Banner Advertise

Friday, February 19, 2010

Re: [chottala.com] Democratic state by definition cannot be anything but secular - Farhad Mazhar



 The Secular State [where the state does not promote any particular religion and freedom to practice any religion exist] is an ingredient of a Democratic System. If it was mechanistically so simple that "Democracy means democracy", then why do the countries need  Constitutions for ? 
The constitutions essentially elaborate the perimeters of democracy, state power and  individual rights in the country. Without a democratic constitution the "real democracy will never appear" !
 
FYI,
 
A secular state is a concept whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion.

A secular state protects freedom of religion. It is also prevents religion from interfering with state affairs, and prevents religion from controlling government or exercising political power. Laws protect each individual including religious minorities from discrimination on the basis of religion.

A secular state is not an atheistic state (e.g. Albiania under Enver Hoxha), in which the state officially opposes all religious beliefs and practices. In some secular states, there can be a huge majority religion in the population (e.g.USA, New Zealand etc.) and in others there may be great religious diversity.

 It is wonderful to see that many people like yourself have moved to New Zealand, America etc and enjoy the benefit d of a secular state and freely practice their religion without any interference from
the Government.
 
Pope: New Zealand Far Too Secular
Sep 22, 2004 ... Pope: New Zealand Far Too Secular. ... Pope John Paul II told an eight-strong delegation of New Zealand Catholic ... Church/State Separation · Religious Right, Extremism · Religion & Theism · Bible Analysis, Commentary ...
atheism.about.com/b/.../pope-new-zealand-far-too-secular.htm - Cached - Similar
Human Rights in New Zealand Today
New Zealand is a secular State with no State religion, where religious and democratic structures are separated. In legislation and policy, the State ...
www.hrc.co.nz/report/summary/summary09.html
 
 
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:59 AM, dina khan <dina30_khan@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
 
Democracy means democracy. It should not be classified or any adjective should not be added. If you add any adjective to the democracy it will create misunderstanding among the people. If you say secular democracy then some people may ask for other type of democracy such as Islamic Democracy or social democracy or Control Democracy or Basic Democracy.  Then democracy will be complicated & real democracy will be disappeared.

Mr. Majhar is a wise man but by saying secular democracy indirectly he is creating inspiration for doing movement to the people who are confused about the meaning of secular.

So democracy should not be complicated.

It can be made a very simple procedure. It can be made a lawful system by the opinion of the majority people in  the system of lawful proceeding for doing welfare to the people under the system lawful good administration

 
 
--- On Tue, 16/2/10, Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com> wrote:
 

From: Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [chottala.com] Democratic state by definition cannot be anything but secular - Farhad Mazhar
To: chottala@yahoogroups.com
 
Received: Tuesday, 16 February, 2010, 9:29 AM

 
You seem to be confused and mixed up [your business as usual]. The issue is "secular state". Farhad Mazhar has very correctly asserted
that "Democratic state by definition cannot be anything but secular"

All nations have built democracy through historical processes..
Our Nation is no exception ...........
 
When Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg speech
(November 19, 1863) on democracy: " that government of the people,
by the people, for the people ..."
 
The word  "people" did not include, blacks, red Indians and women and
even non-owner of property ....
 
Your fraustration about FatwaBazi is understandable ...FatwaBazi is
part of Theocracy, not of a Secular Democratic State.
Yes, "Australia New Zealand Canada USA UK is pure lawful democratic country"
and above all, these are Secular Democratic countries
where state and religion are seperated with complete freedom to practice
religion .... any religion. [Although these are Christian majority countries)
There is no second class citizen(s) based on one faith and religion
in these countries.
 
