For post-liberation Bangladesh, the ban on Jamaat was like the ban on the Nazi party. Jamaat provided manpower and material support for the military junta which oversaw the genocide in Bangladesh in 1971. Members of Jamaat became volunteers for the three anti-liberation militia corps, including the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams.
These militias provided grassroots intelligence and guided troops to their intended targets, including to the houses of pro-independence civilians who were subsequently detained or killed. In many cases, the militias were directly involved in killing unarmed civilians. The militias were an instrumental part of the war machine in 1971.
Ironically, Jamaat also opposed the creation of Pakistan and the partition of India in 1947. At the time, Jamaat opposed the modernity, moderateness, and pragmatism of the All India Muslim League, the party which established the state of Pakistan during the end of British rule.
While staunchly opposing the Muslim League’s drive for creating Pakistan, Jamaat offered no feasible alternative. Its vision of a medieval caliphate was impossible. It dreamt of subjugating the entire subcontinent under its draconian rule.
One of the enduring questions of Bangladeshi politics is whether the ban on Jamaat should be reinstated. Jamaat was first banned in 1972 after the liberation of Bangladesh. The ban on Jamaat was lifted by Ziaur Rahman, the founder of the BNP, in the late 1970s.
Supporters of Jamaat contend that it is a party of principle and its opposition to the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh does not merit a ban on its political activities. They argue that it would be undemocratic to ban Jamaat simply because it opposed the state. But this argument overlooks the fact that Jamaat was directly involved in wartime violence against unarmed civilians.
The vast majority of Bangladeshi voters have been averse to Jamaat. The party caters to the marginal orthodox Muslim vote bank like the orthodox Jews of Israel. However, Jamaat continues to suffer from the stigma of 1971. Its role in wartime atrocities continues to be highly controversial.
Jamaat was never a part of any government in modern Bangladesh during the 20th century. Even when the state religion was introduced in 1988, Jamaat had no role in the constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, Jamaat began to benefit from coalition politics in the 1990s.
The fortunes of Jamaat were given a boost by Begum Khaleda Zia in 2001 when she formed the four party alliance. The Jamaat gained seats in the cabinet of Bangladesh for the first time in 2001. For many Bangladeshis, this was a grave moral injustice given Jamaat’s role in 1971.
Jamaat’s supporters have since sought to promote a revisionist history of 1971. This has included a campaign within and outside Bangladesh to deny that a genocide took place in 1971. Begum Zia’s foolishness irreparably damaged the national interests of Bangladesh.
During the military-backed caretaker government, Jamaat was forced to change its party constitution and pledge allegiance to the constitution of Bangladesh. Jamaat then began to pay lip service to some provisions of the constitution.
The judiciary’s restoration of secularism in the constitution paved the way for deregistering Jamaat as a political party. The constitution cannot allow a theocracy as advocated by Jamaat. Article 12 (c) of the constitution calls for eliminating “the abuse of religion for political purposes.”
When the Awami League returned to power in 2009, it formed a war crimes tribunal which sentenced top Jamaat leaders behind bars or to the gallows. The Election Commission deregistered Jamaat as a political party. Nevertheless, many in Bangladesh have pointed out that Jamaat continues to operate as an unofficial political party.
Even the BNP today accuses the Awami League of failing to ban Jamaat. Despite the popular aversion to Jamaat’s disgraceful history, the orthodox Muslim vote bank is considered to be a crucial swing vote in the country’s politics.
Bangladesh needs a professionally trained clergy to deal with religious affairs instead of a political group with a history of violence and wartime atrocities. Jamaat does not have to be the main representative of the orthodox Muslim vote bank.
The return of the Taliban in Afghanistan has reignited discussions on modernizing orthodox Islam. Now is the time for modernizing orthodox interpretations of Islam.
Jamaat has been a disgrace to Islam. Jamaat is also a disgrace to the history of Bangladesh. Its removal from the list of registered political parties gives rise to the question: Will the next step be an act of parliament to prohibit any activities in the name of Jamaat?
Adequate safeguards have to be put in place to prevent Jamaat from violently resurrecting itself in the role it played in 1971. The judiciary of Bangladesh must be mindful in the long run in upholding Article 12 of the constitution.
Umran Chowdhury works in the legal field.
