By Abu Rahat Murshed Kabir, 10 December 2025
Atheist rights in Bangladesh exist in a precarious limbo—nominally safeguarded by constitutional guarantees of freedom of thought and expression, yet systematically undermined by a combination of archaic laws, societal religious conservatism, and selective enforcement that often prioritizes majority sentiments over individual liberties. In a nation where Islam is constitutionally the state religion (Article 2A, added in 1988) and over 90% of the population identifies as Muslim, atheism is not merely a personal philosophical choice but a perceived existential threat to social harmony, moral order, and national identity. As of November 2025, atheists and secularists continue to face disproportionate risks of arrest, harassment, social ostracism, and violence, particularly in the post-2024 political transition period under the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus. This environment has been described by international observers as one where expressing non-belief publicly can lead to “disproportionate and discriminatory” imprisonment amounting to persecution.
The logical foundation of these challenges is straightforward: in societies where religion serves as a core marker of collective identity and legitimacy for authority, atheism disrupts the dominant narrative. It questions divine sanction for social norms, political power, and moral codes, thereby inviting backlash as a form of cultural treason. When combined with weak rule of law, political opportunism, and the influence of Islamist groups, this disruption translates into systemic suppression. This blog provides a detailed examination of the legal framework, historical patterns of persecution, current realities up to November 2025, key case studies, international responses, domestic advocacy efforts, and reasoned pathways toward reform, emphasizing why atheist rights are essential for true pluralism and democratic health in Bangladesh.
The Legal Framework: Constitutional Promises vs. Practical Repression
Bangladesh’s 1972 Constitution originally enshrined secularism as one of its four fundamental principles (alongside nationalism, socialism, and democracy), reflecting the secular ethos of the 1971 Liberation War. Article 41 guarantees every citizen the right to profess, practice, or propagate any religion—or none—subject only to law, public order, and morality. Article 28 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, while Article 39 protects freedom of thought, conscience, speech, and press. These provisions logically extend to non-belief, as freedom from religion is inseparable from freedom of religion.
However, amendments and subsequent laws have eroded this foundation. The 1988 declaration of Islam as the state religion (Article 2A) created an implicit hierarchy, where non-Islamic views—including atheism—are positioned as secondary or deviant. There is no explicit constitutional protection for “freedom from religion” or non-belief, leaving atheists vulnerable to interpretations that equate criticism of religion with threats to public order.
The primary legal instruments used against atheists are:
- Section 295A of the Penal Code (1860): This colonial-era provision criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. While not a direct “blasphemy law” mandating death (as demanded by some Islamist groups), it is regularly invoked against atheists for online posts, writings, or statements perceived as insulting Islam. The vague language—”outraging religious feelings”—allows broad interpretation and abuse, often triggered by mob pressure or complaints from religious hardliners.
- Cyber Security Act (CSA) 2023 (replaced the Digital Security Act 2018): Sections mirroring 295A criminalized online content deemed to hurt religious sentiments, with penalties up to two years’ imprisonment and fines. The CSA was criticized for retaining vague, overbroad provisions that stifled dissent. In November 2024, the interim government agreed in principle to repeal it, and by early 2025, a draft Cyber Protection Ordinance was proposed. However, critics (including ARTICLE 19) noted it retained ambiguous terms enabling misuse. In March 2025, the government withdrew 410 “speech offence” cases under the CSA, though it was unclear how many involved religious defamation or atheists specifically. Despite this, the legal chill persists, as new ordinances and existing Penal Code sections continue to enable arrests.
- Other mechanisms: The Information and Communication Technology Act (pre-CSA) and moral policing by police or vigilantes amplify risks. There are no affirmative protections for atheists, such as anti-discrimination clauses for non-belief, and registering explicitly atheist or humanist organizations is effectively impossible due to societal and bureaucratic barriers.
Logically, these laws do not protect religious harmony but enforce conformity. They incentivize complaints from extremists, who can weaponize vague provisions to silence critics without needing concrete evidence of harm. International obligations under the ICCPR (ratified by Bangladesh) require freedom from coercion in belief and protection against discrimination, yet compliance is inconsistent—blasphemy-like provisions contradict these standards.
