A few days back, the nation’s High Court, by a majority decision, declared that Jamaat-e-Islami’s registration with the Election Commission was invalid. If the ruling holds past planned appeals, Jamaat may not be able to participate in the upcoming elections. A short term setback for Jamaat, but it is not a lasting blow to the party. Jamaat leaders have long term goals, and as reported in a Wilileaks document (Jamaate Islami: A Tortoise and not a Hare,” Jan 3, 2010), Jamaat leader, and lead lawyer in the High Court case was reported as saying, “Razzaq told us Jamaat is not concerned with short-term gains like winning the next national election or increasing the number of seats in the national parliament. Rather, Jamaat’s true aim is to make Bangladesh a genuinely Islamic country .”
Some have demanded that Jamaat be banned as a political party. But the High Court decision, if upheld on appeal, only applies to Jamaat’s ability to participate in the immediate election, but says nothing about Jamaat’s right to engage in political activity in pursuit of its long term goals.
The right to organise and engage in political activity is fundamental to any democracy. And any talk about banning Jamaat as a political party is simply unacceptable. While many of us personally abhor Jamaat politics, we also recognise that Jamaat represents a segment of the country’s population, and this segment has the right to freely express their political views as any other segment of the population. We recognise that dissent and protection of that right is fundamental in a healthy democracy. Perhaps, in recognition of this fundamental right, the Awami League General Secretary has said that there are no plans to ban Jamaat as a party, and this reflects the thoughts of the PM also.
Jamaat leaders were fully cognizant of the possibility that Jamaat’s electoral registration could be declared invalid or Jamaat itself may be banned. And in anticipation, Jamaat leaders have well thought out plans. Again, according to Wikileaks: (Jamaat Pleads its case before Ambassador, Feb. 16, 2010), Mr. Razzaq is quoted as stating: “Jamaat believed in the Constitutional path, and will abide by the Court’s decision. If Bangladesh banned religious-based political parties, Jamaat will emulate the response of religious-based political parties in Turkey. Jamaat will rename itself and remove religious tenets from its constitution, but will at the same time challenge the ruling in court. The Jamaat leader said a ban on religious parties would cost the party some money that was tied to bank accounts and trusts in the party’s name, but it would survive. “It will be a wound, but a wound that could be healed.”
The Turkish model is one among other possibilities. Take, for example, Jamaat in India. Jamaat Hind has articles of incorporation very similar to those in Jamaat Pakistan and Jamaat Bangladesh. To participate in political activity, including participating in elections by fielding candidates, Jamaat Hind launched a separate political party in 2011, the Welfare Party of India. The governing body of the Welfare Party is inclusive, and has Christian and Hindu as well as female representation. Jamaat Bangladesh could keep its existing charter, focus its activities on propagating Islam and the Islamic way of life, while a separate, inclusive, secular political wing could be created to serve its other goals such as corruption free, responsive government, social and economic justice for all. In the short run, the party may go some transitional difficulties, but in the longer run, a more inclusive political wing may actually be to its advantage.
Many of us recoil at the idea of a Jamaat-ruled country. Whether that actually happens, only the future will tell. For now, we take solace in the fact that despite its appeal to the religious sentiments of people, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, like its predecessor, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, has not been able to garner very many votes in national elections, and when it comes to electoral choices, people have exercised the wisdom of not voting for Jamaat in large numbers. There is fundamental discomfort about Jamaat being a leading voice in the affairs of Bangladesh. There are reasons why voters may not be so inclined to go the Jamaat way. While Jamaat speaks of an Islamic country, we do not know which kind of an Islamic country. Are they talking about the Wahabi form of rule practiced in Saudi Arabia or the more liberal version of a secular but Islam sympathetic government in Turkey? It is not at all clear, what Jamaat means by “genuinely Islamic country”? I think most of us want to practice our faith, no matter what our persuasion, in private, and not have the state tell us what we must do because religion demands such.
But more fundamentally, the discomfort with Jamaat-e-Islami comes from its abhorrent role during the Liberation War. The ongoing War Crimes Trial brings some of Jamaat’s problems to the fore. Take this example from the Jamaat website: “From the early 1960s Jamaat was active against all the autocratic governments. The Awami League was in power for two terms: from 1972‐1975 and 1996‐2001…” 1971? Glossed over!! Ghulam Azam acknowledged that he was on the list of collaborators; Nizami acknowledged that genocide took place; both denied culpability for the suffering of millions. Jamaat tries to hide, calling into question the motive of the War Crimes Trial, calling into the question the fairness of the trial proceedings. All well and good. But where is the acknowledgement of the fundamental truth about the role Jamaat played in 1971? Jamaat speaks of fighting autocracy in the 60’s, and move onto ‘72, but conveniently skips over ‘71. They may want us to forget, but we did not. We remember. We remember how these leaders desecrated our soil in ‘71, and when Jamaat followers march in streets carrying pictures of Ghulam Azam and Nizami, our collective memories are refreshed, and we feel violated again.
In South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set the following standards for those seeking amnesty: “To this end, amnesty applicants were legally required to give a full and truthful account of the incidents in respect of which they were seeking amnesty. They were accordingly required to make full disclosure of all of the facts relevant to the incident in question.” Jamaat wants us to forget; we want Jamaat to give a full and truthful of account of their role. In the preamble, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh constitution says: “Whereas there is no Elah (Lord) except Allah and all natural laws commanded upon by Allah in the universe solely evidences His wisdom, superiority and sovereignty.” Jamaat professes allegiance to Allah and His Sovereignty. In professing this allegiance and the idealism that this allegiance demands, Jamaat members and sympathisers are bound to tell the truth; and that includes the truth of 1971. It is never too late to tell the truth, and I wonder whether the younger generation of Jamaat leaders, those who are not tainted by the events of 1971, would have the courage to demand the truth from the old Ameers and their cohorts. I wonder if the younger leaders would have the courage to stand by their creed and professed love of truth, and demand that those who so fervently opposed the Liberation War, to the point of facilitating the torture and murder of innocents, if not directly participating in such acts, come clean and offer an apology to the people of Bangladesh. No one takes pleasure in demands of fashi, even if deserved, but everyone would welcome acknowledgement of the truth.
Now some of you might object that why this is demanded of Jamaat and not of others. Indeed, there are others whose hands are dirty. Demand it, because it is your right. I only focus on Jamaat-e-Islami and its allies, because they claim that they are the righteous, and they follow the true path. Follow that path then, be righteous, and tell the truth. The time is right.
Source: Bd new24
