MD SAIDUL ISLAM
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2011

Abstract

More than 85% of Bangladesh’s 150 million people are Muslims. Bangladesh earns its title as “the third largest Muslim country of the world” following Indonesia and Pakistan because of its enormous size of Muslim population. Their religion, Islam, is however becoming a “minority” day by day. WhileMuslims in the West—in spite of being a minority—are enjoying their basic religious freedom, this basic right is increasingly being denied to the Muslims in Bangladesh while it continues to aspire to become a “uniquely secular” society. Based on a robust content analysis and interviews, the study shows that the current regime in Bangladesh has taken on a comprehensive policy of secularization with an aim to emasculate Islamic influence from political and social landscape of Bangladesh. Apart from undermining basic religious freedom of Muslims, the policy—which turns out to be both aggressive and violent—is increasingly becoming hostile to democratic principles, rule of law, freedom of movement, and political pluralism.

Bangladesh, the third largest Muslim country in the world in terms of population, is currently undergoing a massive transition from predominantly a liberal Muslim society to a “uniquely secular” society.1 After two years of military-backed interim government’s rule, Bangladesh had a general election in December 2008 which brought the Bangladesh Awami League (BAL)-led coalition to power with a two-third majority in the parliament. Following the election, the people of Bangladesh and the international community expected that this newly elected government would follow the path of democracy by establishing the rule of law, cooperating with the opposition parties, and strengthening the democratic institutions. However, reports in national and international newspapers overwhelmingly show that the ruling regime has resorted to repression of the opposition parties, particularly Islamic opposition, from the very beginning. As evident in, among other sources, 2009 Human Rights Report: Bangladesh (US Department of State), the regime has already created a reign of terror throughout the country wherein political vendetta, establishing torture cells in educational institutions, rapes, mounting violence, and murders have become a regular phenomenon.2 The rising expectations of the people have turned into rising frustrations.3 The process of secularization in Bangladesh therefore is not smooth, but aggressive and violent. Recently, Sabuj, a fourth year student of Social Work at Rajshahi University, was severely beaten by Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL), the student wing of the ruling BAL, because he went to perform his prayer. Though he was not an activist of any of their rival student organizations, his main “offense” was that he performs his basic religious duties—prayers (salat).4 In the same university, the Department of Sociology has banned female students for wearing hijab. The Department recently recruited four new faculty members based on a condition that they would never show any religious symbols and practices such as keeping a beard and wearing a panjabi outfit.5 More ironically, the reporters of this news are in constant threat from the BCL for revealing these incidents.6 Over the last few months, there have been many reports in which the women have been detained, harassed, and expelled from dormitories solely for wearing hijab or carrying Islamic books.7 In Pirojpur, three young hijab-wearing girls were detained for more than a month, harassed by the law enforcement authorities, and interrogated despite having no allegation at all. They were only released with the interference from the High Court.8 Many others have been coerced to involve in illicit sexual service to the male leaders of the ruling party,9 and any refusal by those girls who were coerced into such service has caused them detention, harassment, and assault after being branded as “fundamentalists” by the government activists.10 The above are just some of numerous other examples. In the context of the post-9/11 world, many countries are moving towards the process of secularization often limiting and sometimes totally wiping out Islamic influence from the political and social landscapes. Perceiving and constructing Islam and its symbols as a “political threat” to the local regimes and their relationship with the centre of the neo-liberal world, many Muslim countries are aggressively trying to emasculate Islamic influence in politics. The process of this emasculation often colludes with violent misrepresentation, discursive construction of and labeling with derogative identities, and the discourse of security. 11 Is the ruling regime in Bangladesh moving towards the same direction? If so, what are the internal dynamics and socio-historical make-up of the regime?What policies has the regime taken to establish a “uniquely secular” state, and what are the broader implications of the policy? Based on a robust content analysis focusing more on the local and international newspaper reports and other credible sources as well as interviews with over five dozen Bangladeshi politicians and intellectuals on Bangladesh politics, this paper will address these fundamental questions. This paper is organized into five sections. Following this brief introduction, the sectionbelow delineates the emergence of a “new brand” of secularism in Bangladesh, often known as ultra-secularism, and how current geo-political interests of some dominant regimes largely shape the triumph of this brand of secularism. The third section examines the policy and politics of secularization in Bangladesh exposing the regime’s interplay of displacing Islamic forces from political and social landscape and reclaiming the empty space by using varieties of apparatuses such as media, social, legal, educational, and financial. The paper in the fourth section reveals some of the backup plans and preparation of the regime to avert Islamic resistance and to address some possible disruptions to be caused by its secularization policy. The paper concludes with a fifth section by examining some implications of the policy and future direction of the nation.

Secularization: Brands and Geo-Politics

Secularism is a political ideology characterized by “this worldly orientation” and a separation of religion from the state.12 Though the ideology wants the religious dictations away from the state affairs, it does not necessarily negate or displace religion altogether. This sort of political ideology emerged as a movement in Europe during the time of enlightenment because of dire corruption in the Christian churches and their conflict with science that posed a hindrance to development and progress. Today, most secularists in the West want this separation because of the religious obscurantism of the Church; however, they want to confine religion in the private affairs rather than entirely discarding or exterminating it. While many of them cherish a love for Christianity and its millions of followers, they think that their religion does not have enough political and social resources and philosophies to run a state in the era of modern democracy and pluralism. Nevertheless, almost every country in Europe and North America has religion-based political parties which have incorporated democratic principles. Notable amongst them is the ruling party of Germany: the Christian Democratic Party. Ironically, the development and philosophy of secularism in Bangladesh took entirely a different route. The word “secular” is a very soothing and balanced term in the West as it stands for a true secularism that allows the practices of each and every religion peacefully; however, the brand of secularism advocated by the current regime of Bangladesh seems to be entirely different. While there are some progressive secular people in the current government— albeit as a minority in terms of influence—who are genuinely working for the common good, most top policy makers and ministers today were once communists during the Soviet influence and are committed to bringing back the Constitution of 1972 that guaranteed a Soviet-styled “one party” communist rule for perpetuity, wiping out Islamic or other oppositions. This brand of secularism in Bangladesh is often known as “ultra-secularism”13 and sometimes “neo-fascism”.14 The ultra-secularists in Bangladesh are often seen to maintain an extreme rebuff and a total antagonism towards a particular religion, which in this case is Islam. Therefore, to quote Abu Rawsab, “the development of secularism in Bangladesh started through an abnormal psyche, which is extreme opposition to and a deep-rooted desire of annihilating