BTW, if you keep your comments within the subject under discussion,
you will be appreciated more .... Again, your proposition ""Secular is the condition of some leader's opinion"  is wrong and your current post is out of context while
discussing Farhad Mazhar's article on Secular State and Democracy ..
[Hope, you read the article, not just the title of the article]
 
On 2/15/10, dina khan <dina30_khan@ yahoo.com> wrote:
Australia New Zealand Canada USA UK is pure lawful democratic country.  Government is for the people of the people by the people not for the leader of any party like Bangladesh
People are free mind thought can do their religion activities according to their faith. No minister could give any fatoa like Bangladesh Minister.
Ministers & political leaders of those countries follow the rules of law & maintain the lawful system of democracy. Not they use false speaking word as like the Bangladesh Ministers use to speaking.
The leaders & politicians of Bangladesh should need to learn knowing what the politic is rules of democracy system of democracy & the duty of people's representative. They should not do practice false speaking ill propaganda for misguiding the people & to make them foolish which make the democracy & system of democracy quality less & meaning less..
--- On Sun, 14/2/10, Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@ gmail.com> wrote:
 
From: Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@ gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [chottala.com] Democratic state by definition cannot be anything but secular - Farhad Mazhar
 
To: chottala@yahoogroup s.com

Received: Sunday, 14 February, 2010, 4:36 AM

 
Where did you find that "Secular is the condition of some leader's opinion". ? Your propostion is totally 
wrong.  Secularism has nothing to do with the leader..... It is socio-political doctrine that the state does
not promote any particular religion, rather freedom to practice all religions according the individual's choice.
 
Secularism is opposite of communalism and theocracy..
A democratic state is the state of all of it's citizens .....no discrimination based on ethnicity
or religion. There is no second class citizen based on religion or ethnicity.
In a real Democratic Country, the state and religion is seperated .... and all of it's citizens
are free to practice their religion.
 
The state "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  ..."  reflects
the essence of democracy... ..
 
Believe it or not, people from all over the world are  moving  to secular countries like
New  Zealand, Australia and USA etc, livinbg their theocratic homelands behind. In these
countries the citizens are free to practice their own religion without any intervension from the
state.
 
By all accounts New Zealand is a secular country !!!!! [New Zealand Far Too Secular]
 
0  0  Auckland, AU, NZ
8  5  North Shore, AU, NZ
9  5  Takapuna, AU, NZ
12 7  Manukau City, AU, NZ
14 8  Papatoetoe, AU, NZ
15 9  Howick, AU, NZ
18 11 Albany, AU, NZ
20 12 Waitakere, AU, NZ
30 18 Manurewa, AU, NZ

 
Note:Secular state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be .... Australia ·
Federated States of Micronesia · New Zealand ...
en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Secular_state -
On 2/12/10, dina khan <dina30_khan@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Democracy & secularism can not coexist

Because

Democracy is the process of mass people's opinions &

Secular is the condition of some leader's opinion which is not democracy system.

Actual fact is that  

Democracy is the lawful system for the people of the people by people

Whereas

Secular is the fascist dictator system leaded by the leader for the leader of the leader ------

Not for or by or of mass people opinion...


--- On Sat, 13/2/10, Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@ gmail.com> wrote:
From: Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@ gmail.com>
Subject: [
chottala.com] Democratic state by definition cannot be anything but secular - Farhad Mazhar
To: "notun Bangladesh" <notun_bangladesh@ yahoogroups. com>, "Sonar Bangladesh" <SonarBangladesh@ yahoogroups. com>, history_islam@ yahoogroups. com, chottala@yahoogroup s.com

