The Jamaat has released a statement through the London law firm Guernica 37 to protest its deregistration as a political party in 2013. Jamaat is trying to sway the opinion of the international community by misrepresenting the ground realities in Bangladesh. The statement from Guernica 37 makes no mention of the serious war crimes allegations faced by the Jamaat, which has been the defining image of the Jamaat in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshi voters.
In its statement, the Jamaat called for a caretaker government. The BNP-Jamaat alliance wants a prolonged period of caretaker rule, which would guarantee their transition to power. The last caretaker government in Bangladesh lasted for an unprecedented two years instead of 90-days as per the law, and went beyond its constitutional mandate.
The last caretaker government also presided over a string of human rights abuses. This kind of scenario opens up the possibility of international sanctions and security concerns. For context, currently, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is styled as a caretaker government.
The Jamaat also threatened to sue Bangladesh through UN treaty bodies. This is a hollow threat as part of a baseless and biased political commentary from an otherwise reputed law firm. Guernica 37 should let its client know that Bangladesh did not sign the first optional protocol of the ICCPR. Since Bangladesh is not a state party, it cannot be subjected to these empty threats.
The Jamaat is deeply controversial because of its role in the Liberation War. It provided manpower for three auxiliary militias, including the Rajakars, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams. Members of these militias were recruited from Jamaat’s cadres. These militias assisted the Pakistani occupation army in carrying out genocide against the people of Bangladesh.
After the war, the Jamaat was banned by the first government of Bangladesh. In the late 1970s, military dictator Ziaur Rahman lifted the ban as part of a cynical ploy to woo anti-liberation forces.
In 1986 and between 1991 and 2008, the Jamaat was allowed to participate in general elections as part of coalition politics. Its vote share ranged between 4% and 12% during these elections.
While it can be argued that pro-Jamaat voters are entitled to support a political group of their choice, this argument misses the larger point about the morality of the Jamaat’s politics. Is it morally permissible for a group which took part in genocide to function as a political party?
The Jamaat does not espouse equal rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution of Bangladesh. For example, it does not allow non-Muslims to be full members of the party, and instead relegates non-Muslims to being associate members. This is a contravention of freedom of association under Article 38 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion. Article 38 also prohibits groups from engaging in activities which undermine communal harmony or promote militancy.
The Jamaat’s violence against the Hindu community in Bangladesh has been well documented. Jamaat members attacked Hindus across the nation after the 2001 election. Even after its deregistration, the Jamaat continued to engage in widespread violence to destabilize the country. After the 2014 election, it was involved in a wave of anti-Hindu attacks. According to investigative reports and testimony submitted to the High Court Division, there were 160 hate crimes committed against the Hindu community in 21 districts following the general election.
The Jamaat’s ideology is also a problem. When the leader of the JMB terrorist group was arrested in 2006, he was caught with a bundle of jihadi literature, including the works of Jamaat founder Abul Ala Maududi and former Jamaat chief and war crimes convict Ghulam Azam. The Jamaat’s austere ideology is misogynistic, hateful, discriminatory, and violent. The Jamaat has been linked to many terrorist groups. Like the militias of 1971, Jamaat has been a source of manpower for terrorist groups in Bangladesh -- terrorist groups which continue to recruit from the Jamaat.
The Jamaat has been blamed for the criminalization of student politics in Bangladesh. Since the 1980s, the Jamaat’s student wing Shibir has often unleashed terror, with university students as victims in campuses across the country, particularly in Chittagong and Rajshahi.
This included employing terror tactics like slitting the veins and tendons of political opponents; and throwing bombs at anyone seen as a threat to their extremist ideology. Shibir was widely feared by other student political groups, including groups affiliated with the Awami League and BNP.
Only in recent years has Shibir become politically and technologically savvy, while Jamaat has become more media savvy. Jamaat’s opposition to the Awami League has spurred it into presenting a deceitful face to the world -- that of a beleaguered religious organization.
It is anything but that.
Freedom of religion is not under threat in Bangladesh, despite the Jamaat’s claims to the contrary. The right to freedom of religion is codified in the Constitution. The government has a good track record of supporting religious pluralism. This is widely acknowledged by Bangladesh’s international partners, including in the 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom.
In fact, the hypocrisy of Jamaat’s holier-than-thou attitude is exposed in its views towards the Ahmadiyya Muslim minority. The Jamaat wants the Ahmadiyya sect to be declared as non-Muslims. Why does the Jamaat oppose freedom of religion for the Ahmadiyya Muslims? The government of Bangladesh is not in a position to interfere with any community’s religious identification. Doing so would be a violation of the fundamental principles of state policy and fundamental rights.
The Jamaat was deregistered as a result of a public interest lawsuit. A petition was filed to challenge the Election Commission’s decision to register the Jamaat. The petition was filed on behalf of victims’ groups, religious organizations, and the general public.
The Jamaat’s registration was subjected to judicial review. The court found that the group was contradicting the constitution in letter and spirit. The petitioners were represented by the eloquent Barrister Tania Amir, while the opposing side included the Election Commission and government lawyers.
Even after ten years, the Jamaat continues to contradict constitutional values, including equality in freedom of association for non-Muslims, the prohibition of links to terror and communal violence, and freedom of religion for Ahmadiyya Muslims.
Above all, the Jamaat’s legacy of genocide looms large. If the Nazi party and the Khmer Rouge can be banned, is it fair to the families of victims killed in 1971 to have the Jamaat as a political party?
Umran Chowdhury works in the legal field.