Islam and its symbols”.15 Examining this “unique” brand of secularism, Abu Rawsab

further divulges, [They] subscribe to their own brand of secularism not because Islam lacks political and social resources to run a state, but because Islam is the only religion that has the most comprehensive and humanistic political philosophies to run a modern state into an exemplary welfare mode. This is why these secularists devote their entire efforts not to propagate their political philosophy, but to oppose Islam and its active followers. In their writings, speeches and other political activities, they spend more time and energy in attacking Islam rather than presenting their own brand of secular philosophies. Therefore, they are not the secularists, but the “ultra-secularists”.16 In the post-9/11 world where opposing Islam as a monolithic entity turns to be a good market currency to gain dominant powers’ blessings and support, Abu Rawsab claims that “these ultra-secularists currently become very desperate to oppose and attack Islam and Islamic political parties”.17 They are very vocal against Islamic fundamentalism, but their response to fundamentalism is even more fundamentalist in itself. “They posit themselves against fundamentalism; however, they themselves are imprisoned in the shackle of an abhorrent fundamentalism. Bangladesh is now submerged in a horrible impasse because of the deadly combination of these ultra-secularists and their method of social genocide”.18

While Islam has always been a target of criticism by a cohort of secularists in Bangladesh, still people in general have enjoyed their basic religious freedom. Now, targeting Islam, Islamic symbols, and Islamic personalities in the name of creating a “secular state” is a state agenda of the ruling regime.19 BAL, the party in power, is staunchly a secular party and dreams of establishing Bangladesh as a model Muslim majority secular democratic state because not only of a party ideology, but also of a prescription from India. At the very beginning of this regime, India expressed its expectation to see Bangladesh as a secular state. It is because, among other reasons, “India’s national security interests dictate that Bangladesh is not permitted to be Talibanized”.20 Moreover, to reiterate, the grand alliance of the ruling regime consists of many hardcore leftist communist parties that are often known as “ultra-secularists”.21 The current aggressive secularization process undermining religious freedom can easily be traced from the grand agenda devised by Sajib Wazed Joy, the son of the current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and C. Ciovacco who jointly wrote a roadmap of secularism in their article, “Stemming the Rise of Islamic Extremism in Bangladesh” published in Harvard International Review (Nov 2008).22 In the article, Islamic elements within the army and the Islamic education (madrassa) system are perceived to be the main obstacle in realizing the goal of secularizing Bangladesh. This article is believed o be the blueprint for current government’s plan of action, which they call “a secular plan” for Bangladesh. With an ongoing war against Islamic politics which they call “Islamism”, the article calls for secularizing madrassas (religious schools) as well as the military and the whole administration. To them, secular schools devoid of any religious teachings “would be a deterrent to the monopoly on education that madrassas currently enjoy. Relying on Saudi and Kuwaiti funding that dictates rote Koranic memorization is counterproductive for a nation”.23 Though many assertions and claims in the article are factually incorrect and not supported by any empirical proof, the article provides both “valid justification” for, and a clear-cut road-map of, the state intervention to emasculate Islam and its symbols from the political and social landscapes of Bangladesh.24

The Process of Secularization:

Displacing and Reclaiming Spaces Following the detailed mapping and strategies devised and orchestrated by Sajib Wazed Joy and his American colleague who supported the US President George W. Bush’s relentless “war on terror”, the process of secularization in Bangladesh is now taking various routes. All routes can be crystallized into two broad yet paradoxical approaches:

(1) displacing Islam and Islamic symbols from the political landscapes of Bangladesh, and

(2) reclaiming the entire space of Islam for BAL. The regime has taken the following

policies to displace Islam from political and social fabrics of Bangladesh.

At the very beginning an aggressive attempt was taken by the current regime to link the Islamic political parties with militancy (jongi). A massive propaganda was launched by some ministers and some media portals at home and abroad to brand Bangladesh as a “Jongi State”, perhaps to woo the Superpowers who are hostile to Islam and thereby to earn an unequivocal support for the regime’s action against Islamic political forces.25 According to some analysts, some state-managed incidents of militancy were staged to create a media-hype on this issue and to manufacture the consent of the public.26 While there were some genuine elements of militancy—albeit as a fraction of the whole spectrum—in Bangladesh, the key strategy of the regime was not to address those but to link those isolated incidents with broader Islamic political forces. Seeing it counterproductive and damaging for the nation’s peace-keeping forces working under the United Nations and migrant labors working abroad, the government has refrained 128  from this propaganda abroad, though propaganda within home (in Bangladesh) is still going on in full swing. One of the key impacts of jongification is what Abu Rawsab calls the “social genocide”. What he means by “social genocide” is “a systematic effort to targeting a particular political community and deliberately ostracizing them through discursive concoction of lampoons and intentionally imposing negative and derogative connotations”.27 The combined effects of jongification as colluded with social genocide generates “the culture of extreme hatred, division, tension and retrogressive politics which are continuously driving [the] nation towards backwardness, and posing a great hindrance to development and progress”.28 The ultra-secularist element within the regime is demanding an outright ban on religion-based politics on the ground that they all are linked to militancy. It is interesting yet ironic to see how the mainstream liberal Islamic political parties are represented by, and constructed with the image of, the worst deviated militants despite having no relation with the militants at all. Bangladesh witnessed some elements of militancy from some under-ground groups such as Jamate Mujahidin Bangladesh (JMB) and Harkat-ul-Jihad (HUJI) and both of them are currently banned in Bangladesh, and their leaders were executed by the previous regime. The mainstream Islamic political parties include Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islam (BJI, or Jamaat)29 and Islamic Oikko Jote (IOJ) that formed coalition government with Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) during 2001–2006. While these two Islamic political parties strongly denounced and condemned the militancy of JMB and HUJI and did not have any record of militancy of their own, the ultra-secularists are trying to put the same label of militancy on these mainstream liberal Islamic political parties. The ultra-secularists are working “mercilessly and violently” with a dream of, what Abu Rawsab calls, “a total extermination of a religion and its symbols—first step of which is banning the religion-based politics”.30

