The previous three contributors, Bhattacharya, Dr. Zaman and Dr.
farooq have discussed at length the historical perspective of
evolution of Communal harmony and breakdown of the same in Bengal.
While it is certainly very illuminative and instructional and I thank
each one of them for this, I think it is also important to focus on
the brass tacks of the issue after having gainined such a perspective
which I will try to do in my post.

First, I must emphasize that the issue of religious harmony is
intimately conected with the issue of secularism. Since in
Bangladesh/India we have a history of tension and strife between a
good segment of the two religious community, secualrism will
inevitably be a factor in the whole equation of religious harmony. In
a society where there is no such history there may not be such a need
of explicit affirmation of secularism as a state principle to gain
credence in the effort to achieve religious harmony, because there is
already a religious harmony to begin with. But since we are now
discussing the issue of attaining religious harmony, an affirmation of
securalism is necessarily an important prerequisite. With that in ind
let me go on and discuss the issue of what the reality is and how to
deal with the issue to change the reality. I am being guided by logic
alone. This is a vital issue where logic is absolutely essential.
Emotions always invariably lead to a biased view of the issue making
any attemp to achieve the end difficult if not impossible. So I would
try to present my views in the form of axioms/postulates/corollaries
and observations. I will also define precisely key terms that are
vital in the discussion.

SOME DEFINITIONS:

Communal : A belief that a member of another religion is inferior/evil
simply due to being born in that religion.

a) Soft form: When belief is limited to pure thought as
prejudices.
b) Hard form: When belief is followed by physical
actions to harm and violate the basic human rights of
the members of the other religion in opportune moment.

Obscurantist : Who (mis)interpret religion in a very strict and narrow way
and engage in practices/beliefs in the name of religion that
goes against knowledge and reason.

Religious/Spiritual: One who believes in the revelations/scriptures/rituals
of their religion at a personal level.

Religious-Natiionalist : One who may or may not be religious at a personal
level, but are extremely nationalist with religion
being the sole inspirational base for their
nationalism.

Corollary: (1) One can be communal and NOT Obscurantist (True among both
Hindus and Muslims. (2) One can be Obscurantist but not
communal. I have a personal experience of an example of this.
I knew of an obscurantist Muslim who was very kind and and
completely free from prejudice towards a Hindu guy. He helped
the Hindu boy a lot in his finacial crisis and helped him to
get through his college here. But he practiced the most
antiquated believes in his home. (3) One can be Religious/
Spiritual but neither Obscurantist nor Communal. Most Muslims
and Hindus in Bangladesh and India probably fall into this
category.



DESCRIPTIVE PART (Concepts/Postulates/Corollaries/Observations):


1. SECULARISM (Of a State) = a)Tolerance of all religion. b)Allowing free
religious belief and practices for followers of all religions. c) No
preferential representation/recognition/mention of any specific religion
(regardless of the numerical size of any religion) in all branches of the
state machinery. (Concept)

2. Secularism DOES NOT IMPLY opposing/banning religion (practice or belief)
itself.
(Corollary of 3)

3. No religion is endangered or hindered by secularism. (Corollary of 2)

4. Secularism helps in the attainment of religious harmony. (Postulate)

5. If a society places a higher priority on achieving religious harmony over a
wish to see their own religion being reflected in the State then adopting
secularism is worthsacrificing that wish. (A tautology maybe?)

6. Secularism is a state principle not to be confused with mind sets of the
society making up the the state. A state can be secular yet a majority of
the individuals making up the society can have personal prejudices and
biased views against certain religions. e.g, India is a secular country
but not all Hindus of India are free from communal hatred or prejudice.
(observation)

7. Secularism (By State) is a NECESSARY, not a sufficient condition/guarantee
for perfect religious harmony. (As 11 shows above). The sufficient conditions
are:
absence of communal hatred, religious prejudice and intolerance at personal
level. Means to meet these necessary conditions will be discussed in the
second part. (Postulate)

8. If any principle is agreed on as good/ideal then by the fact that the
principle is violated or not applied fully in a given instance does not
make the principle itself wrong or candidate for rejection, e.g secularism,
democracy etc (Postulate).

9. To attain perfect religious harmony there has to be a state principle of
fairness and equality between all religions regardless of the numerical
superiority of any given religion and regardless of the wishes of that
numerical superiority contrary to the principle. (Postulate)

10. The truly communal (see definitions) sections of any religion are a small
minority. (Postulate/Observation)

11. In Bangladesh a preferential recognition of religion exists in the
constitution e.g Islam as the State religion.

12. In Bangladesh we have "Hindu-Christian-Bouddho Oikko Parishad". No Parishad
or Shamiti/Shangha named "Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Bouddho Shampriti/Shanghati
Parishad/Samiti/Shangha" exists. (Observation)

13. India officially declares itself as Secular. Bangladesh does not.
(Observation)

14. Most Hindus in India accept the official adoption of Secularism as a state
principle and the minority Hindu communal forces don't challenge this
official
position by threat of armed struggle (As yet) (Observation)

15. In Bangladesh most Muslims (now) wish to see Islam being reflected as a
State
symbol. A small but powerful segment of Muslims in Bangladesh would oppose
with
threats of force (now) any initiative to declare secularism as a state
principle.
(Observation)

16. There exist lot of syncretic cultural elements between Hindu Muslim. For
example, Lalan Fakir, Hasa Raja, Kabir, Kanu fakir, Garib Khan. The last two
were famous Muslim writers of Vaishnav Padabali in the seventinth century
Bengal. Of course Nazrul is one of the greatest syncretist of Hindu-Muslim
cultural harmony. Nazrul wrote Shyama Sangeet, which is one of the most
religious songs of Hindus. Bhai GirishChandra Sen was the first to translate
Koran in Bengali. I am sure my examples are a small fraction of all possible
syncretic elements. (Observation)


CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS:

The above descriptive notes already have some normative connotations.
Specially observation 11 points to an unfortunate reality. The very fact
that such a united front of Hindu-Christian-Bouddho commuinity had to be
formed points to a symptom of a malaise. It is sad that there is not a
single organization/committee (Not just political, but social/cultural
as well) comprised of members of ALL religious community solely to
promote religious harmony. It is not enough for just poets,
intellectuals etc to come forward when an act of communal hatred occurs.
There has to be a sustained social activity by a dedicated body to
promote religious harmony in peace time on a day to day basis. It is
overdue. In view of the assymmetry between 7 and 8, however (here I hope
my observations #14 is wrong), I am pessimistic about a meanigful goal
of perfect Hindu-Muslim harmony. Symbolism is very important. Without
symbolism any declaration of honest intention of treating all religions
fairly by the majority will lack in credibility and viewed with
suspicion by the other religions. The very refusal to adopt secularism
(or insistence otherwise) itself can be quite justifiably read as a sign
of a lack of sincerity.

For example Dr. Farooq said:

>religion. However, with all due respect, if a better relationship between
Hindus
>and Muslims or for that matter between any other groups is contingent upon
>even removing the symbols from constitutions by giving a purely secularist
>character, I am afraid our dialog is a non-starter. And, this is one of the
>areas >of biggest failures of secularists that their focus on these symbols are
>as simplistic as those religionists (Muslims or others) who insist on these
>symbols.

This validates my pessimistic note above. If a recommendation/suggestion of
secularism is a non-starter then I guess it will never start. There is a
logical incomaptibility in expecting both a preferential state position on a
given religion and a perfect religious harmony because the minority religion
will never accept it in heart. Any fruitful religious harmony has to involve
initiatives that are mutually acceptable (at heart). A hindu will/should
understand a Muslim's concern if India ever declared its state religion as
Hinduism or adopted Hindu religious practices/beliefs in any manner in the
state affair. This is simply a principle based on logic. I don't see any way
of bypassing it logically. Its is clear that Hindu-Muslim harmony can only
be attained at a price. The price being letting go of the cherished desire
to see reflections of one's beloved religion in state. Without that symbolic
but significant sacrifice the best we can hope to achieve is a society free
from religious "riots" (Through draconian law and force), not a society of
perfect religious "harmony".

As to the second part of the above quotes of Dr. Farooq, yes they are
simplistic
if looked in isolation. But if one insists on the symbols then the the counter
insistence for removal of these symbols triggered by that the first insistence
that changes the context and it is no longer simplistic, as it becomes a
matter
of principle carrying great connotations in a society plagued with religious
tension. By the very insistence of symbolism one has elevated a "simplistic"
thing to a signifucant issue in the principle of equality. So labelling it a
a great "failure" of Secularists really is saying that secularism has failed
because it is championing a principle of secularism!

Going back to my descriptive part, item #15, It shows that harmony and
compatibility is possible despite differences. If Nazrul was alive and was
allowed to freely express his opinion on accepting or rejecting secularism my
bet is that he would have opted for the former.

In conclusion let me state the problem and make some nuts and bolts
suggestions
in the attempt to seek a harmony in Hidnu-Muslim relationship: (All of them
based on symmetry)

1. On a state level: Adopt secularism as a state principle and. Have the
education system emphasize religious harmony

2. On a social level: form Hindu-Muslim committee for friendship, more
participation of cross religious festivals, vigilance committee to
prevent any spread of communal acts of violence. Teaching religious
tolerance in schools and inside the family. Radio and televisions can
correctly present the teachings and scriptures of all religion to the
viewrs to dispel myths and stereotypes. In other words a whole
institution and culture of religious tolerance has to be developed and
nurtured through social initiatives.

3. On a personal level: try to learn as much about the other religions as
one can by reading and making friends. Refrain from making any assertion
of superiority of one's religion over the other in a discussion with
a member of another religion. Very importantly, criticise and rectify if
a wrong or stereotypical remark is made by someone. It goes a long way
by creating trust and credence in the effort of seeking harmony when a
Hindu points out the mistake in another Hindu's remark about Islam/Muslims
or a Muslim points out the mistake in another Muslim's remark about
Hinduism/Hindus. For example some time ago a Hindu poster in SCB in a
heated thread on Hindu-Muslim debate made a very derogatory remark about
Nobel Laureate Prof. Abdus Salam as being a third grade physicist who
managed to wrest the nobel awa\rd through shady manipulations and
bribing. No Hindu poster expressed shock at such postings. Similar things
happen on the other side also. One has to play the devil's (metaphorically)
advocate when fairness demands so.

4. Be aware of the fact that the belief/actions of the communal minority
never
never truly reflectt that of the majority. Sometimes when the minority
fanatics are extremely violent and vengeful the majority may be afraid to
speak out, even in that situation the one should not jump to labelling the
entire community as communal, but try to understand the dilemma of the
majority.Also note that a criticsim of India by a Muslim on an economic/
poltical issue does not by only logic make one communal. This is a common
fallacy that has caused many a truly non-communal Bangladeshi Muslim to be
painted as communal/fanatic by their Hindu/West bengali counterpart. For
example the of raising the issue of Farkka and the the island of South
Talpatty.


With best wishes,
Masud