A demand to remove “secularism” from Bangladesh’s Constitution has opened a potentially far-reaching debate: Is the proposal simply an attempt to redefine the country’s constitutional philosophy, or could it pave the way for a fundamentally different political identity—one in which religion plays a greater role in the affairs of the state?
The question has emerged following a legal notice sent on Thursday, October 1, by Supreme Court lawyer Md Mahmudul Hasan Mamun, demanding that “socialism” and “secularism” be removed from the Constitution.
The notice was sent to the Secretary of the President’s Office (Public Division), the Secretary of the Parliament Secretariat, the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. It gives the authorities 90 days to take the necessary constitutional and legal measures, including holding a national referendum. Otherwise, the lawyer has warned that a writ petition may be filed before the High Court. (Lawyers Club Bangladesh)
The notice argues that socialism is incompatible with private ownership and the attraction of foreign investment. It also claims that secularism conflicts with Bangladesh’s history and with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom under Article 41. (Lawyers Club Bangladesh)
But the proposal to remove secularism raises a much larger question than the legal argument contained in the notice.
If secularism is removed from the Constitution, what exactly would replace it—and what would that mean for the political identity of Bangladesh?
A principle rooted in the Liberation War
Secularism is not an isolated word inserted into Bangladesh’s Constitution. The current preamble explicitly identifies nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism as ideals that inspired the people’s national liberation struggle and the sacrifices of the martyrs of 1971. (Laws of Bangladesh)
Article 8 likewise lists nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism as the fundamental principles of state policy. Article 9 connects Bangalee nationalism to the language and culture of the Bangalee nation and its struggle for independence. (Laws of Bangladesh)
That constitutional framework raises an obvious historical question: If secularism is removed, is Bangladesh merely updating its Constitution—or is it revisiting one of the principles that the Constitution itself identifies as an inspiration of the 1971 liberation struggle?
The answer would depend on the precise constitutional changes eventually proposed and adopted.
Does secularism mean restricting religion?
One of the central arguments in the legal notice is that secularism conflicts with religious freedom.
Yet the constitutional text defines the relationship differently.
Article 12 states that secularism is to be realised by eliminating communalism, the granting of political status to any religion by the state, the political misuse of religion, and discrimination or persecution against people practising a particular religion. (Laws of Bangladesh)
Article 41, meanwhile, guarantees every citizen the right to profess, practise and propagate any religion and gives religious communities the right to establish and manage their religious institutions. (Laws of Bangladesh)
Article 28 also prohibits discrimination by the state on grounds including religion. (Laws of Bangladesh)
Therefore, the constitutional debate is not simply “secularism versus religion.” The existing Constitution simultaneously recognises Islam as the state religion under Article 2A while guaranteeing equal rights in religious practice and constitutional protection to other religious communities. (Laws of Bangladesh)
What happens if secularism disappears?
This is where the political implications become more significant.
Removing secularism would not automatically transform Bangladesh into an Islamist state, nor would it by itself establish Jamaat-e-Islami as the dominant political force. Such a conclusion cannot be drawn from the legal notice alone.
But it could change the constitutional language governing the relationship between religion, politics and the state.
That possibility inevitably raises questions about the future political space available to religiously oriented parties, including Jamaat-e-Islami.
Would removing secularism simply mean that the Constitution no longer prohibits the political use of religion in the manner currently described in Article 12?
Would it alter the constitutional basis for opposing communalism?
Would it change how the state approaches religious minorities?
And, most importantly, would such a change represent a departure from the political ideals associated with the 1971 Liberation War?
These are questions that cannot be answered merely by deleting or retaining a constitutional term. They depend on what other provisions are introduced, what laws are subsequently enacted and how those provisions are interpreted and implemented.
Bangladesh’s constitutional identity at a crossroads
The controversy is therefore about more than socialism or foreign investment.
It touches the fundamental question of what Bangladesh wants its state identity to be.
The country was born out of a nationalist liberation struggle in 1971, and its Constitution continues to describe nationalism, democracy, socialism and secularism as foundational ideals. At the same time, Bangladesh is a Muslim-majority country whose Constitution recognises Islam as the state religion and guarantees freedom of religion. (Laws of Bangladesh)
The challenge is how these constitutional commitments should coexist.
For supporters of removing secularism, the change may represent an effort to bring the Constitution closer to Bangladesh’s religious and social realities.
For critics, however, the proposal may raise concerns that weakening constitutional secularism could increase the political influence of religion and gradually move the state away from the inclusive civic identity associated with the Liberation War.
Whether that concern ultimately materialises is a matter for Bangladesh’s political and constitutional process—not something that can be established in advance.
But one question is already unavoidable:
If secularism was one of the ideals that Bangladesh’s Constitution says inspired the Liberation War, what would removing it say about the Bangladesh that was born in 1971—and about the Bangladesh that the country now seeks to become?
COMMENTS