Discourse of War-criminals

To intimidate and eventually obliterate BJI (Jamaat), the largest mainstream liberal Islamic party of the country, BAL along with its ultra-secularist alliance partners came

up with a plan to try the “war criminals” of 1971 and accordingly have created a discourse in which they have selectively targeted only the leaders of the Jamaat. The regime has already formed a special “war crime tribunal” to try and execute the so-called war criminals. It is true that war crimes, alongside grievous oppression of civilians were committed  in the 1971 war31 by the Pakistani forces, as well as widespread killing of ethnic Bihari Muslims (who sided with Pakistan) by Bengali Muktibahini [Freedom Fighters] led by BAL. News reports of NBC, telecasted on 30 and 31 December 1971, shows how the Muktibahini has taken the law into their own hands committing mass genocide.32 More than 30,000 Biharis were starving to death at the Adamji Jute Mill near Dhaka, only because they wanted to remain with Pakistan in 1971.33 Within years, more than half a million were annihilated by the BAL and other Muktibahinis.34 The recently formed tribunal will not, however, try any of these proven war criminals. The top Jamaat leaders who politically supported a united Pakistan but did not have any record of committing war crime or crime against humanity have been targeted by the tribunal. Following the independence of Bangladesh in 1971, 195 Pakistani army officers (and not a single person from Jamaat) were identified as war criminals in the preliminary investigation by the then Bangladesh government. Following the Simla Treaty signed on July 2, 1972 between Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the President of Pakistan a number of agreements were signed between India and Pakistan regarding repatriation of the POWs. On 9th April 1974, an Agreement was signed between Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan in New Delhi in which, among other issues, the question of trial of the 195 POWs was raised and finally it was decided that they would be repatriated to Pakistan along with the other prisoners without trial. Paragraph 15 of the 1974 Agreement is quoted below: In the light of the foregoing and, in particular, having regard to the appeal of the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the people of Bangladesh to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh stated that the Government of Bangladesh had decided not to proceed with the trials as an act of clemency. It was agreed that the 195 prisoners of war may be repatriated to Pakistan along with the other prisoners of war now in process of repatriation under the Delhi Agreement.35 Thus 195 POWs (identi!ed as war criminals) were repatriated to Pakistan, and their trial as war criminals was !nally abandoned. Had Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the then Head of the State and the founding father of BAL, continued the trial, it would have set a good example for other perpetrators who commit similar cases elsewhere. On 24 January 1972, the government of Bangladesh enacted another law to try those who did not side with the liberation war or politically opposed the call of liberation war or willingly cooperated with the Pakistan Army or committed criminal acts. It was called the Collaborators Act, 1972. More than a hundred thousand persons were arrested under that Act. Of them, 37,471 persons were charged. Another 30,623 could not be prosecuted for lack of evidence. A total of 2,848 were brought to trial. Of them, 752 were found guilty. The remaining 2,096 accused persons were found not guilty and therefore freed. Not a single Jamaat leader was amongst any of the above categories. Taking into account the overall situation (of discontent) obtaining in the country, in November 1973 the Government of Bangladesh under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared a general amnesty to close this dark chapter forever.36 It goes without saying that the architect of Bangladesh Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the father of the current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, thought it fit to wipe the state clean of all conflicts, adversities and contradictions that cropped up during the liberation war, by declaring a general amnesty. By virtue of the general amnesty, those accused or convicted for minor crimes under the Act were all set free. But those accused of rape, murder, arson or plunder were not pardoned. In other words, the general amnesty kept the scope of prosecution and trial of those accused of such serious crimes under the Act. On December 31, 1975, the Collaborators Act was repealed by a Presidential order. After the amnesty, the Act remained in force for a little over two years. In that period, no case was filed for the said four serious offences. Perhaps that was the logic behind repeal of the law in 1975 by the government. Thus, the chapter of war crimes and crimes against humanity was closed for good.37 Though Jamaat politically supported a united Pakistan, none of the Jamaat leaders and activists was ever convicted of war crimes. The attempt of the Bangladesh government for trials of war crimes after 39 years is, however, according to many, “a politically motivated act”.38 It is claimed that the government is conducting a “hate campaign against some individuals before any charge has been brought against them, let alone be proved in the court of law”. Many apprehend that the tribunal will thus simply be a kangaroo court. A list of 36 war criminals has already been announced even before the trial has started and among them majority of them are from Jamaat. Few of them in the list were even between 4 and 8 years old during the war in 1971.39 It is further claimed that while the issue of war crimes was resolved internationally (through Simla Agreement) and nationally (through Collaboration Act), bringing it up again shows that it is highly politically motivated. Moreover, Bangladesh judiciary is now being subjugated by the current regime, which Justice T.H. Khan calls, “hydraulic pressure of the judges from the government” 40 and therefore a fair judgment is absolutely unexpected from this politically motivated trial.41 So far, the top five leaders of Jamaat including the Ameer (Chief) Maulana Motiur Rahman Nizami, Secretary General Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid, and Nayeb-e-Ameer (Deputy Chief) Maulana Delwar Hossain Sayeedi have been arrested by the regime before even forming any charges. It has been reported that they have been blind-folded and tortured by the law enforcement authorities in the weekslong remand. Their basic rights including access to legal aids and medical treatments have also been denied. The skepticism and doubts about a free and fair trial remain largely intact. The law under which those people (the opposition political leaders) are set to be tried is called The International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The tribunal will simply be a “Kangaroo Court” because of the following reasons: . The Evidence Act 1872 (I of 1872) and the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) application have been excluded by section 23 of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. Therefore, newspaper reports and hearsay evidence will be accepted.42

. International Bar Association (IBA) has found out at least 17 loopholes in The International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973. The act does not guarantee any free and fair justice and protection for the convicted ones.43 . Most of the judges and prosecutors are former party men of ruling coalition and supporters of the current regime, according to various authentic reports.44 . The tribunal will try “crime against humanity” rather than “war crime”. Crimes against humanity described in section 3(2) (a) are very easy to prove through producing false witness-evidences in a domestic perspective and international community may be deceived. On the other hand, section 3(2) (d) describes “war crimes” which will be very difficult to prove, as all players including India, Pakistan, Mukti-bahini all will come under the purview of the established (and clear) international standard of law. “War”, “insurgency”, “civil war” and other related terms would play a huge legal role in case of “war crime”. It is easy to manipulate a witness for “crime against humanity” than for “war crime”.45 . According to various sources, the key architects of this tribunal the Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee as well as War Crime Fact Findings Committee have already produced “concocted evidences” through inducements and threats. All these “false but professionally prepared” evidences will be accepted in this tribunal.46 . “Media trial” of some people, particularly Jamaat leaders, has been conducted through constant propaganda. A list of “war criminals” has already been prepared before any investigation began. The list is comprised of

