In the wake of targeted killings and the hangings of war criminals, the demand for a ban on Jamaat-e-Islami has gone higher. The senior minister has hinted that Jamaat’s fate might be decided by June.
But the government and all others involved need to ponder on whether such a ban could be problematic for Jamaat, or beneficial.
This news called into question the government’s intentions, as we saw Jamaat-linked financial institutions soar, while those belonging to BNP witnessed a decline. The doubts gain further ground as the government has no desire to ban other religion-based parties.
The Awami League’s dual role with regards to how they treat the extremist parties needs to come under closer scrutiny. On one hand, AL flaunts being the sole contender in the fight against such radical forces in Bangladesh. Having subdued BNP, this aids AL prolong the status quo.
On the other hand, it cut some ties with religious parties, and took a backseat when fanatics closed in on bloggers.
The recent spate of blogger and minority killings has put a dent in AL’s image. It has brought to fore the demand for a Jamaat ban in a bid to recuperate that lost trust.
The ban will only give Jamaat a new identity and baptise it into democracy. It will retain its monolithic party structure and the loyal party cadres.
Taking off the caution label from the poison bottle does not make it safe. Similarly, banning Jamaat and allowing it to operate under a new banner does not mean they will discard their dogmatic beliefs and take on a peaceful stance in politics.
One may argue that re-branding will make Jamaat a more civilised democratic party, forcing it to keep its nose clean. But political parties can only be evaluated after we have experienced them.
In this light, we can say that we’ve already experienced Jamaat’s politics: Its instigating role in the Lahore riots, its 1971 campaigns of annihilating Bengalis who opted for Bangladesh, its hatred campaigns against the minority communities, its terror campaigns at public universities to subdue rivals, its troublesome forays across the country to jeopardise war crimes trials.
All its past deeds still rankle with Bangladeshis. A new Jamaat may remain the same since its policies and operations will be based on old political literature and modus operandi.
In this regard, the government is playing the role of a plastic surgeon who is magically removing Jamaat’s old crimes from its past and giving it another chance into our politics.
The stigma-free Jamaat will have unwarranted access to many areas where it is considered a political outcast. With its new look, Jamaat will consolidate its position in public universities, cultural institutions, the judiciary, media, and wherever else it had relatively weak presence all these years.
It will be too late when we wake up to the fact that they have a formidable position in these places.
Countries that do not want stability in Bangladesh will not spare the opportunity to build a relationship with a force capable of causing unimaginable destruction. The ban will make that task much easier.
In the past, we have seen Jamaat cadres responsible for subversive activities being given refuge in neighbouring states of India and being allowed to flee abroad.
When such a ban comes into effect, many Jamaat supporters will change their stances, and melt into leading parties, deteriorating further the fragile ambience of political coexistence.
Taking off the caution label from the poison bottle does not make it safe. Similarly, banning Jamaat and allowing it to operate under a new banner does not mean they will discard their dogmatic beliefs
The rest will rally behind far right-wing extremist groups who are ready to trample everything in their way.
This ban only ensures the restriction of political activities. What of its affiliates and financial institutions, which are the blood of a political party? Does the government have specific plans for those?
In recent years, as I’ve mentioned earlier, its financial institutions have done tremendously well and invested heavily in various sectors, including the SMEs, with AL endorsement.
Even Jamaat’s silence in the face of the government’s decision raises one’s eyebrows. It is unusual for a party to remain quiet when its very existence is under threat.
We have not yet seen any menacing messages from Jamaat. Maybe turning the country into a house of war will pose serious risks to Jamaat’s investment projects.
This move by the government, it seems, intends to give a kind of acceptability to its association with Jamaat. It can tell the world: “Hey, look, Jamaat no longer exists and the chaps with whom we are doing business right now are affiliated with another party.”
So, this plastic surgery, the ban, is imperative in making everything halal. The best way to address the problems of preaching hatred, communalism, bullying, and the rise of poisonous ideologies is by introducing a unified code of conduct into politics.
The political code will oblige all the political parties to follow some guidelines in terms of what they introduce as literature for their followers, what they do, and what they say about others.
Since this code is not meant for just one particular party and rather applicable for all the parties, no party will think that it is designed to constrain its activities and no party will become violent when its interests are in danger. The best part of this code is it will prevent the rise and spread of fascist ideologies.
Apart from the opportunistic quarter embedded inside the ruling party, all the responsible and thoughtful individuals should weigh the pros and cons of such a decision.
Instead of making such a move, the government should spell out its plans about parties with extreme ideologies. If there is none, then it needs to stop being the plastic surgeon and chalk out a long course of action to weed out the seedlings of terror.
