Be more than witnesses at a funeral

Shayan Khan
.........................................................

From all that I know about the history of my country, one recent incident must rank right up ( or rather down ) there as one of the lowest points in our history. I am talking of-course, about the recent government decision to ban all publications of the Ahmadiyya Muslim minority group of Bangladesh.

Following up that decision, the PM has tried to ameliorate the blow by declaring that the Ahmadiyyas will NOT be declared as non-Muslims, as the bigots behind this whole farce had also demanded. She has been lauded across the nation for this apparently bold declaration.

Perhaps, but for me, the declaration of the Ahmadiyyas as non-Muslims was never an issue anyway. It does not matter to me, you or the Ahmadiyyas as to who sees us as Muslims or not. That is our most personal issue with God. A government's declaration hardly matters, except for superfluous reasons. But the banning of all publications of a community is a great affront to the community's constitutional rights, and I hope that this will not be forgotten in light of the PM's latest declaration, which I believe was only meant to soften a great blow.

The reason given is that proliferation of these books, leaflets, etc, may be harmful because they contain material that might hurt the sentiments of the majority of Muslims in the country.

In theory, this might be true ( although that would still not make it a good enough excuse to ban their publications ). The Ahmadiyyas do cultivate some beliefs that contradict the beliefs of us Sunnis, and the other sects of Islam as well. I am even offended by some of them. But they are not forcing anyone to believe in them. Just like the Hindus and the Christians in Bangladesh, they have their own set of beliefs and adhere to them.

I myself started learning about their different beliefs only since I started reading up on them, which is since the IOJ and its associates started their hate campaign.

Thinking about it from a practical point of view, no Ahmadiyya has ever come in my way of practicing my religion in whatever way I want, and I have never even heard of anyone whose beliefs have been influenced by going through an Ahmadiyya book, or leaflet. After all, they are such a small community in Bangladesh, numbering only around 1.5 lakh.

They rarely got a mention in any major news media, until two months ago. They have absolutely no representation in the cultural mainstream of the country. In essence, they are a friendless people. But they have managed to survive in their own way, without coming in anybody else's way.

Where the government got the notion that their publications might give rise to disharmony is beyond me.

But let us suppose they were a fairly sizeable community, with whom we came into contact on a quite regular basis. Would the government still have any right to regulate how they went about their daily lives, what books they chose to read, or publish or even proliferate ? Article 2A of the Constitution of Bangladesh, states : ' The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic'. The Ahmadiyyas, whether Islamic or not, certainly did not practice their faith in contrast to this decree.

They have consistently practiced their faith in peace and harmony. Moving on, Article 41(1)(a) states : ' Every citizen has the right to profess, practice or propagate any religion '. 41(1)(b) goes on to say : ' Every religious community or denomination has the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions '. The key word here is ' propagate '.

There are different meanings of the word propagate, but the one that is most relevant to religion, is that to propagate means to cause to extend to a broader area or larger number ( courtesy of www.dictionary.com). So even if the Ahmadiyyas did want to propagate their faith through books and leaflets, they would not be violating the constitution in any way.

Especially since they have never resorted to any violent or untoward means to do so. With this in mind, the government has taken a decision that runs contrary to the Constitution, since their decision to ban the Ahmadiyyas' publications restricts their freedom of trying to propagate their faith by peaceful, acceptable means.

The fact that the Ahmadiyyas' campaign to propagate their religion has been very limited in its scope anyway is besides the point. Even a well thought out, concerted and wide ranging campaign, as long as it stayed within the norms of acceptability would not have been wrong on their part.

What we should never forget is that the final decision of what religion we follow depends on us. An Ahmadiyya has every right to preach to me for as long as he wants.

What matters is whether he can convince me or not. As long as he does not force me to follow his faith, he is not in the wrong. And books and leaflets don not appear under our noses automatically. Once again, it is our choice whether we wish to read them or not, and the government should have no say in what book we choose to read or not.

So from all these perspectives ( practical, theoretical, constitutional ), the Ahmadiyyas have been given a raw deal. In keeping with Bangladesh's image as a secular state, the ban should be rescinded as soon as possible. But let us now look into a potentially more dangerous problem.

One of the leaders of the anti-Ahmadiyya alliance, Mahmudul Hasan Mamtazi, has threatened to eliminate the Ahmadiyyas from Bangladesh if they continue to call themselves Muslims. I certainly do not expect the Ahmadiyyas, if they are worth their salt, to bow down to this demand. If I was Mobasherrur Rahman, the National Amir of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, Bangladesh, I would be getting ready to hire a qualified lawyer to take the International Majlish-e-Tahaffuz-e-Khatme Nabuwat Bangladesh ( the die-hard anti-Ahmadiyya alliance ) to an international court on grounds of attempt, conspiracy and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. The Genocide Convention defines acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Most unfortunately, the IMTKNB includes some people who are part of the government coalition in Bangladesh. If worse comes to worse, and genocide is committed, the government of the country itself may be implicated in the charges.

Needless to say, it would not help the international image of Bangladesh one bit, but I would encourage all fair-minded Bangladeshis to come out and support this friendless group of people. Sometimes, it is more important to leave aside considerations of image and do what is the right thing to do.

In a situation like this, we should be strictly apolitical and put the rights and needs of fellow human beings above all other considerations.

What is of primary importance, above religious interpretation, above personal choice, and even above the constitution is that justice is served for our fellow man. We can show the world that we may be poor in terms of economy, but rich when it comes to retaining a degree of humanity.
.........................................................
The author is studying at Dept. Of International Relations, Coventry University, UK.