people mostly from BJI and ironically includes some people who were even 4–8 years of age in 1971!47 . The tribunal will try neither the actual war criminals, the 195 Pakistani army officers who were identified as war criminals but got released after a tri-party “Minority Islam” in Muslim Majority Bangladesh 131 agreement between Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, nor the Awami Leaguecadres or freedom fighters, who also committed war crimes, including brutallykilling many innocent people particularly Bihari Muslims in 1971. The tribunalwill try only some collaborators targeting only Jamaat leaderswho supported aunited Pakistan; but belong to neither the cohort of 195 identified war criminalsnor of 752 guilty ones identified under the Collaborators Act, 1972.48. Finally, the current regime itself has a long record of “crime against humanity”(such as 151 extra-judicial killings in 2009) as well as the manipulation ofthe legal apparatus and therefore expectation of a fare and free trial is a meredream from this regime.49The government is dictating the tribunal and it literally has power to determine whichoffence allegation it will take into consideration depending on investigation. It will certainlybe a sham trial to prosecute the political opponents, as apprehended in HolidayInternational:The whole move of the government so far seems to be interpreted by the internationalcommunities as nothing but an extreme political vendetta and isintended to subdue the opposition party/parties. This is called “victor’sjustice”, which is a questionable justice. The regime has already started anation-and-worldwide campaign for this trial and obstructed the free movementand overseas travel of the BJI leaders. If this highly disputed trial is conductedunfairly, Bangladesh will certainly enter into another dark chapter of politicalchaos, uncertainties, and most likely a civil war.50Recently a US Senator-elect John Boozman has urged Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina tobring necessary changes to the International Crimes Tribunal act in order to prosecutewar criminals for crimes committed during the war of liberation in 1971. US Senatorelectmade the call in a letter sent to the Prime Minister on December 7, 2010:Many in the international justice movement commend the country’s precedentsetting efforts to create a war crimes tribunal, but wish to remove the strong suspensionthat the Tribunal is being used as a tool for political revenge because ofits denial of fair trial standards to the accused. I encourage your government tomake necessary changes to the Act in order to comply with international standardsas ratified in the Rome statute of the Internal Criminal Court.51Referring to the concerns raised by several international organizations, including HumanRights Watch’s Asia Division, the War Crimes Commission of the International BarAssociation and the War Crimes Project and Amnesty International that the Act doesnot meet internationally recognized fair trial standards, the two-page letter said the Actprohibits persons charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or othercrimes under international law to challenge any law providing for their prosecution andpunishment on the grounds that it is inconsistent with any provisions of the Constitution.“Thus, the Act cannot be challenged because it violates constitutional rights that applyto other criminal proceedings. This renders the Act fundamentally at odds with the rule oflaw that ensures equal treatment of persons before the law. It is therefore vital the Act beupdated to make the process compatible with international standards”, said the USSenator-elect in his letter.52It said since the Act should be amended to update the provisions to comply with theRome statute of the international Criminal Court, ratified in 2002, of which Bangladesh132 is a signatory. “Without the necessary updates, the Bangladesh Tribunal will continue tobe politically volatile and controversial”, the letter said. John Boozman also said, “I amconcerned that unless the law is updated to be consistent with international law it willbe impossible to adequately protect the human right of the accused”.53

Reverting to the Constitution of 1972

Along with the Jangification of Islamic Political Parties and the discourse of war crime tribunal,the regime took varieties of other approaches to ban religion-based politics. Thecurrent overall situation in Bangladesh essentially follows the inherent characteristicsand ideology of the main ruling party (BAL) that established a perpetual one-party autocraticregime in 1972 by virtue of the first Constitution that was modeled after communism.As soon as BAL and its ultra-secular communist alliances re-embarked on power in2008, they declared their commitment to run the country in the spirit of the Constitution

  of 1972 and therefore wanted to restore that Constitution by any means. As a matter of  fact, the 1972 Constitution that established social communism made the then President  Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the father of the current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, as the  life-long President; blocked multi-party democracy; banned Islamic political parties,  associations and societies; and closed all Islamic institutions in a country where majority  of people subscribe to the Islamic faith.  The current Prime Minister has categorically declared her government’s agenda to  restore the 1972 Constitution which has been repeatedly reiterated by different ministers,  including the Law Minister, Barrister Shafique Ahmed.54 Since the current regime dominated  by leftist socialist-communism considers popular democratic Islamic parties  forming part of the opposition as the main challenge to its ruling ideology, the government  is determined to completely crush and ban Islamic politics. To do that, the government  by using the legal apparatus has managed to outlaw the the Fifth Amendment to the  Constitution in 1975 (after the Mujib era) that established absolute trust in God and  deleted secularism. This amendment was declared illegal by Supreme Court in January  2010, and the Law Minister vowed to restore the constitution of 1972 and ban religion-  based politics. First Constitution in 1972 was modeled on a “social communism”  that blocked multi-party democracy; banned religion (basically Islam) based parties,  associations and societies; curbed media freedom; and incorporated some fundamental  principles such as nationalism, secularity, democracy and socialism.55  