Historical Patterns of Persecution: From Fatwas to Assassinations
Persecution of atheists has deep roots but intensified in the 2010s. Taslima Nasrin’s 1993 writings criticizing religious fundamentalism and patriarchy led to fatwas, riots, and her 1994 exile—a pattern of targeting women who challenge religious norms.
The 2013 Shahbag protests, where secular bloggers demanded justice for 1971 war crimes, provoked a backlash. Islamist groups like Hefazat-e-Islam presented a “hit list” of 84 “atheist bloggers” to the government, demanding death penalties. Arrests followed under “hurting religious sentiments,” including Asif Mohiuddin (stabbed in 2013, survived, exiled) and others.
The 2015–2016 wave was deadly: Avijit Roy (hacked to death at Ekushey Book Fair, February 2015), Washiqur Rahman (February 2015), Ananta Bijoy Das (May 2015), Niloy Neel (August 2015), and Nazimuddin Samad (April 2016). Perpetrators linked to Ansarullah Bangla Team (Al-Qaeda affiliate) operated with relative impunity, highlighting state failure to protect dissenters.
These incidents logically demonstrate escalation: when secular voices gain visibility (via protests or blogs), extremists respond with violence to reassert dominance, while authorities often appease by arresting critics rather than perpetrators.
Current Realities Up to November 2025: Post-Transition Vulnerabilities
The August 2024 ouster of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government, seen by some as secular-leaning, ushered in an interim regime amid rising Islamist influence. Reports from June 2025 (UK Home Office CPIN) indicate atheists publishing views publicly risk arrest for “harming religious sentiment,” with imprisonment likely disproportionate and discriminatory.
Key developments:
- March 2025 CSA withdrawals: 410 speech-related cases dropped, but ambiguity persists on religious defamation cases.
- Draft Cyber Protection Ordinance (early 2025): Criticized for retaining vague provisions; consultations inadequate.
- Ongoing risks: Atheists face societal taboos (atheism “unpopular and unlikely to be publicly professed”) and potential violence. No specific November 2025 atheist arrests documented in major reports, but broader minority violence (e.g., blasphemy allegations against Hindus) creates spillover threats for secularists.
- USCIRF 2025 Factsheet: Highlights atheists among persecuted groups, alongside minorities; notes lack of accountability for post-2024 violence.
- Humanists International Freedom of Thought Report (2025): Classifies Bangladesh as having “systemic religious privilege” and “prohibitive social taboos” against atheism; notes difficulties registering non-religious NGOs.
Socially, atheists face family rejection, job discrimination, and marriage barriers. Women atheists encounter compounded gender-based risks. Logically, in a polarized post-transition climate, atheists are lumped with “anti-Islamic” elements, heightening vulnerability.
Key Case Studies: Illustrating Patterns
- Avijit Roy (2015): Founder of Mukto-Mona; murdered for rationalist writings. His widow, Rafida Bonya, continues advocacy from exile.
- Asif Mohiuddin (2013): Stabbed; arrested earlier for “blasphemy.” Exiled; exemplifies survival through flight.
- Selim Khan (2023): Arrested for atheism promotion; highlights ongoing Penal Code use.
- Broader context: 2025 blasphemy cases (often against Hindus) show how “hurting sentiments” accusations trigger arrests and mob pressure, mirroring atheist risks.
These cases logically reveal a cycle: expression → accusation → arrest or violence → impunity for perpetrators → chilled speech.
International and Domestic Responses
Humanists International, Atheist Alliance International, and USCIRF document abuses, advocating repeal of repressive laws. UK asylum guidance (2025) recognizes “serious risk” for open atheists. Domestic voices are muted due to fear, but diaspora activists and groups like JusticeMakers Bangladesh condemn persecution.
Path Forward: Logical Reforms for Protection
Repeal vague Penal Code sections and ensure cyber laws protect expression. Enact explicit non-discrimination protections for non-belief. Strengthen witness protection and prosecute vigilantes. International pressure via UN mechanisms can incentivize change.
Logically, protecting atheist rights strengthens democracy: diverse thought fosters innovation, reduces extremism, and upholds pluralism.
In conclusion, atheist rights in Bangladesh remain fragile, demanding urgent reform to align practice with constitutional ideals. Without action, the nation risks deeper authoritarianism under religious guise.
