladesh elections created hope of revival of the 1972 constitution. But before the government could do anything the mutiny in para-military Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) happened. Once the government got control over the situation it started acting on promises it made during the electioneering.

During the electioneering Awami League had promised that it would act against the war criminals. It also promised to stop misuse of religion in politics. The party has now an opportunity to fulfill this promise after the Bangladesh Supreme Court on January 3, 2010 lifted a four-year stay on the “abuse of religion for political purposes.” The apex court of Bangladesh has also endorsed the August 29, 2005 judgment of a three-judge Bench led by Justice ABM Khairul Haque which declared the Fifth Amendment to the country’s Constitution as “void ab initio and illegal”. This is a significant development in a country where Islamists have been threatening to establish their sway.

At the same time, however, it is also important to note that the government has decided to keep the words “Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim” in the preamble to the constitution and declaration of Islam as state religion. According to the Bangladesh prime minister Shaikh Hasina these things have been kept as they reflect the beliefs of the people. She also told her alliance leaders that they must accept the reality. Shaikh Hasina however was of the view that the spirit of the constitution would be restored with the High Courts verdict.

This cautious return towards secularism in Bangladesh shows the political realism of the Awami League. The party now knows that in the last several decades Islamist tendencies has grown in a section of people in Bangladesh which is not going to go away overnight. Though the party sometime back had announced certain measures to deradicalise the population, this strategy has still not been implemented. The arch rivals of Awami League always allege that Islam would be in danger if Awami League comes to power.

Though there is no threat to Islam per-se in Bangladesh as ninety percent of its population is Muslim, still Awami League knows that turning the clock back is not going to be easy. Hence it has made cautious move to restore secularism while leaving Islam as state religion of Bangladesh.