Massive Crackdown on Islamic Parties

  In recent months, the government has been launching a massive crackdown on activists  and supporters of the opposition Islamic parties. Though “this type of action by a democratically  elected government is unwarranted and a major blow to the fundamentals of  democratic principles”,56 the government is using its state machineries to systematically  undermine these basic principles. “It appears that the ongoing oppression of the  opposition, especially Islamic forces, is quite ill-conceived by the present government  and mainly targets to eliminate the Islamic forces from Bangladesh”.57Thousands of  opposition activists have been arrested in a massive security crackdown over the past  few months.58  In February 2010, Faruk, a university student from the ruling party, was killed during a  clash between BCL that established a monopolistic reign forcing their political opponents  out from the campus and Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS), the largest democratic Islamic  “Minority Islam” in Muslim Majority Bangladesh 133     student organization and the student wing of Jamaat. Although this murder case is under  investigation and no one has been found guilty so far according to police investigation or  in the court,59 and there is media reports that the student was probably killed by the ruling  party student wing members because of infighting,60 the government has categorically  blamed ICS for this murder. Based on this (unfounded) claim, the government has  taken massive nationwide steps to harass and outlaw ICS and other democratic Islamic  organizations. The Home Ministry ordered all government agencies to carry out  “combing operation to uproot ICS throughout the whole country”. Since then, two  ICS activists have been brutally killed and many hundreds have been arrested, attacked,  wounded, traumatized, and are being tortured in police custody. BNP, the main opposition  party in Bangladesh, has called these government steps as “state terrorism” and  “license to create anarchy”.61 It is also clear from a recent statement by human rights  organization Amnesty International where it says:  While members of the Islami Chhatra Shibir have been the main targets of the  mass arrests, [ruling party’s student wing] Bangladesh Chhatra League activists  have continued to clash and attack opposition supporters, with no accountability.  …The one-sided manner in which the police have carried out the arrests so  far indicates that criminal investigations into the violence are unlikely to be  impartial or fair. The government’s politically motivated response to the violence  has allowed attacks by members of the ruling party’s student wing to continue,  including against news reporters covering these attacks.62  Besides universal human rights violations, it clearly violates the Bangladesh constitution  that says: “All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law”.63  On the same day when Faruk was killed, BNP councilor Ahamad Hossain of Dhaka City  Corporation Ward-70 was murdered as he was leaving masjid; robbers looted a residence  at East Goran in Dhaka and killed an old woman of the family; ruling party extortionists  beat up and shot on the right leg of a businessman named Alamgir Hossain in Jessore as  he refused to pay toll and as he sought police help; about 30 people were injured as factions  of Awami League clashed in Narayanganj and Chuadanga. The list of such incidents  that occurred on the day Faruk died goes on. Days before, Abubakar Siddique, a  meritorious student of Dhaka University hailing from a poor farmer family had to give  his life for the factional clashes of BCL in Sir AF Rahman Hall of the University; only  a month ago, a Bangladesh Chhatra Maitree leader Rejanul Islam Chaudhury Sunny  was killed in broad daylight by Chhatra League hooligans at the campus of Rajshahi  Polytechnic Institute; months ago, the general secretary of Shibir unit of Rajshahi  University, Sharifuzzaman Nomani was killed by BCL cadres at the University.  Chhatra League activists of Dhaka’s Cantonment unit killed their leader AKM Faruk  Hossain on 12 February 2010.64 However, as Chaudhury laments:  No investigation committee was formed and no arrest was made after the death  of Sunny and Nomani. Nor did those deaths make big newspaper headlines for  consecutive days. In the last few decades about 135 Shibir leaders and activists  were killed in different educational institutions of Bangladesh and many of them  by Chhatra League… [S]ince Awami League took office on 6 January 2009, at  least five students have been killed and hundreds injured across the country, and  all involving Chhatra League. No murder or violence committed by Chhatra  League prompted any call for banning its politics, there was no mobilization  of police forces, no police officer was suspended for negligence of duties, no  134 Md. Saidul Islam     ministers appeared on the media with a declaration of war on the criminals, no  ministers called on the police to launch a crack-down on Chhatra League, no  offices of Awami-Chhatra-Jubo League were attacked or burnt down, no  senior police officer had to rush to the scene, so on and so forth. The list of  such non-action upon the hooliganism of Chhatra League goes on.65  The AL regime’s continuous crackdown has gone on unabated since it came to power this  time in early 2009, and it has exacerbated with the issue of Faruk’s death at Rajshahi  University. According to media reports, police’s role while he was killed has remained  mysterious; and, Jamaat-Shibir (JS) people have categorically denied having anything  to do with the death of Faruk. However, the way JS people have been apprehended  and tortured in police custody and by people linked with the regime has dwarfed the  records of all such political crackdowns in Bangladesh’s recent history.66  In the context of post-9/11 world, where limiting and wiping out Islamic influence in  politics is not only desired but an active goal of many regimes, crackdown on Jamaat and  Shibir by the current regime ironically goes on without much criticism. Under the circumstances,  the silence of the civil society within the country and of the rights groups  both local and international provokes a consistency check on their concerns for basic  human rights and civil liberties. As Chaudhury asserts, “If an Islamic political party  were not the target of these state surveillance and repression, we must have seen by  this time a lot of local and foreign media coverage and outcries of the rights groups  internationally”. Except for a mild statement from some human rights groups, “we  have not seen any concerns of international organizations or foreign missions in Dhaka  about the months-long political tyranny in Bangladesh. This reticence of the advocates  of human rights questions their doctrinal commitment to the principles of human  rights and political freedom” he added.67  Jamaat has a long record of participation in the democratic movements both in Pakistan  and Bangladesh68 as well as in national elections since 1962.69 Based on the previous few  elections, Jamaat currently has about 12 million active supporters,70 which is about 15%  of the total voters.71 As Jamaat participated in the coalition government of 2001, its  Ameer (Chief) Mawlana Matiur Rahman Nizami held the portfolios of Ministry of Agriculture  and Ministry of Industries while its Secretary General Mr Ali Ahsan Muhammad  Mujahid held the portfolio of Ministry of Social Welfare. It is accepted even by the  opponents of Jamaat that those Ministries were run efficiently and honestly. While corruption  is widespread and deeply rooted in Bangladesh and thus the corruption reports  of Transparency International have made Bangladesh as one of the top corrupted  countries of the world, the two Jamaat ministers made for the first time in the nation’s  history an astonishing record of no corruption at all in their ministries. It may be mentioned  that BNP could not have formed the government in 1991 without the support  of the Jamaat in Parliament. Despite having a strong base in Bangladesh politics with  proven record of honesty and efficiency, Jamaat is in constant threat of being banned.  Though the party has yet to be outlawed, all of its public programs have been either  banned or foiled by the regimes since early 2010. Jamaat leaders are also banned from  travelling abroad and being obstructed from movement within Bangladesh.  Controlling Islamic Institutions  Several ministers, particularly the Deputy Law Minister, Advocate Kamrul Islam, are  now vociferously talking about the taking over of the Islamic institutions such as  “Minority Islam” in Muslim Majority Bangladesh 135     Islamic Bank Bangladesh Limited (IBBL), Ibne Sina Trust (IST) and other Islamic  Insurance companies that, according to the ministers, use their profit to nurture  “Islamic extremism” and to foil the war crime tribunal.72 These institutions however  strongly protested and denounced the Ministers’ claims saying that IBBL and IST are  closely supervised and audited regularly by the Bangladesh Bank, the central bank of Bangladesh,  and National Board of Revenue (NBR) respectively and therefore it is simply not  possible for public limited company and welfare trust to manipulate accounts and divert  funds.73 Nevertheless, the regime’s negative propaganda against and the crackdown on  Islamic Institutions are going on often in an open manner.  The government has recently frozen the bank accounts of Maulana Delwar Hossain  Sayeedi, the Nayeb-e-Ameer (deputy chief) of Jammat, and Mir Kashem Ali, also a  central leader of Jamaat and Chairman of Diganto Media Corporation, and of seven  members of his family,74 as a starting point to crack the financial strength of Jamaat  and its leaders. This move has been justified by the regime on several grounds. “Since  all leaders of Jamaat are war criminals”, said Sajeda Chaudhury, a top leader of BAL,  “It’s totally legitimate and justified to loot money and property from Jamaat and to  spend them for the people of Bangladesh”.

