What do you understand by “end of history” and “clash of civilization”?

The end of history is a political and philosophical concept that supposes that a particular
political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of
humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government. A variety of authors
have argued that a particular system is the "end of history" including Thomas More in Utopia,
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Vladimir Solovyov, Alexandre Kojève, and Francis
Fukuyama in the 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man. The phrase the end of history
was first used by French philosopher and mathematician Antoine Augustin Cournot in 1861 "to
refer to the end of the historical dynamic with the perfection of civil society. Arnold Gehlen
adopted it in 1952 and it has been taken up more recently by Heidegger and Vattimo. The formal
development of an idea of an "end of history" is most closely associated with Hegel, although
Hegel discussed the idea in ambiguous terms, making it unclear whether he thought such a thing
was a certainty or a mere possibility.

“Clash of civilization” is a theory by Samuel Huntington that, in the post-Cold War world,
conflict would not primarily be ideological or economic, but rather cultural in character.
However, the thesis had its greatest impact after September 11, when it was widely used as an
explanation of the changing nature of world order as global terrorism was seen as a symptom of
an emerging clash between Islam and the West. Huntington particularly warned about the
likelihood of conflict between China and the West, and between the West and Islam. He also
identified the potential for conflict between the West and ‘the Rest’, possibly spearheaded by an
anti-western alliance of Confucian and Islamic states. This account of emerging and seemingly
irresistible cultural conflict has beenseverely criticized; just as orthodox Marxists made the
mistake of ‘economism’, by overstating the importance of economic and class factors in
determining identity, Huntington made the mistake of culturalism, in that he failed to recognize
the extent to which cultural identities are shaped by political and social circumstances.
What do you think about the role of religion in the identity politics in context Bangladesh?

The most prominent aspect of the growing political importance of culture has undoubtedly been
religious revivalism and the rise of religious movements. Role of religion in different societies
and cultures varies considerably. For instance, although Judeo-Christian beliefs are clearly a
component of western civilization it is not necessarily its defining feature. Such developments
are based on the so-called ‘secularization thesis’. The advance of secularism, nevertheless, does
not necessarily imply the decline of religion. But advocates of the secularization thesis have been
confounded by developments from the late twentieth century onwards. Religion has become
more important, not less important. This has been evident in the emergence of new forms of
religiosity, in the increasing impact of religious movements and, most importantly, in a closer
relationship between religion and politics. Political use of religion is a common feature in Indian
subcontinent from the very time of the advent of the Aryans. They used religion as a political
weapon and their seed has become like a Banyan tree. And that's why still today, Bangladesh,
Pakistan and India all are suffering due to religion based politics. It is considered as the most
important element of communalism. But in Bangladesh communalism was not acute in ancient
period. During the last phase of the British period and more especially in Pakistan period,
religion became the most powerful weapon for the ruling class. The birth of Muslim League and
the technical transformation of Congress tenderness towards Hindus during British period were
based on religion. The Pakistani rulers tried to use religion as the handmaiden of oppression. So,
being aware of the devastating fact of the use of religion in politics, the then Awami League had
to take decision considering a very sensitive issue whether religion based politics should be
banned or not. The present article emphasizes the main issues of the roots of the political usage
of religion in Bangladesh and its implications in the social phenomenon.