As
forthe demand of banning of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh;it is nothing new for
Bangladesh. In fact, the ban was imposed on the party just after Bangladesh had
won its independence.The verdict of Abdul
QuaderMolla (an Assistant Secretary General of the Islamist party) by the
three-judge International Crimes Tribunal -2 of Bangladesh that had ignited
the Shahbag protests, have a detailed description of the role of Jamat-e-Islami
with respect to the war time crimes committed against our people. According to
the details available on news media, the
judgment has virtually placed Jamaat in the same category as other vigilante
groups who had carried out genocide and atrocities during 1971. The verdict reads, “Actions
in concert with its local collaborator militias, Razakar, Al Badr and
Jamaat-e-Islami and other elements of pro-Pakistani political parties were
intended to stamp out Bangalee national liberation movement and to mash the
national feeling and aspirations of the Bangalee nation.” This ends with a
quote from the New York Times (Jan 3, 1972). “Al Badar is believed to have been
the action section of Jamaat-e-Islami, carefully organised after the Pakistani
crackdown last March.” In discussing the prevailing context of Bangladesh, the judgment reads, “It
is quite coherent from the facts of common knowledge involving the backdrop of
our war of liberation for the cause of self-determination that the Pakistani
armed force, in execution of government’s plan and policy in collaboration with
the local anti-liberation section belonging to [Jamaat-e-Islami] and its
student wing [IslamiChhatraSangha], Muslim League and other pro-Pakistan
political parties namely Pakistan Democratic Party, Nejam-e-Islami etc. and
auxiliary forces, had to deploy public and private resources.”
Let us look at a news-report (guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 August 2011) regarding
the English
Defence League's plan to march through the London which had been
been blocked by the home secretary of Britain. Theresa May banned all
marches in Tower Hamlets, east London, and four neighboring
boroughs in the capital for a 30-day period, following a request from the
commander for the event, which was passed on to May by Scotland Yard's acting
commissioner, Tim Godwin.The move comes amid fears of violence and disorder if
the march was allowed to go ahead. Nick Lowles, director of the anti-extremist
campaign group Searchlight, said: “This decision is a victory for common sense.
The EDL clearly intended to use the proposed march to bring violence and
disorder to the streets of Tower Hamlets. Their plan has been foiled.”Bangladesh
is facing the similar threats from Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh and its student
wing ChatraShibir. This is the reason behind recent actions against these two
forces even when they are not yet banned as political organizations.
Action Front of
National Socialists/National Activists (ANS/NA) a neo-fascist political party
of Germany, also known as AktionsfrontNationalerSozialisten/NationaleAktivisten
(ANS-NA), Action Front of National Socialists (ANS), NationaleAktivisten,
National Activists was an inactive group formed in 1977. It was banned in 1983 by German government.
This reveals that ideological affiliation and organizational culture of organizations
mimicking the Nazi are still being pursued on the ground of being a threat to
humanity and democracy. Jamat-e-Islami
Bangladesh and its axillary organizations qualify for similar status of being
anti-humanist and fascist. More importantly, they directly carry organizational
“guilt” of committing crimes against humanity during the war of 1971. The law
which formed the International Tribunal on Crimes against Humanity in
Bangladesh did not initially have the provision of trying organizations for such
crimes. The Shahbag protestors have highlighted on the needs of such provision.The
government through the latest amendments to the law had created such provision.
Although, this emergency response to the reform
requirements did not clearly spell out the nature of punishment to any such
organizational crimes, it has at least paved the way for demanding justice to
such crimes. Bangladesh may require another round of amendments to meet the gap or depend
upon the prudent discretions of the judges, based on the constitutional
provisions and international precedents on such grounds.
At the same time, Bangladesh has recently enacted
a law to bring organizations involved in terrorism to justice. This has been a
part of the global process to curb terrorism. This law also goes against
Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh as its extremist features are now acutely being
exposed, more than ever, as it is violently protesting against the ICT and its
judgments. In this regard we can recall that on 22 October 2009, the government
of Bangladesh banned all kinds of activities of Hizbut-Tahrir Bangladesh in the
interests of public security.“The organization has been banned as it has
been carrying out anti-state, anti-government, anti-people and anti-democratic
activities for long in the country,” then Home Minister Sahara Khatuninformed the
media. Also we need to recall that the previous BNP-Jamaat government had
banned four organizations - Huji, Jama'atulMujahideen Bangladesh, Jagrata
Muslim Janata Bangladesh and Shahadat-e Al Hikma - for their connection with
militancy.Important to note while Bangladesh had imposed these bans-
the international communities had not come out condemning Bangladesh’s position
or acquiring her of being intolerant in the battle of ideology.
Recently, the visiting UK foreign minister, regarding ban of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami politics, stated, that the people of the country have to face the politics of the party through ballot without banning it. While a report on a question answer session from British parliament (Thursday 30 June 2011) reveals the following:
“MrSpellar: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department what information her Department holds on the countries
which have banned the organisationHizbut-Tahrir; and what account she takes of
the positions of such countries in determining her policy on Hizbut-Tahrir in
the UK.”
“James Brokenshire: We understand that Hizbut-Tahrir
(HuT) is subject to some form of ban in Bangladesh, Egypt, Germany, Kyrgyzstan,
Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, the
United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. HuT is an
organisation about which the Government has significant concerns. We keep its
activities under close review. In doing so, the Secretary of State for the Home
Department takes into account information about HuT's activities in other
countries, including the position taken by foreign Governments. However, the
basis on which groups can be banned in other countries is not necessarily the
same as the basis on which groups can be proscribed in the UK. A group can be
proscribed in the UK only if the Secretary of State believes it is “concerned
in terrorism” within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000. Some countries
ban all political groups; other countriesban groups that are considered to be
seditious, extremist or otherwise unacceptable. Germany, for example, has
banned HuT on grounds relating to holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.”
This conversation reveals two critical aspects. Primarily UK
does recognize the rights of different nations to bring about ban on
extremist-organizations. Secondly, UK herself reserves the right of doing so
based on its own mandate. In other words, the high sounding “no ban” campaign
is found to be suspiciously favoring Jamat-e-Islami while Bangladesh on
numerous grounds find the organization eligible to ban as being imposed on
similar organizations in the recent pasts.