 The government has already devised a grand plan to change the entire education system  in the light of secularism. Critics think that this new policy is nothing but a “propaganda  education” that grossly undermines religious and moral education. The Supreme Court’s  judgment that made the Fifth Amendment to the constitution illegal is being used as a  justification to instate a purely secular education. The Law Minister, Shafique Ahmed,  has said that Bangladesh is set to reintroduce secular education in the country following  a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court that made it illegal to mix religion with politics.  “The apex court verdict has paved the way for reintroduction of the original spirit of  the 1972 constitution… while the government has already prepared a draft for education  with the spirit of secularism”, the Law Minister told a convention of teachers in Dhaka.75  A secular education policy has recently been passed by the current regime.  

Banning Religious Gatherings  

The government has already banned major religious gatherings in Bangladesh including  yearly Tafsirul Quran Mahfil in Chittagong that brings together about a million Muslims.  Prominent religious preachers such as Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedi and Maulana Abul  Kalam Azad have been threatened by the state authorities, and banned from speaking in  religious gathering on the pretext that they preach “fundamentalism”. The government  has also warned its activists about, and instructed to keep an eye on, the “mosquegoing  people”. Any opposition to the current regime is confronted through filing cases  (mamla) and physical assaults (hamla).76  

Concerted efforts are being made by atheistic, ultra-secularist and socialist forces within  the regime to remove Islamic principles in the Bangladeshi legal sphere related to family  life, in the name of emancipation of women. The Prime Minister recently vowed to  136 Md. Saidul Islam     change the Muslim Family Law on inheritance that, according to her interpretation,  undermines the equal rights and dignity of women.77  Apart from the above, there are also many reports about political profiling in army and  administration and about forceful retirement and dismissal of many officers who bear  Islamic symbols and practices and are alleged to have different political views. On the  other hand, political loyalty to the current regime and hostility to Islam have become  the key market currency to get promotion and tenure.  

Averting Islamic Resistance

  In Bangladesh religion, particularly Islam is a deep-rooted social institution. Social norms  and other interactions in the country have largely been originated and are guided by  Islamic principles. Therefore, abrupt replacement of Islam from the social fabrics and political arena will potentially disrupt social cohesion to and generate massive opposition  from the masses. To avert this imminent disruption and opposition, the current regime  has adopted some approaches, which are both paradoxical and diametrically opposed  to one another.  First, the regime provides a prescription thatBALis the only party that takes care of Islam  more than anyone else. H.T. Imam, an adviser of the Prime Minister, while speaking on a  seminar on “War Crime Tribunal from Islamic Perspective” held in Bangladesh Engineers  Institute on 2nd April 2010, said, “Awami League is the only Islamic Party in Bangladesh”.  78 With an aim of constructing Jamaat with entirely a negative image, he added,  “Jamaat does not believe in real Islam; they keep fasts but beak their fasts with Whisky”.  A case was filed against H.T. Imam for making such a derogatory remark, but it was dismissed  by the state authorities. A state-sponsored author claimed Bangobondhu Shaikh  Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of BAL, was among the Khalifatul Muslimeen. He  further comments that BAL’s doctrine is secularism, and denying secularism is tantamount  to denying the Qur’an[?]. Previously, some BAL sponsored ulema declared a  fatwa that Bangabandhu Shaikh Mujibur Rahman was one of the great friends (wali) of  God. Therefore, denying the contribution of Bangobondhu is tantamount to denying  God; and if anyone opposes his party Awami League, he/she will be expelled from the  fold of Islam.79 Claiming the entire space of Islam for her party and excluding others, Agriculture  Minister Motiya Chaudhury said, “Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) is the  ummat of Zia, Jamaat is the ummat of Nizami, and the activists of Awami League are the  ummat of Prophet Muhammad”.80 Though all these efforts of the current regime are  directed to displace the existing Islamic parties from the political landscape and thereafter  reclaiming the entire space for the ruling party, they are largely interpreted as an “ideological  devise” and a “legitimate guise” to avert people’s attention from their politics of secularism.  The second approach of the regime is to find alternative “social institutions” such as  “Rabindra Adoration” that can be substitute to, and eventually replace, Islam. While  all state programs traditionally starts with the recitation of some verses of the Qur’an,  and sometimes with verses from the Quran, the Bible and the Tripitok in a row, the  Finance Minister recently altered this ritual and started a program with Rabindra  get a lesson to fail.  “religious fundamentalism must be dealt with and replaced by Rabindra adoration”.81  In the same program, Professor Nurul Islam, a BAL-leaning scholar, said, “We all get  fascinating, progressive and independent religious doctrines from the life of Tagore;  “Minority Islam” in Muslim Majority Bangladesh 137     and if we can propagate this ‘religion’ in every home in Bangladesh, the nation will  become a Sonar Bangla [golden Bangladesh]”.82  Finally, between the above two diametrically opposed approaches, the regime also thinks  of forming an alternative religious party, tentatively named as “Jamiyat-e-Ulama Bangladesh”  that will function in various ways.When existing Islamic parties that provide political  threat to the current regime will be officially banned, this new party will fill the vacuum and  avert the resistance from the angry Muslims. The party will remain subservient to Awami  League as a “pocket organization” thus providing strength as an “Islamic label” rather than  a threat to the current regime.83 As the new party will provide an alternative avenue for  Muslims in an absence of other Islamic parties, the process of de-Islamization in order  to create a “uniquely secular state” will go on without significant resistance.  

Many experts on Bangladesh politics apprehend that the way the current regime is  moving towards radical secularization will potentially generate a civil war and the  nation will fall into a deep quagmire of political chaos, social upheaval, and long-term  uncertainties. The regime is committed to uprooting what it calls “religious fundamentalism”  from politics by eliminating or at least containing Islamic political parties.  However, the regime’s response to so-called “fundamentalism” is inherently fundamentalist  in itself. What we see is that the violent process of secularization—which is largely  justified in the context of post-9/11 world to limit and emasculate Islamic influence in  political and social landscapes—is ironically threatening democratic principles, rule of  law, freedom of movement, and political pluralism. Many experts apprehend that if the  Islamic parties are denied the democratic and political rights, and their members are  oppressed and executed the way the current regime is doing, there is a possibility that  some members of the Islamic parties will resort to violence and terrorism.  The aggressive policies of the secularization process in Bangladesh are not of good taste  for the majority of people. Opposition to and a movement against the regime is therefore  mounting. The danger for this regime is that all the adopted policies—both displacing  and reclaiming—are largely viewed as “violent imposition” rather than a logical consequence  of the people’s opinion. The ultra-secularist element with the regime is a minority  in terms of number but a majority in terms of influence and power. The aggressive policies  of secularization are largely driven by this influential few. In the present era, any  policy devoid of public trust and support, social justice, transparency and accountability  not only is bound to fail, but also backfires at the policy-makers in a very painful way. The  people in Bangladesh are historically volatile and hot-blooded and do not endure “violent  imposition” for long time. If the regime fails to get a lesson from history, it will certainly  Sangeet, the song of poet Rabindranath Tagore. In another gathering, he declares that     

NOTES

1. The blueprint for this “uniquely secular” state was presented by Sajib Wazed Joy and C. Ciovacco

in their article “Stemming the Rise of Islamic Extremism in Bangladesh” published in Harvard

International Review, November 2008. The blueprint devised by Sajib Wazed, the son of the current

Prime Minister, (presented as the adviser of Bangladesh Awami League in the article) and his American

colleague, an active supporter and a veteran of Iraq war as well as an expert on the media strategy

of Al-Qaeda, was published just before the last general election in Bangladesh. The article can be

accessed at: http://www.harvardir.org/index.php?page=article&id=1784

2. The report is available at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136085.htm

138 Md. Saidul Islam

3. For more information on human rights violations currently ongoing in Bangladesh please visit the

website of Odhikar, a human rights organization, at: http://www.odhikar.org/index.html.

4. The Daily Dinkal [national newspaper], Dhaka, 5 April 2010.

5. Panjabi is a local dress largely regarded as a religious symbol. See, Daily Amar Desh [national newspaper],

Dhaka, 3 April 2010.

6. Daily Amar Desh, 7 April 2010.

7. Daily Amar Desh, February 19, 2010.

8. RTNN (Real Time News Network), 21 July 2009.

9. For a detailed account of this, New Age, a National English Daily made an editorial entitled, “Chhatra

League’s sexual offences: A widespread state of denial” available online at: http://www.newagebd.

com/2010/apr/19/edit.html

10. Daily Amar Desh, March 17, 2010.

11. For more on this, see M. S. Islam, “Muslims in the Capitalist Discourse: 9/11 and Its Aftermath” in

Journal of Muslim Monority Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2005, pp. 3–12.

12. A.R. Moten, Political Science: An Islamic Perspective, London: Macmillan. St. Martin’s Press, 1996.

13. Abu Rawsab, “Rise of a Unique Secularism” in Daily Independent, Dhaka, 3 February 2010.

14. F. Mozhar, “Election, Secularism, and American WarW Strategy in South Asia”, in Daily Naya

Diganto, Dhaka, 22 November 2008.

15. Abu Rawsab, “Rise of a Unique Secularism”, op. cit.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Haider, Zaglul. “State Ideology in Bangladesh: Secularism versus Islam”, Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the ISA’s 49th Annual Convention, “Bridging Multiple Divides”, Hilton,

San Francisco, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008.

20. Suhgash Kapila, “Bangladesh Misperceives New Indian Government’s Foreign Policy Thrust: An

Analysis”, in South Asia Analysis Group, June 2004. Available online at: http://www.southasiaanalysis.

org/%5Cpapers11%5Cpaper1017.html,

21. Abu Rawsab, “Rise of a Unique Secularism”, op. cit.

22. Sajeeb Wazed and Carl Ciovacco, “Stemming the Rise of Islamic Extremism in Bangladesh”, op. cit.

23. Ibid.

24. F. Mozhar, “Election, Secularism, and American war Strategy in South Asia”, op. cit.

25. Abu Rawsab, “Rise of a Unique Secularism”, op. cit.

26. M. Rahman, “The Hundred Days of Digital Change” (Eksho diner digital din-bodol), in Daily Amar

Desh, Dhaka, 16 April 2009.

27. Abu Rawsab, “Rise of a Unique Secularism”, op. cit., p. 5

28. Ibid.

29. Jamaat-e-Islami (“Jamaat”) is one of the oldest parties in the sub-continent. It was !rst organized in

British India in 1941. Jamaat started its work in what is now Bangladesh in the 1950s. Jamaat is a moderate

Islamic political party that believes in democracy, human rights and is committed to upholding

the rule of law. Jamaat wants to establish a just society through democratic principles and democratic

process only. For more on Jamaat, its history and presence in the Sub-continent please visit: www.

jamaat-e-islami.org

30. Abu Rawsab,“Rise of a Unique Secularism”, op. cit.

31. Until 1971, Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan, was a part of a larger Pakistan including the former

West Pakistan. Bangladesh got its independence in 1971 following a bloody civil war… India politically

and militarily supported Bangladesh to secede and become independent from Pakistan.

32. The evidences are still available, for example in, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GXNZTXsV2I&

NR=1, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzMFNCo4q7M&NR=1.

33. The Daily Tribune, 3 January 1972.

34. See for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0hSH5ctyk0&NR=1

35. See, War Crime Law and Constitution. Availableonline at:http://jamaat-e-islami.org/index.php?option=

com_publication&task=detail&info_id=25.

36. Ibid.

37. For details, see M.A. Jalil, “War Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh: A Real Political Vendetta”, in

Journal of Politics and Law, Vol. 3, No. 2; September 2010, pp. 110–120.

“Minority Islam” in Muslim Majority Bangladesh 139

38. For example, all speakers in a round-table seminar organized by the Centre for Social Studies (CSS) in

Rajshahi opined that the issue of war crime has been used entirely for political purpose. See, Daily

Naya Diganto, 9 September 2009.

39. Daily Amar Desh, 28 March 2010.

40. Daily Naya Diganta, 25 April 2010. Available online at: http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/fullnews.

asp?News_ID=207876&sec=2

41. Daily Amar Desh, 16 February 2010.

42. See, A. Rawsab, “War Crime Tribunal: Why is it a Kangaroo Court?” in Sonar Bangladesh. Available

online at: http://www.sonarbangladesh.com/article.php?ID=2297.

