Getting over BBC: What is the Nature of Conflict in Bangladesh?

The way Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh and its student wing is reacting to the judgment and on going process of ICT in Bangladesh, conflict is escalating in which Jamat is becoming increasingly violent against common people (as it is attempting to derail the train etc.) and the law enforcing agencies (as it is attacking police and killing individual law enforcers etc.). Is this anything new? Not at all! These have been carried out over the years sporadically (e.g. on 21^st August, 2005 public gathering was attacked with grenades etc.). But Jamat is attempting to push their efforts to a climax. At the same time they are, attacking the Hindu and Buddhist temples and households of Hindu minority communities- this is what can be termed as the true contents of politics of Jamat-e-Islami. It should be noted, that this new round of violence against minorities was triggered by the verdict of DelwarHossainSayedee, who himself was accused of involvement in looting and burning villages, raping women and forcing members of religious minorities to convert to Islam during the war. Thus, the present conflict is not introduced by the government or Shahbag uprising, it is Jamt-e-Islami Bangladesh who is pursuing the politics of violence to bring the process of trial of crimes against humanity to a halt. Let us not be fooled or intimidated while Bangladesh stands firmly on the ground to defend democracy, religious harmony and human rights.
 

It is extremely important to note that Jamt-e-Islami Bangladesh targets the religious minorities to initiate its campaign to protest the death sentence of its leader Delwar Hossain Sayedee. This is significant as the global media is reflecting to recognize that Bangladesh (the present Government and Youth uprising in Shahbag) is attempting to bring those to justice for war crimes who are radical Islamist, undemocratic and anti-humanist communal opposition to the secular state of People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

What BBC wrote on the aftermath of the first wave of recent violence against the minority population in Bangladesh requires a closer scrutiny. BBC reports, “The attack started hours after a senior hardline Islamist leader was sentenced to death by a special tribunal in late February.  Jamaat-e-Islami party Vice President Delwar Hossain Sayedee was given a death sentence for crimes committed during the war of independence from Pakistan in 1971. The sentencing triggered a wave of angry protests from the Islamist party's supporters. In many districts, buildings and vehicles were damaged. More than 60 people were killed in clashes with the security forces….. While people like Mrs Das witnessed communal violence for the first time, Hindu businessmen like Subash Chandra Ghosh in southern Satkhira district say it was similar to what happened to them in 1971, when Bangladesh fought a bloody nine-month war against Pakistan to gain independence. "In 1971, our house was damaged and our neighbour's house was set on fire by anti-liberation forces. We are being targeted again. What should we do?" laments Mr Ghosh, who fought for independence. Some say the minorities are attacked because they mostly support the governing Awami League party and are a soft target.” The first part of this report is clear in noting that-

1.      Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh initiated the violence against religious minorities in Bangladesh to counter the verdict against its leaders in ICT.

2.      This is not the first time Jamat-e-Islami (i.e. “the anti-liberation forces” as mentioned in the report) has launched such campaign. In fact the leaders in questions, among other issues, are accused of committing violence against religious minorities (murder, looting and raping etc.) during 1971.

Before we proceed further, for those who are not too familiar with the history of Bangladesh, it should be clarified that Awami League, the current governing party, led the War of Independence against Pakistan and its auxiliary forces (including Jamat-e-Islami). On the other hand, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has played a key role in dismantling the legal process of bringing the war criminals to justice; right after it ceased power as an outcome of a military coup that had toppled Awami League and killed the leader of the War of Independence – Shiek Mujibur Rahman, the first Prime Minister of the newly independent Bangladesh. BNP also released the war criminals under trial at that time. It brought back the key leader of Jamat-e-Islami (Gulam Azam) whose nationality was revoked. BNP also allowed Jamat-e-Islami back to politics by lifting its ban. In the last national election BNP and Jamat-e-Islami formed an alliance to form a government in which the leaders of Jamat did not only became law-makers but also took-up few Ministries. Jamat-e-Islami made it a point to keep its leaders accused of war crimes in the key leadership position as it never found any fault in collaborating with the Pakistani army during 1971. Presently, BNP and Jamat-e-Islami are in an alliance against the present government which is an alliance of liberal and mainstream left parties with a priority (as a part of its election pledge) of bringing the war criminals to justice.

Now this being clear, the report informs us, without giving any notion of who are these community leaders of the minorities it was citing, (as we will have a look at the statement issued by the forum of the minorities contradicting this statement right after this) something truly amazing. It says, “Hindu community leaders say the attacks are systematic and have been going on for years. They say they are not only carried out by hardline Islamists but also by supporters of other mainstream political parties, including the Awami League and the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party.” This is an attempt to portray a scenario of communal violence in which the war crime tribunal and its verdict against the leaders of Jamat-e-Islami play no role. However, what in reality the minority leaders of Bangladesh Hindu-Buddha-Christian Oikya Parishad are stating is not difficult to track on media. 

One such report informs, “The country's minorities have been the target of attack of the reactionary forces after Jamaat-e-Islami leader Delawar Hossain Sayedee was sentenced to death Thursday for war crimes in the Liberation War, minority leaders said yesterday.” Mentioning its source, the report continues, “Following the trend of the 1971 atrocities, nearly a thousand minority houses and around 50 worship centres were attacked in the last two days, said Advocate Rana Das Gupta, general secretary of Bangladesh Hindu-Buddha-Christian Oikya Parishad….Rana accused Jamaat and Islami Chhatra Shibir of the atrocities. He mentioned that Rejaul Karim, chairman of Choroti Union Parishad, was involved in the attacks in Satkania and municipality councillors Abu and Amir in Banshkhali”. 

Therefore, why BBC tries to implicate Awami League by passing the comments of minority leaders; needs to be explored. Let us see what this type of allegation implicates:

1.      This undermines the exclusive and anti-humanist role of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh in bringing death and devastation against the minorities in Bangladesh.

2.      This decouples recent eruption of violence against the minorities with the verdicts of the ICT- as if the Muslim majority in general (regardless of political affiliation) is wedging a riot against the minorities.

3.      As a consequence, the significance of ICT process in Bangladesh is undermined. ICT process in true sense is attempting to re-establish the secular spirit of secularism based on which the nation won its independence.

Thus BBC’s angle in reporting the recent cases of violence against the minority communities in Bangladesh can be viewed as an attempt of imposing a stereo-type image of a communally violent “Islamic Nation” upon Bangladesh- while the truth is just the reverse. History of emergence of Bangladesh is unique. India and Pakistan won its independence from Britain based on the religious divisions between Hindus and Muslims. Bangladesh on the other hand, emerged through the cultural identity of Bengalis and opposed the Pakistani nationalism based on the concept of “Islamic Brotherhood”. This does not however imply that there is no space of Islamists in Bangladesh politics. In fact Jamat-e-Islami represents the Islamists in Bangladesh which opposes this secular construction of nationalism and constitutional premise of secularism as a principle of the People Republic of Bangladesh. 

In Bangladesh the demand of bringing those who committed crimes against humanity in 1971 therefore merges with the struggle for a secular-democratic state. When this is ignored in media reporting, the true content of Shahbag uprising is missed. At the same time reporting angle such as BBC helps to mask the undemocratic and anti-humanist position of Jamate-Islami-Bangladesh vis-à-vis the secular democratic spirit of the movement that shaped the Bengali nationalism and eventually gave Birth to the nation state of Bangladesh. It is high time that we recognize that Jamat-e-Islami is not the main opposition to the present government- it is primarily the main opposition to the nation state of Bangladesh and its secular-democratic spirit of independence.

Why the demand is for the Highest Punishment?

 The Nuremberg trials, organized in the German city of Nuremberg, were carried out shortly after the end of the Second World War, in May 1945, when the allied governments jointly agreed that those responsible for wartime atrocities must be held accountable and punished for their crimes. Some 5,000 Nazi’s were charged with war crimes. However, the Nuremberg trials were designed specifically to prosecute high-ranking Nazi officials with whom authority over heinous atrocities rested. The four counts of the indictment were: 1- Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts; 2- Crimes against peace; 3- War crimes; 4- Crimes against humanity. The Nuremburg trials were one of the first organized attempts to apply principles of international law, and established new precedents for the international community. It is to be noted in Bangladesh, the Tribunal for Crimes against Humanity has been established which largely deals with the fourth count (i.e. the crimes against humanity) of the Nuremburg trials. Similar to the Nuremburg trials, in Bangladesh the first batch of the criminals presently tried by the Tribunals are the high-ranking leaders and decision makers of the auxiliary paramilitary and political forces responsible for conducting crimes against humanity (genocide, rape, arson and robbery etc.) during the War of Independence (1971).

To realize the practical implications of this trial let us explore further into the judgments of the Nuremberg trials. We will primarily review judgments of the trials of Kaltenbrunner, Ernst.Kaltenbrunner was chief of the Security Police, SD, and head of the RSHA, which meant he was also in charge of the Gestapo, the SD and the Criminal Police. RSHA, at the time, engaged in widespread crimes against humanity as well as war crimes, including mistreatment and murder of POWs, and concentration camp workers, namely Jews, commissars, and others. Under RSHA, about 6 million Jews were murdered, which established Kaltenbrunner in a leading role in the ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question. This included the order to have prisoners of Dachau and other camps liquidated just before camps would have been liberated by the Allies. The verdict reads “guilty on counts 3 & 4” and the sentence was “death by hanging”.

We have taken the above case to demonstrate that, on the ground of being guilty of committing crimes against humanity, the international legal standards do have precedence of setting and making judgment of “death by hanging” as the highest level of punishment.

It is also relevant to look into the roles of some of the nations in relation to the Nuremberg trials as the same nations are opposing the process of trail in Bangladesh under the present tribunal on crimes against humanity during 1971. As for example, the British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the Second World War because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified.

Interestingly, a visiting British minister recently chose to forget that her own nation wanted to hang some of the Nazi leaders without proper trial and sentence others to imprisonment without any form of trial!! This is alarming as it reveals that the present debate raised by one of the most vocal international actorsis carried out to make the Bangladesh’s Tribunal controversy- not on legal or moral grounds but purely on political grounds.

Another contradictory position regarding Bangladesh’s Tribunal is displayed by the Amnesty International. Regarding acquittal of some of the defendants in Kosovo-trial, the organization has taken a strong position to ensure punishment. The acquittal of three high-ranking members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) after a retrial on war crimes charges has prompted Amnesty International to reiterate its call for justice for all of the victims in the 1998-9 Kosovo war, and their relatives. Interestingly, the Shahbag uprising of people is similarly raising the question over the judgment of life imprisonment of Kader Mollah (a key decision maker of 1971 genocide) and demanding justice through appeal but Amnesty International is attempting to silence such protests.

It is further important to note that the establishment of a Tribunal for war time atrocities is not an event but a process and this has been experience all over the globe. As for example in Cambodia laws and agreements have been amended several times before the tribunal could finally be established. In June 1997, the Cambodian government requested help from the UN in prosecuting former leaders of the Khmer Rouge for crimes committed between 1975 and 1979. Initially, the UN wished to establish a third ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal such as for the former Yugoslavia or for Rwanda. However, the Cambodian government refused to countenance the establishment of such a mechanism, which led the parties to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning “significant international co-operation” in trials before Extraordinary Chambers of the Cambodian Courts. In August 2001, Cambodia finally promulgated a law which was not entirely consistent with the terms of the MOU, for which reason the Secretary-General decided to pull the UN out of the negotiations in February 2002. However, the UN General Assembly requested him to pursue negotiations. This resulted in an amended bi-lateral agreement on 6 June 2003, following the adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 May 2003, of a resolution, approving a proposed agreement between the UN and Cambodia on the prosecution of crimes committed between 1975 and 1979 in Cambodia (A/RES/57/228 B). Nevertheless, the agreement signed on 6 June 2003 could only come into force in April 2005, when a donors’ conference received promises covering the quasi-totality of the necessary international contributions. In Cambodia the 2001 Law was then amended on 27 October 2004 to bring it into conformity with the International Agreement. The similar process of legal amendments are carried out in Bangladesh to make the tribunal just and fair in line with international standards and people’s aspiration for justice (such as both the defendant and plaintive can appeal against preliminary judgments). Nevertheless, Bangladesh is experiencing global oppositions as if, legal and administrative amendments are unacceptable once the tribunal is set on motion. This is in fact once again a reflection of biased-political opposition that defies international standards and historical precedents.

Now let’s talk about the demand of highest punishment to the defendants accused of crime against humanity during the war of 1971. According to the laws of Bangladesh death sentence is considered as a “just” judgment for “grave” offences. Different laws bear such sentencing. From this perspective the law that established the Tribunal for crimes against humanity contains the provision of death sentence as the highest punishment. The international pressure in recent years have often molded many nations to bring in softer punishments in general to ensure that such softer punishment is also incorporated within the tribunals for war time atrocities. One such example is the case of Rwanda. Rwanda dropped Death Penalty  as the process of war crime trial progressed.

TheFrench media reported(January 19, 2007) that Rwandan government approved a law that – pending parliamentary ratification – would abolish capital punishment in the country. The report indicated that this “landmark decision” might encourage Western countries that oppose the death penalty to extradite genocide suspects caught within their jurisdictions for trial in Rwanda. This reveals two aspects: firstly, if the national law allows, such as in case of Bangladesh, the provision of death sentence can very well be a part of the Tribunal for trials on war time atrocities. Secondly, only if the general law of the land changes, this provision can be expected to be dropped from such a tribunal. In case of Bangladesh as discussed earlier, the laws of the land do support death sentencing (in general). Secondly, the public emotion is not against death sentencing, in fact the Shahbag Uprising is urging the government to appeal against the preliminary verdict of one such accused who has been found guilty for directing mass killing. Thirdly, those who are mostly opposing the popular demand voiced in Shahbag, are not against death sentencing in general (they are in fact in favor of Islamic Sharia Law).The supporters of Jamat-e-Islami are simply against any form of trial of the crimes against humanity committed during the War of Liberation (1971). These should not be overlooked while we are considering the demand of highest punishment as raised by the Shahbag Uprising of people. Those who are opposing death sentence need to wait till Bangladesh in general begins to oppose and legally abolishes death penalty in general before it is expected that cry for justice for crimes against humanity will drop the chanting of death penalty for Kamruzzaman and other such accused.

Who are arguing against ICT Bangladesh?

 A paper titled “Bangladesh: the International Crimes Tribunal” (Standard Note: SN06318 Last updated: 3 May 2012); Authors: Jon Lunn and Arabella Thorp (Section International Affairs and Defence Section) of House of Commons Library lists four key sources to critic the ICT of Bangladesh. 

Now let us check-out one of the keen criticsto Bangladesh’s ICT mentioned by the paper- John Cammegh.He is a barrister in chambers at 9 Bedford Row, London. John Cammegh is one of the three British lawyers whose help was sought by local defense team of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh on behalf of its leaders accused of committing crimes against humanity. John Cammegh is retained on behalf of DelwarHossainSayedee, one of the top ranking leaders of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh. He had previously acted as lead defense counsel for Augustine Gbao, overall security commander of the RUF rebel army, at his war crimes trial at the Special Court of Sierra Leone from 2004 to 2006. According to the Hague Justice Portal, “Augustine Gbao was indicted on 16 April 2003. He is charged with 18 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was arrested and transferred to the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) in March 2003. On 25 February 2009, the SCSL convicted Augustine Gbao of 14 of the 18 counts against him, and on 8 April 2009 the Court sentenced Gbao to 25 years' imprisonment. On 26 October 2009, the Appeals Chamber delivered its judgment, upholding the conviction of Gbao and his 25-year sentence. The Chamber did however overturn his conviction concerning collective punishments and found that he was not responsible for one of the two attacks against UN peacekeepers. On 31 October 2009, Gbao, along with seven other persons convicted by the SCSL, was transferred to Rwanda to serve his sentence.”He has written an article in the New York Times, which was quoted as a source in a publication by the House of Commons in UK. It is important to note that by no means his opinions can be considered “unbiased” as he is paid to represent one of the defendants. Let’s not forget that on his recent CV it is written, “Through his current involvement with the Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal John’s practice has expanded into the lobbying/diplomatic field,developing a range of high-level political contacts in the UK, US and Europe, and institutions such as the International Centre for Transitional Justice and Human Rights Watch.” It’s no wonder that in recent days Human Rights Watch is showing greater concern over alleged mistrial of the Jamat leaders.

Another UK based legal expert Tobey Cadman is also on the panel of defense lawyer put together by Jamat-e-Islami  Bangladesh. He is another of the critics registered in the publication of the House of Commons’ paper. According to Saudi Gazette, last year (Tuesday, October 23, 2012) the “eminent British lawyer” Toby Cadman, who is representing five Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leaders accused of committing international crimes during the country’s 1971 liberation war, feared that many of the accused would be convicted by the symbolic date of Dec. 16 this year and would be executed by March 25, 2013. Now although, this prediction has not come true, his intentions of undermining the ICT Bangladesh have however clearly being demonstrated through it. He strongly (and wrongly) concluded, “If you listen to the statements made by members of the prosecution team, it is evident that the government has the clear intention to convict and ultimately execute at least three — Prof. GhulamAzam, MaulanaDelwarHossainSayeedi and SalahuddinQuaderChowdhury- on or by Dec. 16 of this year”.

The same publication of the House of Commons, had listed a blog by David Bergman as another of its sources for critics on ICT Bangladesh. During his career as a journalist in UK he was one of the makers and the chief researcher of a documentary on the war criminals of 1971 who were living in UK. Channel 4 aired it on 3 May 1995—recording eye witness accounts of Mueen-Uddin’s involvement in disappearances of journalists and other intellectuals in December 1971. It (the documentary War Crimes File) created much sensation in London after it was showed in Channel Four of BBC. Elaborating the target of making the documentary, David Bergman saidthe conscious world, including the European community raised their voice against the mass killings and war crimes committed in former Yugoslavia’s Bosnia. A strong demand was raised that the war criminals have to be punished. At that time he came to know that three war criminals of Bangladesh are residing in London in disguise. They also became leaders of the Bengalee community there. They are involved with various fundamentalist and communal groups. They made the film to unmask the war criminals and bring them to book.If we consider this past involvement of David Bergman as a credential – let’s see how he is using it. 

One of his basic and primary arguments in undermining the ICT in Bangladesh has been regarding the difficulties in authentic evidence gathering. Once we analyze how he uses his experience and affiliation with War Crimes of 1971 to mislead unsuspecting readers- we will be astounded! He wrote, “As someone who has spent some time investigating war crimes in Bangladesh (at that time around 25 years old evidence) I know first hand that whilst there is collective memory and belief about who is involved in war crimes, it is tough to find direct eye-witness or documentary evidence. Even when you find an eyewitness, there is always the question of whether you can find sufficient corroboration. And then of course there are the inconsistencies that one so often finds between witnesses, when the alleged offence took place so long ago.”Although, in case of Bangladesh trials, we do see a large number of eye witnesses, for the sake of argument let us consider what the international standard requires in a case when eye witnesses’ accounts are questionable. One such view of an expert can be found in a dissertation (section 3.4.1. of U.N. Human Rights Fact-Finding Establishing Individual Criminal Responsibility? - Harvard Law School, 2011) by Lara Talsma, LL.M..She wrote, “According to Knoops the notion exists that “witness testimony will contribute to fact finding and truth.”An important aspect of witness testimony is therefore the credibility and reliability of the witness. The International Criminal Tribunals are quite lenient when it comes to accepting that a witness is credible. For example, when a court finds inconsistencies in the testimony, that testimony can still be taken into account. This is also due to the fact that the witness testimony will be assessed in light of all the evidence of the case. As a result, the Court can decide that it will use only parts of the testimony.” Thus David Bergman’s approach to Bangladesh’s ICT is quite rigid and presumptuous while through twitter and blog his opinions are well circulated.He is found to use his legal background to mislead general readers regarding basic standards on ICTs. His blogs present trial notes which indiscriminately jumblehis opinions and facts. Thus theseshould be carefully separated before one attempts to use the posts. The opinions should not be rejected for being critical but these cannot be considered “professional journalism” as these reflect his framework of presumptions on international standards without citing any form of documented rationale.

Lastly, the paper mentions of “justice in conflict” blog. The concerned article concludes, “And, in fact, if guilty convictions are what the government is looking for – and it seems that there is already plenty of evidence against some of the defendants (they have after all been collecting over for almost two decades now) – it seems short-sighted for the government to rig a trial which is likely to go its way anyway.”I have cited this part as the conclusion rightfully undermines the rationale of any effective participation of the government to “rig” the process. Apparently the article has been also influenced by the critical feedbacks of the first two sources (e.g. “Allegations of bias have been made against the chief judge by defense lawyers”). This reflects that critics of Bangladesh’s ICT have formed a circle that reinforces each other’s views and voices.

Let us therefore not be influence by professional lawyers on the payroll of the accused and misleading comments of individual journalists regarding a practical process initiated by Bangladesh to bring those to justicewho had committed crimes against humanity, during its War of Independence.

Why Jamat-e-IslamiBangladesh needs to be Banned?

 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.