Received: Saturday, 13 February, 2010, 12:11 AM

 
Democratic state by definition cannot be anything but secular  -  Farhad Mazhar, a leading intellectual, tells New Age
Friday 17 July 09
You were culturally active before and during the country's war of national independence, which was a culmination of a series of social, political and cultural movements against the Pakistani military rulers of the day. What were your political motivations behind your active role in the war of national independence?
   My activism primarily was poetic. This was the time when we were imagining ourselves as a new political community representing urban middle class. We thought imagining ourselves as a homogenous population was possible because by then agrarian Bangladesh was undergoing transformation. Zamindari system has been abolished and the possibility of an agrarian capitalist transformation in a progressive sense was becoming imminent.
   Since the colonial period, peasant movement was primarily focused on land reform measures to change land ownership and production relationships in land. Despite the fact that zaminders were also members, a major step in the direction of land reforms dates back to the formation of Bengal Land Reforms Commission in 1940, Francis Floud as the chairman. We must remember the contribution of AK Fazlul Huq and his Krishak Praja Party. The fascinating part of the history was that Floud recommended abolition of zamindaris, which meant abolition of all rent-receiving interests above the tiller of the soil. All subinfeudation of land holdings was abandoned. The commission wanted abolishment of all interests existing between state power i.e., the government and the peasant behind the plough, the actual cultivators. Before the draft legislation to abolish zamindari could be passed, we were in 1947, Bengal was partitioned.
   The point I am raising is, that in 1947 imagination of the peasantry at large against the zaminders and mahajons, who were mostly Hindu, played the major role in forming the ideology of Pakistan. However, it started to change immediately after 1947 with rise of the new technology of communication, i.e., print technology, creating possibility of a 'pramit' bangla and a literature that could appear as homogenous in contrast to diverse idiolects. The so-called banglabhasha of print-language created a homogeneity through a unified field of exchange and communication and created possibility of a new national consciousness. This time imagining the new political community came from urban middle-classes in contrast to the peasantry of '40s or the peasant movement led by Sher-e-Bangla AK Fazlul Huq. Given the colonial education received by the urban educated middle-class, and their familiarity with colonial history rather than their own past and own people, the nationalism of 1971 was shaped by linguistic model. Nevertheless we retained the contradiction between our peasant mind and colonised urban mentality lacking any sense of history.
   This background is important to understand the role many of us played in 1971. I particularly would like to mention about Ahmed Safa, Humayun Kabir and most of the members of Lekhak Sangram Shibir. Lekhak Sangram Shibir was led by Safa; the radical poet Humayun and I played organising role. Safa, on one hand, was critical of peasant mind or peasant imagination, very obvious in his monumental essay 'bangali musalmaner mon', on the other, he was akin to and great fan of European enlightenment. He is interesting because in him we can identify the dilemma of that period. The same dilemma is quite obvious in my first book of poem titled 'Khokon ebong tar protipurush'. This was the struggle of the poet who is encaged in urban middle-class imaginations, created by the poetics of print-technology, i.e. adhunik bangla kabita, but who could easily anticipate the arrival of a new bloody era of battle field not merely outside, but inside as well. A historical battle between two types of political community — the community of the masses and the community of the urban middle class. Unfortunately, until today we failed to settle this dilemma, contradiction and antagonism – no matter how you phrase it.
   So, culturally speaking, I do not agree with the way you have posed the question. 1971 was not the culmination of a series of social, political and cultural movements against the Pakistani military rulers of the day. This was how it appeared and became the dominant narrative of that faction of elite Bengali middle-class lacking understanding of history and the dynamics of the class and cultural struggles. History to them is only the '9-month-of-war' . It is rather culmination of the unfinished tasks of peasant revolutionary movements – failure of the anti-feudal democratic forces both in India and Pakistan and our failure to constitute ourselves as homogeneous political community. Again, from cultural point of view, it was inevitable, because the so-called Bengali imaginations of literate population created by print-technology are perversely posed against the culture of the masses, their daily individual and collective struggle. Bengali nationalists imagined that they can constitute a political community based only on language and culture. But when after 1971, peasantry started to reassert the role of Islam and the values and cultures they cherish, we ended up splitting into two political camps. Now it has erupted as war between secularists and the Islamists – threatening the very existence of Bangladesh.
   All along these years, my primary motivation as a cultural activist, was to resolve this historical contradiction and explore ways to constitute us as a political community that could integrate mass imagination into the imagination of the urban middle-class that played positive role in 1971, or vice versa, making Bangladesh a viable state. We must develop cultural capacity to fight against the present era of imperialism, particularly the so-called war against terrorism that targets mainly Muslim population. We must learn ways to become a part of global community and reject all forms of identity politics — language, culture or religion, except what Gayatri Spivak calls 'strategic essentialism' — an identity that is strategically necessary to confront predatory cultures and imperialism, without reducing it as our sole essence, our eternal identity. Except this strategic essentialism, I oppose all forms of identity politics. I am not a Bengali nationalist or a Bangladeshi and thanks Allah, I am not an Islamist either. We may blame each other and cut each others' throat. But we must contemplate on what went wrong in our history, what were historical accidents that cannot be understood in linear simple terms, what are the socio-economic and political dynamics of our historical formation that is full of contradictions and problems.
   I was striving to become the voice of the time, struggling hard to aesthetically capture the emerging subjectivity that was forming during the early periods of liberation movement, before '71. It was not an easy task. My political motivation was also guided by the keen interest in demonstrating the political possibility of poetry, but not to reduce poetry to achieve the goal of politics. Honestly speaking, I am not an intellectual or cultural activist. My hesitation comes from the dominant notion of such terms. They conveniently cloak petty-bourgeois egoism as if we can indeed contribute to resolve the challenges of our time by merely being 'intellectual' or 'cultural' activists in urban elite setting. I would rather invite all to the festivity of being together, to be inclusive as much as possible without denying the spaces we need to explore ourselves on our own. We cannot solve the problems of the real people by constructing imaginary 'people' and their imaginary 'problems' in drawing rooms, that only fits our own intellectual and cultural prejudices. This is what I have learnt from Mao Ze Dong – the cultural of massline – the line that empowers the oppressed. Yes I have always followed the massline.
   We are afraid (and perhaps intellectually incapable) to question our prejudices; for example, our notion of 'nationalism', our totally unhistorical and often Eurocentric (if not racist) conception of 'secularism' as if all societies must be casted by the model of the Europe, or America. Our persistent effort to contrast 'secularism' against 'Islam' or Islamism is simply amazing. Our Idea of Islam – that never goes beyond theology and clerical explanation devoid of philosophy or even the very primary nuances of the Sufis is bizarre. There are many types of secularisms as there are many kinds of Islams; however, we do not even recognise the need to understand different trends and politics, we rather love to throw and divide all in two baskets. We are not even aware that in the name of 'secularism' in the era of 'war against terrorism' we often unknowingly implement the 'Project of New American' century. We are not mature enough to draw our difference from the predatory and violent politics of George Bush, the junior because we insist, like any cleric, to understand Islam as theology or political project to establish the rule of the Muslims. We cannot read Islam as philosophy and culture.
   For historical reasons, urban middle-classes are largely communal because of the legacy they carry from colonialism and their inability to reckon with anything which is 'strange' to them, even the indigenous tradition is nothing more than 'native' culture in colonial sense; in their discourse they are discussed as 'lokayata' or 'oitijjaya' — culture of the local people in contrast to 'global' —- lacking any universal or global significance. We have deep prejudice against theology, religion or any unfolding of the spirit that confronts the project of 'modernity', i.e., colonialism and imperialism. These are all manifestation of the historical failure that I spoke before.
   
   Why have we not yet been able to institutionalise representative democracy in the true sense of the term? How much responsibility would you attribute to the political class for this failure? And what is about the role of intelligentsia?
   While I understand 'democracy' as the possibility of constituting ourselves as homogeneous member of a political community, defined by democratic constitution based on the rights of persons with responsibility, I see no value to talk about 'representative democracy'. I honestly do not know what representative democracy 'in the true sense of the term' means. Electing representatives to the parliament of a state constituted by undemocratic constitution cannot be democratic; for example. We have elected a parliament recently, but constituted the dictatorial power of a single person, Sheikh Hasina, because of the existing constitution.
   Besides, there are many philosophical problems in the notion of 'representative democracy' – I do not want to get into it. However, I cannot but feel tempted to quote Fakir Lalon Shah in order to think more creatively. I would like to quote from a beautiful song: eke bohe ononta dhara, tumi ami nam bewara, bhober pore. We can interpretatively translate few lines as the following:
   'In One flows the Many and the eternal stream of multiplicity. What does it matter whether it manifests through your Name or Mine? The task is to become that Individual who contains the Multiplicity and has internalized the art of becoming the manifestation of the Many.'
   The challenge Lalon talks about is becoming One in Many. It's not a problem of representation, but developing the capacity to become the will of the Many people in One: One becoming Many. I find this song a fascinating critique of representative democracy. What does it matter if I vote a person to represent my will formally? Is it not more interesting to see who in our time embodies the will of all in his/her activities? Does it matter if the collectivity is asserted by your name or mine?
   
