Need
for political wisdom and pragmatism
Weekly
Holiday, November 30, 2012
M. Serajul Islam
The
recent acts of violence by Jamat have created a great deal of apprehension in
the public mind. These acts hint at very dangerous consequences for the already
conflict-ridden politics of the country unless dealt with determination and
resolved satisfactorily. The BNP has expressed the view that these violent acts
of Jamat do not have the party’s support.
We are
encouraged by the firm resolve shown by the Home Minister that the government
will deal with such violent acts in the manner it deserves; put it down with
the legal powers in its hands. Nevertheless, his dismissal of the Government’s
intention to sit with Jamat to find a way out through discussions does not
augur well. His call to Chhatra League to deal with Jamat activists in the
streets have added to more public apprehension and fear. The Home Minister will
need to make every effort to resolve the Jamat issue politically and
democratically for reasons discussed in this piece. There is a national
consensus against Jamat’s recent acts of violence that is a positive sign.
Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how to deal with the problem. The Home
Minister’s resolve to deal with a Jamat ready to go berserk by force alone will
not resolve the dangers that Jamaat threatens. Nowhere has force alone resolved
such a danger; in fact force has only added fuel to the fire. There is a civil
society group that is trying to create pressure on the government with its own
strategy. This group, allied to the ruling party, has been active in the
country’s politics since the new Government was formed in January, 2009. They
came to the political platform with specific demands. First, they wanted
secularism to be restored in the Constitution and all the Islamic provisions
inserted after the August 15, 1975 changeover to be deleted. Second, they also
wanted a ban on the use of religion by any party in the country’s politics.
Three, they wanted the Bangladeshi collaborators of the 1971 war crimes to be
tried and punished. Finally, they wanted Jamaat to be banned for crimes against
humanity in 1971; its use of religion in politics.
In
fact, this group never left anyone in doubt that it is Jamaat they were after.
They were infuriated by the fact that Jamaat did not only not pay for its
alleged crimes; that it did not express allegiance to Bangladesh and still
continued to be in politics of the country. Their efforts were successful but
only to the extent that through the annulment of the 5th amendment and adoption
of the 15th amendment, secularism was restored in the Constitution. However,
none of their demands have yet been fulfilled. As a consequence, this group has
even expressed its dissatisfaction with the government. This group is now using
the latest acts of violence by the Jamaat to re-enforce their other unfulfilled
demands reiterating once again forcefully that Jamaat must be banned. They are
again demanding the deleting of the Islamic provisions in the Constitution to
restore secularism as a state principle in its proper spirit. They feel that
secularism and the Islamic provisions cannot remain in the Constitution
together.
The
country has enough political problems with the unresolved one between the
ruling party and the BNP over how to conduct the next elections, a very
threatening one for the country. The situation now developing over Jamaat, if
not resolved satisfactorily and politically, could push Bangladesh towards
consequences too nightmarish even to contemplate.
The
Home Minister who had given hope of dealing with the problem forcefully has
also given us cause of apprehension when he called upon the student cadre of
the ruling party to resist Jamaat in the streets, a call that brought him
censure from his own party men. In fact, if the government gets embroiled in a
direct confrontation with the Jamaat, all else, meaning the country’s politics
and economics would have to take back stage. It should be remembered that
Jamaat has never been a political force in the country’s politics. It has
always used the assistance of the dominant political force in the country to
rise above the insignificant position where the people of the country have kept
them. In all free and fair elections, the Jamaat has never been a force of any
reckoning.
Jamaat’s
crimes against humanity
Jamaat
came to prominence for the first time in 1971 when the Pakistan military gave
it the first taste of political power by making it a collaborator to its acts
against humanity. The first AL Government that could have settled the Jamaat
issue in its first term because it stayed in power for nearly four years and
had unchallenged power when those from Jamaat who had actively taken part in
crimes against humanity were still in the country and memories of the people
against them still fresh. The Government adopted the Bangladesh Collaborator
(Special Tribunals) Order in 1972 and amended the Constitution in 1973 for the
trial of members “of any armed or defence or auxiliary forces” for genocide,
crimes against humanity or war crimes.” Unfortunately, the trials were bogged
down in the country’s legal system and only 752 were tried and convicted. Many
in power took advantage of the order to settle old scores leading the
government to declare General Amnesty.
193
Pakistani war criminals
The
Amnesty, together with the Shimla Agreement signed between India and Pakistan
in 1973 to which Bangladesh was a signatory, allowed the 193 Pakistani armed
forces officers that Bangladesh wanted to try as war criminals to be
repatriated to Pakistan. This helped Jamaat off the hook where the
revolutionary spirit of time should have been generated to settle the crimes
against humanity committed by Jamaat activists in 1971. The government of
President Ziaur Rahman, through the 5th amendment --- that returned to the
country the multi-party democracy that was banned by the 4th or BKSAL amendment
--- also allowed Jamaat legitimacy by legitimizing religion-based parties in
the country.
Awami
League and Jamaat
In
1991-96, the Awami League gave Jamaat further legitimacy as a political force
by allying with it to force the BNP Government to accept the Caretaker
Government. The BNP built upon what the AL did and gave the Jamaat a taste of
political power in its second term of 2001-2006.
Thus
all past governments till the present one had left it to the people to deal
with Jamaat while they themselves played politics with it. The voters did not
make the mistake the governments made. They did not allow Jamaat’s share of
seats in the Parliament to even reach double digit except in 2001 elections
when its alliance with the BNP gave it 14 seats. They were able to deal with
Jamaat where governments failed because of the social safety net against those
who use religion in politics that is seldom spoken or written when analysts
speak and write about the political reality in Bangladesh; that despite the
huge Muslim population that is deeply religious, the people of Bangladesh have
always been lukewarm to religion being used in politics. Hence when people have
the need of a man of religion for any religious activity, they show respect for
the Mullahs and the Maulanas and go to them or call them home with great
respect. However when such religious people have asked for their votes, the
people have never obliged them, not with disrespect but politely.
Sufis
and secularism in Bangladesh
Thus,
secularism that is the need to separate religion and politics in public life is
very deeply etched in the consciousness of the people of Bangladesh
notwithstanding, what is or is not in the constitution. A lot of this
instinctive ability to keep religion and politics apart in their public life
comes from the influence of Sufis who played a major role in the spread of
Islam in Bangladesh.
The
Sufis left their indelible impression in the minds of the people that have only
been strengthened over the centuries. Thus in the British period and
afterwards, where the rest of South Asia has suffered from communal commotion
s, Bangladesh has largely been spared of such disturbances. In the period after
our independence, the young generation has gone into Islam in a big way.
Fortunately, they too have not been influenced by the type of fundamentalist
Islam that Jamaat preaches. They too have no problem being good Muslims but
have also not forgotten the teachings of the Sufis that have influenced their
fathers and forefathers. The young generation has gone to Islam but not to
Jamaat. These are aspects that the Government and society must consider
seriously and think twice before dealing with Jamaat by force or listening to
the civil society’s agenda against Jamaat. Although Jamaat is a minor
force in Bangladesh and will never come anywhere near political power, not in a
thousand years, it has ability to create disturbances that could imperil the
future of the country.
Possible
consequence of banning
Take
for instance the possible consequence of banning the Jamaat. Will Jamaat accept
the Government decision obediently and meekly go home, and then peace and
tranquility will prevail? Not a chance. The most likely consequence of banning
the Jamaat can be that the party may go underground. Once they do that, it is
apprehended that they may change their strategy and start acts of terror
instead of civil disturbances they are indulging with at the moment. What
distinguishes the Jamaat activists from the rest of us is the beard they have
on their faces. What if they choose to shave their beard and in small groups in
jeans and T shirts start committing acts of terror in shopping centers and
public places? The Jamaat, pushed against the walls and fighting for its
survival, could be transformed into a terrorist organization. Thanks to
democracy still working in the country, it has not. It is imperative that the
Government should not spare any effort to ensure that Jamaat is not pushed to
make such a choice.
Political
and democratic way
Fortunately,
the way to deal with Jamaat has been shown by senior leaders of the AL. While
criticizing the statement of Home Minister M K Alamgir, senior Awami League
leader and former general secretary of the party Abdul Jalil has called for a
political and democratic way to deal with Jamaat. This is a pragmatic and
realistic proposition. In opting for such a course that would be the only
reasonable way out, the government should not lose patience and look at the
problem realistically. Top Jamaat leaders are in jail on charges of war crimes.
If they are proven guilty, they will face capital punishment. Already in the
air, the news making rounds is that such judgment against them is in the
offing. In fact, this is one of the reasons behind the recent upsurge of
violence by the activists of Jamaat. The strategy should be a firm one where
the parameters should be set to deal with it not by force alone but through
legal means as well, guided by political and democratic considerations. This is
where the Government will need to show political wisdom.
The
Government would do itself and the country a great service if it would consider
the reasons behind the demand by the civil society urging it to ban Jamaat and
ban use of religion in politics; such a demand would be tantamount to
imposition of a minority view over the majority. Accepting the views of this
group to deal with Jamaat will therefore not be democratic either.
However,
if politics was an intellectual exercise only, then perhaps this group would be
right. Unfortunately for them, politics is more about people and their beliefs
and perceptions. In demanding the banning of use of religion in politics, the
group has given the clear impression, maybe unwittingly, that they are demanding
the ban of Islam in the country’s politics because the other religions in
Bangladesh, namely Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity, are no factors in this
context. So such singling out Islam in a country where the people are
overwhelmingly Muslim and deeply religious may not find favour for simple
reason of logic and common sense.
Keeping
religion and politics apart
More
so, because the people here may not see the need of such a ban because even
without it, they have succeeded over many decades---under the British, the
Pakistanis and now Bangladesh---in proving that the masses are quite capable of
keeping religion and politics apart, comfortably. In 1971 Jamaat used Islam for
repugnant motives, and miserably failed.
Most
importantly, the majority people of Bangladesh do not believe that Jamaat is
custodian of Islam in Bangladesh.
The
over-emphasis of the group on secularism is also an issue that needs careful
consideration before going overboard with it. Again, the same logic would apply
in considering secularism. In a predominantly Muslim country where people are
deeply religious, where illiteracy is still very high, the intellectual mind
required to appreciate secularism is absent in overwhelming majority of the
people.
As
those who use religion for political gains have no place in their hearts and
minds, the people are not concerned what is in the constitution or not; in fact
they are blissfully ignorant about it. Unfortunately for the secularists, their
demand for removal of the Islamic provisions from the Constitution and the ban
on use of religion in the name of secularism are now non-starters because the
public would see in these demands a bias against Islam.
The
issue is when at the level of the people, both secularism and Islam can
peacefully coexist, why is this group insisting on these demands when such
demands, if accepted, could give an incentive to the very Islamist forces they
would like to suppress? The 15th amendment has made their demands irrelevant.
It is time for the government to make its position clear because the civil
group making the demands is allied to the ruling party and the government’s
silence is a cause of concern of the people who want the Jamaat issue to be
resolved politically.
There
is another major aspect that the government would need to consider in dealing
with Jamaat; namely the international connotation. As a sovereign country it is
the right of Bangladesh to ban Jamaat or take any other action against it as a
domestic issue. However if Jamaat is banned because it propagates Islam in
politics, then the issue no longer remains domestic.
Remittance
is vital for economy
Islam
is a religion that is very dear to a large number of countries, and some of
those countries are specially important for Bangladesh for economic reasons
with 5 million of our expatriates in the region who send billions of US dollars
as remittance that is critical to the economy. Therefore, on the issue of
banning Jamaat, the Government that has already opted in favour of allowing
religion-based political parties to be in politics by the 15th amendment should
put an end to the demand by the secularists that is giving out dangerous
signals to the Muslim world.
The
call for banning any party is also not a democratic call. In a democratic
system, the government cannot ban a political party just because there is such
a demand from a section of the population. As long as Jamaat does not resort to
acts of terrorism and accepts the right of the people to accept or reject it in
elections, the Government cannot ban it and expect Islamic countries to
appreciate the decision.
There
is however a legal issue with Jamaat that rests with the Election Commission
(EC) that must be resolved before allowing Jamaat the right of a legitimate
political party. Jamaat’s constitution is in contradiction with the
requirements of the EC. The party’s constitution puts allegiance to Allah but
not to Bangladesh. This is a sensitive subject and the EC will need all its
competence to deal with an extremely sensitive issue. The EC cannot of course
demand Jamaat to drop faith in Allah from its constitution more so now after
the 15th amendment. It should and must nevertheless demand Jamaat to show
allegiance to the country because the people of Bangladesh are united on this
demand given the fact that Jamaat had opposed the Bangladesh liberation war and
had openly collaborated with the Pakistani military and so far has shown no
remorse for it. This is where the Home Minister would need to consider his
stance. The Government should put its weight behind the EC and convince the
Jamaat that it is in the interest of the party to resolve the issue in a
satisfactory manner by means of negotiations and not by force that will benefit
Jamaat.
A
lot of what happens with Jamaat over the next few weeks or months will of
course depend on what course the war crime trials take. The Government should
be prepared for any eventuality both at home and abroad. It does not appear
that the case of the war crimes trial has been explained satisfactorily abroad,
particularly in the Middle East. It is time that the Government should activate
all its diplomatic channels so that Bangladesh’s friends and well wishers are
with it on the war trials and understands and appreciates that the trials are
being held in a transparent manner where those accused are being given the
right of defense. Whatever the Government does, it should be extremely cautious
not to force Jamaat to forgo constitutional politics.
--------------------------------------------------------
The
writer is a retired career diplomat and a regular columnist on foreign affairs
and politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment