Dropping Bismillah from the Constitution's preamble
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Muslims everywhere, generally, are in the habit of making a salutation of saying "Bismillahir-Rahmaanir-Rahim" (In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful) before they do anything. They say this to express their humility before God and seek His help. This is said when one starts taking a meal, before cutting ribbons to inaugurate an enterprise, before signing a marriage document and what not.
What is the wrong in it ? It is not a bigoted religious practice like burning a female in the stakes as they used to do in Europe in the past on suspicion that she was a witch. Or, if one looks at incidents closer to home where even in some remote places wives of deceased husbands are still knocked unconscious and strapped to funeral pyres of their husbands and the canard spread later that they chose self immolation willingly to express love for their husbands. The Islamic practice of remembering the name of the Almighty Creator and seeking His blessing for various positive activities by humans, is a sublime and decent practice that none can have any serious objection to on any ground.
The Bangladesh Constitution in 1972 did not have this salutation at the start of its preamble. General Ziaur Rahman inserted it before the preamble in 1975 through a proclamation. The proclamation was sought to be legitimized by adopting it as an addition to the Constitution by an Act of Parliament in 1979.
Notwithstanding the validity of the protests about the irregular manner of its introduction through a martial law proclamation, is there need for any great furore over it when it has remained at the head of the preamble of the highest governing principles of the country for over 35 years ? Why has it become so imperative after all these years to get rid of it ? If people of this preponderant Muslims dominated country are asked through any credible poll taking exercise whether they favour its removal, the answer is very likely to be an overwhelming "no" and certainly it would not be considered by the mass people as an important objective to be realised in their need hierarchy. So, why this is being attempted and for whose interests ?
The parliamentary special committee on constitutional amendment has recommended restoring the preamble of the 1972 constitution, meaning that "Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim" will be dropped from the section, according to the report of a national news agency "We have unanimously decided to restore the preamble of the 1972 constitution," Suranjit Sengupta, the committee's co-chairman, told reporters after the 7th meeting at parliament building on Wednesday.
It is notable that Bismillahir-Rahmaanir-Rahim was not forced into the Constitution by Ziaur Rahman by deleting some other worthwhile Constitutional principle and putting Bismillah in its place. So, the question of mutiliating or distorting the Constitution cannot arise in this case. The statement of Bismillahir-Rahmaanir-Rahim needs to be essentially perceived as a strict 'addition' to the Constitution only that should normally not offend anybody as it is in keeping with religious belief of the majority people in this country.
If the would be removers of the name of Almighty Allah from the Bangladesh Constitution should think that going back to its 1972 form (to be judged as a very progressive one) with its pronounced secularist character is the wave of the future, then they are very wrong. For looking at most of the Constitutions of different countries round the world, one finds proof after proof that they decided not to omit the name of God in the preambles to their Constitutions. Such references are not limited to traditional or Islamic countries but also the most advanced or front-rank countries of the world such as Canada and Germany. The reference to the Almighty is also found prominently in the preambles of major emerging countries such as Brazil and Argentina. For examples, the preamble to the Canadian Constitution states : " Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". The preamble to the German Constitution states : "Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, (...) the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law[ ." The preamble to the Constitution of Brazil says :" We, the representatives of the Brazilian people, ... promulgate, under the protection of God, this Constitution of the federative republic of Brazil ".
The word "God" does not appear directly in the Preamble to the federal U.S. Constitution. However, the word "God" appear in two places in most constitutions of the federating states of the USA. The first place is in the preamble to these state constitutions. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions of the USA.
Also likely to be abolished along with Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar Rahim is the pledging statement in Article 8(1) and 8(1A) or "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah" which was also added by President Ziaur Rahman. This article is considered to be inconsistent with the spirit of secularism that was enshrined as a supreme state principle in 1972. But one fails to see how belief in the Supreme Creator and keeping trust and faith in him clashes with the idea of secularism which should essentially mean freedom for all religious communities in a country to practice their distinct faith without restrictions and equal access to socio-economic opportunities by members of all faiths.
These secularist principles seem well entrenched and are being practiced ardently in Bangladesh. Practice of secularism really matters more than only stating it as a principle but doing nothing about it . When ruling qualities of successive governments in Bangladesh have remained secularist for all practical purposes, then why discriminate against the religiously majority population of the country and offend their due religious sentiments by deleting a harmless assertion in the Constitution that only affirms faith and trust in a Supreme Creator ?
Government has more than two-thirds majority in parliament and the same can be utilized to adopt major Constitutional amendments. But the practice in most real or major democracies is not to use such majorities uncaringly to amend national Constitutions in areas likely to be politically highly sensitive and not necessarily supported by most people. Two-thirds majority in parliament or more may reflect the support to a party or parties for a certain agenda of action. But there could be matters outside such agenda --like the above described ones-- for which people of a country may not have given a mandate to the government. If the government of such a country decides to overlook this factor and carry out Constitutional amendments in these undesirable areas using its brute majority in parliament, the same then would not be considered as democratic. Usually , in carrying out Constitutional amendments in such areas, truly mature democratic parties go to the people and ask for their opinion through a referendum. If the vote in the referendum goes against the amendment proposals, government in those mature democracies can be expected to withdraw them.
The scope is there in the Bangladesh Constitution also for submitting highly sensitive issues to a referendum for the people to decide. Government here will need to opt for this course if it is to be seen truly democratic and not authoritarian in its actions.
