Will Tarique Rahman Choose To Embark On The Journey Of Building A Modern Bangladesh? – OpEd
Seventeen years ago, when Tarique Rahman left the country, and when he returned on December 25, 2025—are the two the same person? As far as I know, almost everyone’s answer would be no. He lived in the world’s first industrialized country, the land where the Industrial Revolution began, where the separation of church and state took shape, and where the Magna Carta emerged. The Renaissance, which began in Italy, quickly reached this country.
He had the opportunity to observe England’s political culture from close quarters. The practice among leaders there—arguing through reason, showing respect to others, tolerance toward differing opinions, and the exercise of freedom of speech—seems to have found some reflection in Tarique Rahman as well. For example, at the airport he carried his own bag instead of allowing someone else to do so; even during election campaigning, he did not hand his coat to anyone else.
Statements he made during his stay in England also bore clear marks of modernity: “Do not address me as a statesman,” “Do not cut cakes on my birthday,” “I want to ensure that even a prime minister cannot become authoritarian,” “If voting rights are ensured, the state will not need to bear the responsibility of banning any political party,” “The same person should not simultaneously be head of government and head of party,” and “No individual should serve more than two terms as prime minister.”
After the fall of the Hasina government, his instructions to party leaders and activists to stand beside minorities, his assertion that religion belongs to individuals, but security is everyone’s right, his call to avoid revenge, and his commitment to building the country in the non-communal spirit of the Liberation War all testify to his growing maturity and prudence.
In one speech, he stated that students must remain engaged in cultural activities. The state, he argued, should ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn music, play instruments, act, and participate in sports. We observe a striking expansion of his intellectual outlook when, in an address to the nation, he declared that “the rights of non-believers and skeptics must also be guaranteed.” In doing so, he rises to a different level, surpassing many of his predecessors.
Yet aspiration alone is not sufficient. The construction of a modern state must become part of a party’s ideological foundation, clearly articulated in its electoral manifesto, and embedded in the minds of every party member like a guiding vision. In this context, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by a modern state.
In brief, a state can be considered modern if it embraces the principles and values that championed the French Revolution. The foremost of these is that the state must be governed by human-made laws —not by laws decreed by a monarch or derived from divine injunctions. Classical mechanics teaches us that everything in the universe changes over time; even the genes of the animal and plant worlds evolve. Therefore, no law can remain valid indefinitely. New eras require new laws. Acceptance of change itself is the essence of modernity.
The Enlightenment movement of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe created a worldview across the Western world whose central message was reliance on reason rather than faith, the primacy of material reality over abstract sentiment, and an emphasis on worldly human concerns.
The Enlightenment formed the intellectual foundation of the French Revolution. Thus, examining some of its key concepts helps clarify the idea of a modern state. Among the core principles of the Enlightenment were the celebration and application of reason; liberation from belief and prejudice; the awakening of the intellectual capacity through which human beings can understand the universe and improve social conditions; and the pursuit of knowledge, freedom, and happiness as the goals of rational humanity.
At a time when Bangladeshi society is experiencing a drought in the practice of knowledge, science, and philosophy, it is worth recalling the preparatory phase preceding the French Revolution. In eighteenth-century France, forward-looking thinkers and writers such as Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau began producing a vast body of writings. These works explored philosophical questions concerning the state, politics, society, the universe, humanity, and God. They emphasized the use of human reason and offered critical examinations of established religious authority and prevailing political practices. The French people widely read and absorbed these ideas, and ultimately prepared themselves for a far-reaching revolution aimed at profound transformation.
The roots of the French Revolution are deeply embedded in the European Renaissance that unfolded between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Renaissance represented a cultural, artistic, political, and economic rebirth in Europe. It marked the rediscovery of classical philosophy, literature, and art. After the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 CE and the long period often described as the Dark Ages that lasted until the thirteenth century, this rediscovery emerged. But what exactly was rediscovered? It was the idea that human beings stand at the center of the universe; that human beings should also stand at the center of all human activity; and that achievements in knowledge, science, art, and literature belong to all people and should serve to improve human life in this earthly world.
In England, too, profound transformations took place. Scientific discoveries and technological innovations triggered the Industrial Revolution there. This revolution spread across Europe and later to America, leading to rapid urbanization and unprecedented improvements in transportation. The living standards of workers rose significantly. Subsequently, important political developments followed: the expansion of civil rights and liberties, the assertion of parliamentary authority over the monarchy, and the passage of the Bill of Rights (1689), which separated the authority of the state from religion, alongside the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689). Inspired by the English Bill of Rights, the United States adopted its own Bill of Rights in 1789, guaranteeing fundamental human and individual freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religious practice; due process of law and the right to bear arms; and the principle that powers not delegated to the federal government would be reserved for the states and the people.
The French Revolution reached its culmination with the abolition of monarchy and the establishment of a republic, alongside the creation of a bicameral legislature and the removal of religion from state affairs. It institutionalized the three ideals of the Revolution—liberty, equality, and fraternity—ushering in a new era for the world. Inspired by the French Revolution, countless people across many countries struggled for rights and freedoms, ultimately transforming the destiny of societies through their victories.
The revolutions and struggles for human rights discussed so far differ fundamentally from the most recent great revolution—the Russian Revolution. Earlier revolutions did not fully ensure equality among people. Rights such as suffrage, freedom of expression, and the freedom to live according to one’s own choices were advanced, but the right to bread—the just economic claims of working people—was secured by no revolution other than the Russian Revolution. In fact, human liberation is incomplete without the emancipation of marginalized groups, particularly women and workers. Such liberation, it is argued, is impossible without the realization of socialist ideals, since only a state built on socialist principles places working people—men and women alike—at the center of political power. The historical example often cited in this regard is the former Soviet Union.
In contemporary discussions, a definition of modern society has been offered by Harvey Mansfield, a professor at Harvard, in his book Rise and Fall of Rational Control. He argues that the defining feature of a modern society is the governance of life through reason rather than prejudice, superstition, or inherited customs. Prejudices, superstitions, and outdated social practices tend to drive people toward narrow material pursuits, whereas reason cultivates prudence and self-restraint. While societies naturally incline individuals toward conformity with established traditions, the journey toward modernity requires that individuals organize their lives through rational judgment.
People in developing countries often aspire to migrate to advanced nations, or at least dream that their own country might one day resemble them. Yet every developed country has travelled a long historical path to reach its present condition. That journey requires two forms of preparation: economic development, and the advancement of education, arts, and culture. Progress in education, arts, and culture ultimately signifies intellectual and psychological development. If, under the leadership of Tarique Rahman, the BNP can undertake a broad social effort aimed at cultivating such intellectual transformation, then it becomes our responsibility to participate in it—or at the very least, to support it.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
