Constitutional Amendment: Elected government should lead the change

Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque, an esteemed educator and thinker, and former professor in the Bangla Department at Dhaka University, recently shared his perspectives with 'Views Bangladesh.' In an interview with Girish Gairic, the assistant editor of 'Views Bangladesh,' Haque discussed his views on potential changes to the Constitution and the national anthem of Bangladesh.

Views Bangladesh: People from various backgrounds are discussing the need to amend the constitution, arguing that such changes are essential for state reform. What is your perspective on this issue?
Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque: I believe the constitution does need to be amended. Originally drafted in 1972 and promulgated on December 16 of that year, it has undergone numerous amendments—16 or 17 times, to be precise. If the Constitution were truly effective and beneficial for the people of Bangladesh, such frequent revisions would not have been necessary in such a short time. Furthermore, the Constitution tends to concentrate power excessively in the hands of the Prime Minister, and it offers limited scope for criticizing the party in power. Additionally, there are several shortcomings in the current Constitution.

One particular issue is the emphasis on 'secularism' among the four guiding principles—nationalism, secularism, democracy, and socialism. It might have been more prudent to address religious matters through democratic and nationalistic approaches rather than singling out secularism. The inclusion of 'secularism' in the national ideals has, in my observation, sparked ongoing debates and tensions in Bangladesh. This has led to a polarized environment, where those on the left who champion secularism often provoke criticism from the Muslim community. This has been a significant point of contention.

Another important point is that democracy can only function effectively if political parties adhere to democratic principles and if the general populace views democracy as the best model for governance. In this context, 'nationalism' remains crucial. Our progress has been significantly driven by Bengali nationalism, and it will continue to play an important role in our future development. Therefore, the principle of nationalism should be explicitly stated in the constitution.

Additionally, the needs of our nation in 1972 were different from those of today. Times have changed considerably—environments and technologies have evolved, and global dynamics have shifted since the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s essential to adapt our constitution to these changes to ensure the success of the nation-state. Many aspects of the constitution require revision, and these changes should be addressed through a Constituent Assembly. It is vital that power be vested in democratically elected representatives rather than being concentrated solely in the hands of judges or ministries.

I believe this government aims to make substantial changes to improve the situation, and amending the constitution is a step in that direction. However, such changes cannot be implemented abruptly. The government may signal the necessity of these reforms, but they should be carried out by an elected government rather than the current administration.

Views Bangladesh: Some suggest that the old Constitution should be entirely rewritten. Could an interim government draft a new Constitution, effectively replacing the current one?
Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque: While the idea of drafting a new Constitution, separate from the old one, is not without merit, it should not be done by the current government. Such a fundamental change should be undertaken by an elected government.

Views Bangladesh: Article 7(a) of the current Constitution states: "If any person abrogates, repeals, suspends, or undermines this Constitution or any of its provisions by force or any other unconstitutional means, or conspires to do so, such an act is considered treason. The individual found guilty of such an offense shall be punished with the maximum penalty, including the death penalty, as prescribed for other crimes under existing law." Given this, would the interim government be liable for punishment if they were to change the Constitution?
Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque: It’s unlikely that the current government possesses the authority to make such changes unilaterally. The transition of power from President Mohammed Shahabuddin to Dr Muhammad Yunus indicates that the responsibility for constitutional changes will fall to the elected government. However, if this government were to remain in power for a few years, it could recommend necessary changes based on public needs, educational standards, and economic conditions. The most critical aspect is to ensure that any constitutional amendments reflect the will of the people and are drafted with these considerations in mind. Ultimately, the final decision should be made by a Constituent Assembly to ensure legitimacy and comprehensive input.

Views Bangladesh: Former Brigadier General Abdullahil Amaan Azmi, son of Jamaat-e-Islami’s former Ameer Ghulam Azam, has suggested that the national anthem of Bangladesh should be changed. What is your view on this proposal?
Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque: The idea of changing the national anthem has been proposed before, but no government has pursued it or made any efforts in that direction. While there is a legal avenue for making such a change, merely expressing an opinion is not sufficient to bring about a change. Jamaat-e-Islami, which supported the Pakistani invaders in 1971 and opposed the liberation war, has historically shown little regard for the nationalism, unity, and solidarity of Bangladesh. Consequently, when voices from that group propose such changes, it often provokes skepticism and resistance. There were also instances of political maneuvering with Jamaat-e-Islami both during the Pakistan era and in independent Bangladesh. Any discussion about changing the national anthem should consider these historical contexts and the broader implications for national unity.

On December 11, 1971, the first government of Bangladesh, led by Tajuddin Ahmad, announced a ban on four political parties: the Muslim League, Jamaat-e-Islami, Nezami-e-Islam, and the Pakistan Democratic Party. This decision was based on their historical opposition to the autonomy of East Bengal (East Pakistan) and their collaboration with the Pakistani invasion forces during the liberation war. The 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh did not explicitly include this ban but did prohibit religious political parties from engaging in politics.

Jamaat-e-Islami is widely recognized as a religion-based political party, advocating for the implementation of Islamic principles in governance. In contrast, the Muslim League's politics were also grounded in the welfare of the Muslim community. Its leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, sought autonomy for Muslims in British India due to their status as a minority. Despite Jinnah's personal agnosticism and his rejection of religious clerics' influence in politics, the party's agenda was centered around the interests of Muslims, which led to the creation of Pakistan.

Jinnah's stance was that the Muslim League should remain focused on modern, secular governance rather than becoming entangled with religious orthodoxy. His vision was to build a progressive Pakistan where religious clerics would not dominate the political landscape.

Did scholars join the Muslim League with the aim of receiving a modern English education while preserving their own language and culture? They sought to avoid any narrow-mindedness in this pursuit. In his first speech to the Constituent Assembly after the establishment of Pakistan, he emphasized the importance of transcending the Hindu-Muslim divide. I refer to Liaquat Ali Khan and Khwaja Nazimuddin—neither of whom engaged in politics based on religious lines. However, it is worth noting that Muslims did practice communalist politics.

Did scholars join the Muslim League? They wanted to be educated in modern English while preserving their own language and culture. There will be no narrowness among them. On the day he gave his first speech in the Constituent Assembly after the creation of Pakistan, he emphasized that we must forget the Hindu-Muslim divide. Whether we speak of Liaquat Ali Khan or Khwaja Nazimuddin, neither engaged in religion-based politics. However, they did engage in Muslim communalist politics.