Besides, these Constitution amendment moves in their present form will very likely create great dissatisfaction throughout the country. The nation may be deeply divided on the issue or people may feel that such amendments discriminating against the religious faith of majority people are being rammed down their throats. In that case, both short and longer term political stability could be adversely affected.
What is the wrong in it ? It is not a bigoted religious practice like burning a female in the stakes as they used to do in Europe in the past on suspicion that she was a witch. Or, if one looks at incidents closer to home where even in some remote places wives of deceased husbands are still knocked unconscious and strapped to funeral pyres of their husbands and the canard spread later that they chose self immolation willingly to express love for their husbands. The Islamic practice of remembering the name of the Almighty Creator and seeking His blessing for various positive activities by humans, is a sublime and decent practice that none can have any serious objection to on any ground.
The Bangladesh Constitution in 1972 did not have this salutation at the start of its preamble. General Ziaur Rahman inserted it before the preamble in 1975 through a proclamation. The proclamation was sought to be legitimized by adopting it as an addition to the Constitution by an Act of Parliament in 1979.
Notwithstanding the validity of the protests about the irregular manner of its introduction through a martial law proclamation, is there need for any great furore over it when it has remained at the head of the preamble of the highest governing principles of the country for over 35 years ? Why has it become so imperative after all these years to get rid of it ? If people of this preponderant Muslims dominated country are asked through any credible poll taking exercise whether they favour its removal, the answer is very likely to be an overwhelming "no" and certainly it would not be considered by the mass people as an important objective to be realised in their need hierarchy. So, why this is being attempted and for whose interests ?
The parliamentary special committee on constitutional amendment has recommended restoring the preamble of the 1972 constitution, meaning that "Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim" will be dropped from the section, according to the report of a national news agency "We have unanimously decided to restore the preamble of the 1972 constitution," Suranjit Sengupta, the committee's co-chairman, told reporters after the 7th meeting at parliament building on Wednesday.
It is notable that Bismillahir-Rahmaanir-Rahim was not forced into the Constitution by Ziaur Rahman by deleting some other worthwhile Constitutional principle and putting Bismillah in its place. So, the question of mutiliating or distorting the Constitution cannot arise in this case. The statement of Bismillahir-Rahmaanir-Rahim needs to be essentially perceived as a strict 'addition' to the Constitution only that should normally not offend anybody as it is in keeping with religious belief of the majority people in this country.
If the would be removers of the name of Almighty Allah from the Bangladesh Constitution should think that going back to its 1972 form (to be judged as a very progressive one) with its pronounced secularist character is the wave of the future, then they are very wrong. For looking at most of the Constitutions of different countries round the world, one finds proof after proof that they decided not to omit the name of God in the preambles to their Constitutions. Such references are not limited to traditional or Islamic countries but also the most advanced or front-rank countries of the world such as Canada and Germany. The reference to the Almighty is also found prominently in the preambles of major emerging countries such as Brazil and Argentina. For examples, the preamble to the Canadian Constitution states : " Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". The preamble to the German Constitution states : "Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, (...) the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law[ ." The preamble to the Constitution of Brazil says :" We, the representatives of the Brazilian people, ... promulgate, under the protection of God, this Constitution of the federative republic of Brazil ".
The word "God" does not appear directly in the Preamble to the federal U.S. Constitution. However, the word "God" appear in two places in most constitutions of the federating states of the USA. The first place is in the preamble to these state constitutions. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions of the USA.
Also likely to be abolished along with Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar Rahim is the pledging statement in Article 8(1) and 8(1A) or "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah" which was also added by President Ziaur Rahman. This article is considered to be inconsistent with the spirit of secularism that was enshrined as a supreme state principle in 1972. But one fails to see how belief in the Supreme Creator and keeping trust and faith in him clashes with the idea of secularism which should essentially mean freedom for all religious communities in a country to practice their distinct faith without restrictions and equal access to socio-economic opportunities by members of all faiths.
These secularist principles seem well entrenched and are being practiced ardently in Bangladesh. Practice of secularism really matters more than only stating it as a principle but doing nothing about it . When ruling qualities of successive governments in Bangladesh have remained secularist for all practical purposes, then why discriminate against the religiously majority population of the country and offend their due religious sentiments by deleting a harmless assertion in the Constitution that only affirms faith and trust in a Supreme Creator ?
Government has more than two-thirds majority in parliament and the same can be utilized to adopt major Constitutional amendments. But the practice in most real or major democracies is not to use such majorities uncaringly to amend national Constitutions in areas likely to be politically highly sensitive and not necessarily supported by most people. Two-thirds majority in parliament or more may reflect the support to a party or parties for a certain agenda of action. But there could be matters outside such agenda --like the above described ones-- for which people of a country may not have given a mandate to the government. If the government of such a country decides to overlook this factor and carry out Constitutional amendments in these undesirable areas using its brute majority in parliament, the same then would not be considered as democratic. Usually , in carrying out Constitutional amendments in such areas, truly mature democratic parties go to the people and ask for their opinion through a referendum. If the vote in the referendum goes against the amendment proposals, government in those mature democracies can be expected to withdraw them.
The scope is there in the Bangladesh Constitution also for submitting highly sensitive issues to a referendum for the people to decide. Government here will need to opt for this course if it is to be seen truly democratic and not authoritarian in its actions.
Besides, these Constitution amendment moves in their present form will very likely create great dissatisfaction throughout the country. The nation may be deeply divided on the issue or people may feel that such amendments discriminating against the religious faith of majority people are being rammed down their throats. In that case, both short and longer term political stability could be adversely affected.