43. See, David Bergman, “War Crime Law ‘Falls Short’”, in bdnews24.com (March 15, 2010). Available

online at: http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=155832&cid=2

44. For details, see Advocate Noyon Khan, “How was the Formation of the Tribunal?” [Kemon holo tribunal

ghothon], in Sonar Bangladesh. Available at: http://www.sonarbangladesh.com/article.php?ID=

2304; and “How was the Appointment of Judges?” [Kemon holo bicharpoti niyog?], in Sonar Bangladesh.

Available at: http://www.sonarbangladesh.com/article.php?ID=2444

45. Abu Rawsab, “War Crime Tribunal…” Also in SAVEBDSAVEBD: http://www.savebd.com/articles/

ten-reasons-why-the-war-crime-tribunal-is-bound-to-be-a-kangaroo-court/

46. Abu Rawsab, “Jamat-Shibir: Terrorists or Victims of Terrorism?”, in Sonar Bangladesh (13 February

2010). Available online at: http://www.sonarbangladesh.com/article.php?ID=1993

47. S. Serajul Islam and M. Saidul Islam, “A Free and Fair War Crime Tribunal in Bangladesh”, in

Holiday International, April 2, 2010. Available online at: http://www.weeklyholiday.net/2010/

020410/com.html

48. Ibid.

49. Abu Rawsab, “War Crime Tribunal…”. Also in SAVEBDSAVEBD: http://www.savebd.com/articles/

ten-reasons-why-the-war-crime-tribunal-is-bound-to-be-a-kangaroo-court/

50. S. Serajul Islam and M. Saidul Islam, op. cit.

51. Bangladesh Law House, “US Senator-elect urges PM: Make ICT Act compatible with rule of law”,

December 26, 2010. Available online at: http://bdlawhouse.blogspot.com/2010/12/us-senator-electurges-

pm-make-ict-act.html

52. Ibid.

53. Ibid.

54. See, Daily Prothom Alo, Dhaka, 5 November 2009. Available online at: http://www.prothom-alo.com/

detail/date/2009-11-05/news/17298

55. VOA (Voice of America) News, 2 Feb 2010.

56. Ferdous Ahmad, “Opposition Crackdown Fuels Bangladesh Unrest”, in Islamonline.net, 23 February

2010.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. Daily Nayadiganta, February 16, 2010.

60. Daily Prothom Alo, February 15, 2010.

61. Ibid., also Daily Amar Desh, February 15, 2010.

62. Bangladesh: politically motivated arbitrary arrests hamper impartial investigation of campus violence.

AI Index: ASA 13/005/2010. 23 February 2010; available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/

ASA13/005/2010/en/f9f2e4ef-9f64-487e-8e70-67233f25ffbb/asa130052010en.pdf.

63. Article 27 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

64. Shimul Chaudhury, “Thoughts on RU Incidents: Untold Facts”, in Sonar Bangladesh (22 February).

Available at: http://www.sonarbangladesh.com/article.php?ID=2036

65. Ibid.

66. Shimul Chaudhury, “Civil Rights Changed!”, in Daily Independent. Available online at: http://www.

theindependent-bd.com/details.php?nid=170736

67. Ibid.

68. From the early 1960s Jamaat, together with other political parties, was active against the autocratic

government of Ayub Khan in Pakistan. Jamaat was at the fore front of forming Pakistan Democratic

Movement (PDM); Combined Opposition Parties (COP); and later on Democratic Action Committee

(DAC), three platforms of all the political parties which fought against the autocratic regime of

Ayub Khan. The Awami League was also an active component of COP and DAC. In the 1980s,

Jamaat took part in the mass movement for restoration of democracy side by side with the two

major political parties, namely the BNP and the Awami League. In this long struggle for restoration

140 Md. Saidul Islam

of democracy there were liaison committees of the BNP, Jamaat and the Awami League and the liaison

committees of the three parties used to sit regularly to formulate common programs. It is a historical

fact that Jamaat was the !rst political party to raise the demand of holding Parliamentary elections

under a neutral Caretaker Government. In the movement for incorporating the concept of Caretaker

Government in the Constitution Jamaat, Awami League and Jatiya Party fought side by side. They

addressed press conferences from the same platform. For more, see: http://www.jamaat-e-islami.

org/index.php?option=com_publication&task=detail&info_id=25

69. Jamaat has been represented in the Parliament of Pakistan since 1962. It has participated in all the

Parliamentary and local elections with a view to institutionalizingz democracy. In the Parliamentary

elections of 1962 Jamaat won four seats in the National Assembly and two seats in the Provincial

Assembly from what was then East Pakistan. In the general elections of 1970 although Jamaat did

not win any seat in the National Assembly of East Pakistan, it emerged as the second largest political

party next to Awami League which had a landslide victory. However, in the Provincial Assembly election

of 1970 Jamaat won one seat in the district of Bogra. However, after a the independence of Bangladesh

in 1970 Jamaat could not take part in the elections of 1973 because all the Islamic political

parties including Jamaat were outlawed. However, Jamaat took part in 1979 Parliamentary elections

under the name Islamic Democratic League (IDL) and secured six seats in Parliament with its leader

Mawlana Abdur Rahim elected from Barisal. In 1986 Jamaat won 10 seats; in 1991, 18 seats; in 1996,

three seats; and in 2001, 17 seats in Parliament. See: http://www.jamaat-e-islami.org/index.php?

option=com_publication&task=detail&info_id=25

70. According to Jamaat’s Ameer (Chief or President), the party has 1.16 million registered associate

members. See, Daily Amar Desh, 25 April 2010.

71. For an analysis, please see “Politics of Bangladesh” in Wikipedia. Available online at: http://en.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Bangladesh

72. Daily Naya Diganto, 24 March 2010.

73. Daily Naya Diganto, 12 April 2010.

74. Daily Somokal, 2 April 2010.

75. DNA India, 7 February, 2010.

76. Serajur Rahman, “Ai Akromon Awami Leaguer Charitragoto Fasibader Angsho” (This attack is a part

of Awami Fascist Character), in Daily Naya Diganto, Dhaka, 23 March 2010.

77. RTNN, 8 March 2010.

78. Daily Naya Diganto, 3 April 2010.

79. Bangladesh Mufti Parishad, 30 October 2009.

80. Daily Amar Desh, 21 March 2010).

81. Daily Ittefaq, 6 April 2010.

82. Ibid.