   Many people argue that it is the weak political institutions and lack of democratic practices in and among the political parties that has always paved the way for military intervention, direct or indirect, in the country's political process time and again. What should the political parties/parliament do to ensure civilian control over military establishment at the moment, and stop recurrence of any extra-constitutiona l take over of power by the military in future?

   I think we must understand the intellectual and political capacity of the dominant middle-class, or 'bourgeois' as we can call them politically. Although commercial capital relations have become the dominant mode of economy, we are a society where capitalist relation of production is still stagnant. The highest economic idea of poverty reduction that this class could produce is providing credit to the poor. What else can you expect from this class? Given the military rule of the last two years — we are now collapsing as an economy. So, it is not a problem of institution building but the failure to create economic (material) condition to build democratic institution. I am afraid we are heading for far worse period than we experienced earlier. I anticipate fascistic and anarchic tendencies and rampant human rights violations. We definitely have bad times ahead.
   Secondly, whether you admit it or not — the power of the political parties are derived from the army they maintain. Army rule only reveals the dictatorial and coercive power of the ruling class. In a way it is better for the masses, since they can see and experience the naked power of the ruling elite and realise the futility of the present politics. We need radical democratic change — I guess all the experiments with liberal democracy have terribly failed. We must rethink the future tasks and paths for democratic transition.
   As you have noticed, I have tried to respond to the questions from cultural perspectives. I think the problem should be located in the historical development of the Bengali middle-class and their cultural mind. So far we have seen that they are capable of breeding anarchy or fascism — and not democracy.
   
   A promise of the independence movement was abolition of economic disparities among citizens. But the promise still remains unmet. What, in your view, are the weaknesses of the economic policies pursued by the subsequent governments of Bangladesh that have failed our people to get their economic aspirations met?
   If you are referring to the so-called idea of 'socialism' during the '70s, we should be careful. These ideas, in most cases, were actually socialism of the 'feudal' or petty-bourgeois classes and therefore ended up being bureaucratic capitalism in economics and one-party fascism in politics. Culturally, it produced rampant racism. I will argue that such 'socialism' was one of the main reasons that we failed to install 'democracy'.
   
   Secularism was one of the fundamental principles of Bangladesh during its emergence as a nation state. But, the state has deviated from its original commitment, and finally a military ruler has made Islam the religion of the state. Now that an elected government is in power and that too with a three-fourths majority in parliament, can the country's secular democrats expect amendment to constitution to restore the secular principle of the state?
   I have only one humble observation with regards to this question. If we are indeed committed to have democracy why do we need to talk about 'secularism' separately? Democracy implies that the state will not be based on any theological principle but only on the democratic will of the people. Democratic state by definition cannot be anything but secular. Why do we need secularism over and above 'democracy'?
   First, it manifests our lack of understanding of both 'democracy' and 'secularism'. Secondly, the partisan political force that included secularism over and above democracy as state principle had very different intention than 'secularism' as we understand from the history of Europe. They actually posed linguistic cultural identity against Islam. They believe that Bengali nationalism is incompatible with Islam. Islam has been seen as antagonistic to linguistic nationalism. Islam as an integral component of Bengali culture has also been systematically denied. So here again we see the antagonism between urban middle-class and consciousness of the popular masses — the urban elite middle-class who under the cloak of 'secularism' intended to confront Islam is now facing militant Islam as an outcome of this lack of minimal conceptual understanding of democracy and secularism. Masses, of whom I was speaking earlier, accordingly interpreted secularism as a political project against Islam. They reacted against this project creating political space for Islamism.
   I am afraid we have lost cultural opportunity to resolve this grave problem.
 

 
 
 
 


 
 
 

 

 


Email slow, clunky, unreliable? Switch to Yahoo!Xtra Mail, New Zealand's new email address.




__._,_.___


[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___