The 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh enshrined secularism as a founding principle, a decision made in the wake of independence from Pakistan. However, the political landscape shifted significantly under subsequent governments, especially during the 1980s when Islam was declared the state religion. Although secularism was later reintroduced to the constitution, a series of legal and political decisions left ambiguity around its role. Attorney General A.M. Amin Uddin’s appeal amplifies longstanding tensions regarding Bangladesh’s national identity and religious orientation, potentially setting the stage for a constitutional overhaul.
Observers note that Uddin’s petition coincides with a global rise in religious nationalism, reflecting broader trends toward identity politics in South Asia. Analysts highlight how such a move could impact Bangladesh’s social fabric, where nearly 90% of the population is Muslim but religious diversity remains integral. Concerns are also mounting about the potential effects on minority groups, especially Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists, who constitute a smaller yet significant portion of the population. Rights groups worry that diminishing the secular basis of the constitution could lead to discrimination and marginalization of these communities, undermining the pluralistic vision envisioned by Bangladesh’s founders.
Reactions to the proposal have been polarized, drawing mixed responses from different factions within Bangladesh’s political sphere. The ruling Awami League party has long advocated secularism, championing a moderate vision that aligns with the country’s secularist founders. However, the nation’s political opposition has seen the rise of Islamist parties, some of which have substantial popular support. Islamist organizations, such as the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and other groups, have repeatedly called for the constitution to better reflect the country’s Islamic heritage, arguing that secularism dilutes national identity and values.
Legal scholars have weighed in on the constitutionality of the proposal, noting that Bangladesh’s highest courts have generally upheld secularism as a fundamental constitutional value. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh has previously declared secularism to be a guiding principle of the constitution. However, if the petition succeeds, it could set a significant precedent and embolden factions calling for an Islamic state. Law professors and constitutional experts warn that any shift away from secularism would require rigorous legal scrutiny, potentially drawing Bangladesh into a prolonged period of judicial and legislative re-evaluation.
Religious leaders have also voiced opinions on the proposed constitutional change. Some Islamic scholars and clerics argue that removing secularism aligns with the religious sentiments of the majority, creating a legal system more in harmony with Islamic values. They contend that this alignment could provide moral guidance to citizens and reinforce social stability. Yet, moderate clerics have warned that sidelining secularism could radicalize segments of the population and erode Bangladesh’s history of religious tolerance, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that respects diversity.
International observers, including human rights organizations and global watchdogs, have expressed concern about the implications of this legal shift. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have noted that previous instances of increased religiosity in state policy often correspond with tighter controls on freedom of expression and assembly. They caution that this move could affect Bangladesh’s international image as a moderate, secular democracy and complicate diplomatic relations with Western allies. Some Western governments have also underscored that commitment to democratic and secular values is a cornerstone of their bilateral relations with Bangladesh, suggesting that these ties could be impacted by any constitutional change.
The petition’s timing has not gone unnoticed. Bangladesh is slated to hold national elections soon, and analysts speculate that the attorney general’s proposal may resonate with a particular voting base. Given the polarized political climate, appealing to religious identity could sway conservative voters while alienating more progressive constituents. Political analysts argue that, if implemented, the removal of secularism from the constitution could reframe the national discourse, shifting the focus toward Islamic identity and principles at a time when regional dynamics are highly volatile.