In assessing the legitimacy and public perception of the government’s move to ban Jamaat-e-Islami, it is essential to delve into the historical trajectory of Bangladesh and the evolving political landscape.
1. 1972: Ban on Jamaat and General Amnesty for Collaborators
After Bangladesh gained independence in 1971, Jamaat-e-Islami was banned due to its opposition to the liberation movement. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman observed that many within his administration were pro-Pakistan, and there was intense public animosity towards war-criminal collaborators. To navigate this precarious situation, Mujib declared a general amnesty for the collaborators.
2. Perception of ‘Rakkhi Bahini’ and Accusations against Mujib
During the Liberation War, the exiled government, led by Tajuddin Ahmad, entered into a controversial image with India. Post-independence, Sheikh Mujib sought to distance himself from this image, culminating in the withdrawal of the last Indian troops in March 1972. To fill the power vacuum and address unemployment among young freedom fighters, Mujib formed the Rakkhi Bahini. Critics claimed it was a political tool for the Awami League rather than a national defense force. This led to accusations of Mujib being an Indian stooge, a sentiment he tried to counter by participating in the 1974 Lahore OIC summit.
3. 1975: Assassination of Sheikh Mujib
In 1975, Sheikh Mujib and his family were brutally murdered by a faction within the army, who justified their actions by accusing Mujib of corruption and mismanagement. The assassins were shielded from prosecution by an indemnity law, highlighting a significant division within the military.
4. Resurgence of Jamaat under Ziaur Rahman
Following Mujib’s assassination, Major General Ziaur Rahman lifted the ban on Jamaat-e-Islami, claiming to open the door to multi-party democracy. Jamaat was officially re-established in May 1979, marking its return to the political scene.
5. Jamaat’s Political Alliances with Major Parties
After Zia’s assassination on May 30, 1981, Ershad took power and imposed martial law in the country. On November 20, 1983, the then Acting Emir of Jamaat, the late Abbas Ali Khan, declared Ershad’s government illegal. In response, eight parties, led by the BNP and Awami League, coordinated with Jamaat-e-Islami to join the anti-Ershad movement from 1983 to 1990. Although the BNP rejected Ershad’s staged election in 1986, both the Awami League and Jamaat participated in the election together and joined the parliament.
6. Shifting Dynamics between Awami League and Jamaat
When Ershad was forced to resign on December 6, 1990, the BNP won the 1991 elections despite the Awami League’s strong confidence. When Jamaat supported the BNP in forming the government, the Awami League expressed anger towards Jamaat. However, Awami leaders met with Ghulam Azam regarding his presidential bid and maintained cordial relations with Jamaat to win them over. For instance, Sheikh Hasina gifted Ghulam Azam a tasbih, prayer mat, and Quran Sharif as a gesture of goodwill, and she sent her brother, Sheikh Salim, to visit the ill Matiur Rahman Nizami.
7. Jamaat’s Growth during BNP’s Tenure
The Awami League formed an alliance with Jamaat to secure victory in the 1996 elections. However, after winning 146 seats, the Awami League did not include Jamaat in the government formation. In 2001, Jamaat joined forces with the BNP to create a four-party alliance, which led to their electoral victory. As a result, Nizami was appointed as the Agriculture Minister, along with 16 other ministers, which effectively enabled Jamaat to thrive.
8. Pilkhana Massacre, Military, and Police Perceptions
When the Awami League took power in 2008, the horrific murders that occurred in Dhaka’s Pilkhana on February 25 and 26, 2009, echoed a tragic history. Many political analysts believe that, although the government called it a BDR revolt, it mirrored the 1975 event when junior officers broke the chain of command to participate in Mujib’s assassination. Due to fears of a similar revolt, it is suspected that Sheikh Hasina orchestrated the elimination of many pro-BNP or anti-government officers in a well-planned move, effectively stifling any potential military protest against the government. The truth remains unclear to the people of Bangladesh. However, the neutrality of the Bangladesh Army in elections and movements is highly questionable today. The indomitable bravery displayed by the Bangladesh Army in 1971 starkly contrasts with the present. Many army officers are now engaged in business ventures and large real estate agencies. The role of the police force in ensuring public safety is often criticized by Awami opponents, comparing it to the guards and enforcers of the ‘Awami Petwa Bahini’.
9. Awami League’s Strategy and Timing of Jamaat’s Ban
It is clear from points 5 and 6 above that both the Awami League and BNP supported Jamaat simultaneously to satisfy their intense hunger for power. Although the Awami League was in power in 1996, they did not ban Jamaat. When the government rushed into its second term, launching war crimes trials in 2012, many political analysts saw it as a ploy to stay in power for another term. The impunity granted to the war crimes mastermind due to his old age also raises questions about the integrity of the judiciary. While the trial of war crimes is a commendable act by the government, the question remains why the Awami League allowed this issue to persist during their 1996 tenure and instead of addressing it over the next 15 years, now declares it a cancer. The reason is quite obvious: it serves as a weapon to target other opponents and a political maneuver. Over the last decade, the government has labeled anyone with opposing views as Razakar or war criminals to suppress dissent. This ‘Jamaat ban,’ along with the protracted war crimes trials, appears to be a strategy for the government to stay in power under the guise of democracy, ultimately a tactic of extreme self-preservation.
10. Jamaat Ban as a Political Maneuver
Given the secular foundation of Bangladesh, banning a religiously driven party like Jamaat seems justifiable. However, the timing suggests a strategic move to curb dissent and maintain political dominance. The Law Minister’s recent statements indicate that the ban could be executed through court petitions or executive orders. Therefore, this is not the right time to raise this time-consuming issue.
11. Public Sentiment on Justice for Genocide and Government Accountability
The public demands justice for more than 266 deaths, numerous disappearances, and the recent surge of violence. Historically, successful uprisings have not seen such high casualties and bloodshed as witnessed recently, leading to calls for the current government’s resignation. The youth, disheartened by traditional politics, yearn for a government resignation, fair elections, and a new political order.
At this critical moment, the Bangladesh government is attempting to use the potential ban on Jamaat as a test of political integrity and democratic principles. It is clear that raising this issue now is intended to suppress protesters and movements to remain in power, rather than to restore democracy. They have neither sought forgiveness for the brutality nor shown empathy towards students and the widespread violence. The public’s demand for justice and accountability must be heeded to prevent further unrest and to foster a renewed democratic process.
To read this article in Bengali:https://truthcastbd.com/2024/07/31/jamaat-e-islami-ban/
[…] ইংরেজি ভার্সন দেখতে চাইলেঃhttps://truthcastbd.com/2024/07/31/analyzing-jamaat-ban-31-luly-2024/ […]