The Daily Star
This is not to criticise Jamaat-e-Islami because it proposed names of war criminals for condolence motion at the parliament. Nor is this article meant to censure Jamaat and its allies for initially refusing to stand when the national anthem was played out at the parliament. This should not be surprising in light of the party’s persistent efforts to demean and belittle the liberation war. Nor should it come as a shock considering Jamaat’s insistence to eulogise its former leaders and wean itself off its dark past of 1971.
It should, however, be mentioned that the ruling party was also complicit in endorsing the condolence motion, especially since it was BNP’s chief whip, Nurul Islam, who first proposed the names of Motiur Rahman Nizami and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujaheed. Both of them were central leaders of the vigilante militia outfit Al Badr, which was responsible for atrocities against unarmed civilians in its bid to defeat the liberation forces.
Both Nizami and Mujaheed, rose through the ranks of Jamaat’s student wing, Islami Chhatra Sangha and later became leaders of Jamaat. Both of them served as ministers during an alliance government with BNP between 2001 and 2006. They were later executed for war crimes after the International Crimes Tribunal found them guilty.
But this article is to point out why Jamaat’s repeated apologies never fail to ring hollow and sound half-hearted if not insincere. To be fair, the current leader of Jamaat, Shafiqur Rahman, who is also leader of the opposition in parliament, has indeed apologised several times but never mentioned the atrocities of 1971 that his party had carried out against Bangladeshis.
The Jamaat chief offered an unconditional apology for the “errors” or “mistakes” of his party and its activists on October 22, 2025 while addressing a public function in New York. “Today, I publicly declare once again that—from 1947 until this moment of October 22, 2025…it is now 8:11pm in New York—for all the suffering caused by us, on whomever, wherever—we apologise unconditionally.”
The video clip widely available on a number of social media handles.
The Jamaat leader said, “Some people say, even if you haven’t committed any specific crime, your political decision was not acceptable. You could at least offer an apology.”
In a bid to justify lumping Jamaat’s entire history with its misdeeds of 1971, Shafiqur Rahman had said he was keen to beg for forgiveness for all the wrongs that his party might have committed. But he also complained that some quarters are never satisfied. “After seeking forgiveness, some say it should not be in this language, or it should be in that language. I sought unconditional forgiveness, without any condition. What else is left?”
But just two months after that “apology”, in December 2025, Jamaat leaders had said it was the Indian soldiers that abducted, tortured and executed Bangladeshi intellectuals in the dying days of the liberation war, which was in fact, perpetrated by the Al Badr militia made up almost wholly of Jamaat’s student cadres.
The December 2024 edition of Jamaat student wing Chhatra Shibir’s mouthpiece, the monthly Chhatra Sangbad was themed after the mass uprising that loosely translates to “the bloody chapter of victory” (bijoy er roktakto oddhyay). One article, discussing the downfall of tyrants through the ages (juge juge shoirachar o tader korun porinoti), stated at one point, “Some Muslims participated in the Liberation War without fully comprehending the consequences. It was their failure and lack of foresight. May the Almighty forgive them.”
Shibir withdrew the article and recalled that edition of the magazine.
Amid the celebrations marking one year of July uprising, Islami Chhatra Shibir’s display on Dhaka University campus featuring photos of seven convicted war criminals was later taken down, faced with protests.
And yet the Jamaat chief wonders “what is left” to say, or perhaps what more he could do. It is quite simple. What is left for Jamaat is to own up to its past misdeeds and distance itself from its leaders associated with that dark past, if not shun them. It needs to stop questioning the liberation war or trying to revisit history as if probing to see how far such transgression will be tolerated. Till then, the Jamaat will not be able to absolve itself or rise above circumspection.
During the first session of the parliament, war criminals were referred to as martyrs. Had it not been for the repeated urging of senior treasury bench members, the entire Jamaat-led opposition would have sat through the national anthem at the parliament. As elected MPs of this republic, Jamaat’s lawmakers are within their rights to protest in a manner they deem appropriate and propose condolence motions for people they consider martyrs. One of its senior members, who is accused of war crimes, albeit recently acquitted, is among the panel of speakers who may lead the house if the speaker and deputy speakers are absent.
These developments may well appear to be victories but it would only mean that Jamaat remains a party that refuses to reckon with the ghosts it created. While the laws of this secular democratic republic protect their right to dissent and even to offend, no parliamentary motion, no debate on the floor can sanitise their history. So long as they fail to bask in the unapologetic pride of having won independence in 1971, Jamaat will remain in the shadows of that very legacy.
Source: https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/politics/news/why-jamaats-debut-opposition-parliament-fails-the-history-test-4131761
