Redefining secularism
"Redefining secularism, published in the DS, is an extra-ordinary article indeed. Mr. Anwarul Kabir in this prudent write-up has rightly defined secularism. While defining secularism at the state level, we must consider the people and their psychology. Secularism devoid of religion will not be acceptable to the people of present Bangladesh. Rather, we have to think about religions with liberal views. As long as religions remain flexible and show tolerance, establishing secularism of our style is possible. Restricting religions to the private sphere of the life, as western notion suggests, is not possible right now. Even western society is now in a dilemma and with the increase of Muslim population, some countries in Europe and America are considering installation of Sharia Board (e.g. Canada). France is also compromising in the context of wearing Hizab in public schools.
We should stick to real secularism and not promote “non-functional” secularism like that of India. But my question is if the people are not that advanced to accept the “pure” secularism, then should we fight with them? In this context, I would also like to stress that nothing is pure or absolute. Everything is relative. Even there is no existence of absolute space and time. Then why should we search for “real” secularism? Rather if the state can ensure peaceful coexistence of different religious communities in society then we may call it secularism. After all, we want to see peace and social harmony. This should be the objective of any humanist.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments