Jamaat had honeymoon period with both Awami League and BNP

Writer and researcher Mohiuddin Ahmed is at the same time a historian and a valiant freedom fighter. Among those who have written, analysed and researched most on the political context of post-independence Bangladesh, he is one. He is the only political writer in Bangladesh who wrote a book on the 1973 election titled “The Election of ’73”. He has also written “Red Terror: Siraj Sikder and Proletariat Politics”, “Anti-hero Sirajul Alam Khan”, “Awami League BNP: Which Way”, “The Rise and Fall of Jasad: Politics of a Turbulent Time” and many other works. He continues to write on contemporary politics.

Recently, Mohiuddin Ahmed appeared in the programme “Editorial Dialogue with Rased Mehedi” of Views Bangladesh. The subject of discussion was the politics of Bangladesh, especially the post-independence political context. He shed light on the rise and fall of politics in the country. The interview was conducted by Rased Mehedi, editor of Views Bangladesh. Today the fourth and final part of the four-part interview is published.

Rased Mehedi: Sheikh Hasina will be punished for the crimes she committed; but the way the Liberation War of ’71 is being targeted, its symbols erased completely and talk of a second independence raised, don’t you think this is part of a meticulous design by the United States? Because America always wants revenge for defeat. The US was against Bangladesh’s Liberation War. Are they now taking revenge for their defeat in 1971?

Mohiuddin Ahmed: I do not see it exactly the way you do. Bangladesh was born in 1971 through the Cold War. On one side the Soviet Union as a superpower, on the other the United States as another superpower. These two powers had long been manoeuvring to divide and dominate the world. As long as Bangladesh was part of Pakistan it was an unnatural state. Two countries so far apart, yet we were not forced into Pakistan. We went voluntarily. If the Muslim League had not won 97 per cent of the vote in the 1946 election here, perhaps Pakistan would not have been created. So there was over-excitement among us.

I recall, in February 1948 in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in Karachi, when Dhirendranath Dutta proposed that along with Urdu and English, Bangla should also be recognised as the language of the Assembly. At that time not a single Bengali Muslim member of the Constituent Assembly supported him. He was supported by a few Congress members. Three or four members of the Pakistan Congress supported him. No Bengali Muslim did. That was the psychology of Bengali Muslims then.

That unnatural state was created only to be broken. In the way it broke, two superpowers became involved. What I feel and understand, and what has been seen in different literature, is that the US was secretly building a relationship with China at that time. The Americans did not want us to disturb them then. Because they needed Yahya badly. Yahya was doing the diplomacy. If you read Kissinger’s book “White House Years”, there is a big chapter on the East Pakistan conflict. It clearly says, if we temporarily accept Yahya or limited autonomy, then by next spring (March-April 1972) Bangladesh will become independent.

Another point is, Pakistan was a full member of the United Nations. One part was seceding, India was supporting it, could any solvent country openly support that? Today can Bangladeshi leaders go to the UN and say we are for Rakhine State? Can we go to the UN and say we want the sovereignty of Tibet? No one can say that; but indirect help can be given. The US role was always against whatever the Soviet Union would do. The Soviet Union acted against whatever the US did. Thus a polarisation developed.

Secondly, Bangladesh was born through the Cold War. There has always been a major conflict between the two camps. And the one who is big and acts as leader always tries to maintain dominance – from the village elder to the world’s superpowers. Alongside a big country, if there is a small country, obviously the relationship is of that type. If you compare the US with Canada-Mexico-Cuba, or China with Vietnam, disputes go on even over a few islands. With us and India also the same. If instead of India, China had been our neighbour, we too would have had conflicts with China – this must be understood.

Therefore international relations have many dimensions. If we judge each dimension, we will understand. Besides, the reality is that a boal fish will eat a puti fish. You cannot tell a boal not to eat puti, or a tiger not to eat deer. The big has supremacy, the small is helpless. Now the strategy must be how you will peacefully coexist with a big country.

Rased Mehedi: The Jamaat-e-Islami that collaborated with the Pakistani occupation army in 1971 is still very active in grassroots politics, why? Is this not having an adverse impact on our political culture?

Mohiuddin Ahmed: Outside Jamaat, all the other parties – right, left, centrist, Awami League, BNP, Jasad, Workers Party, CPB – none are spiritually or mentally in favour of Jamaat. Then how has Jamaat come so far? Did Jamaat not have a honeymoon period with Awami League and its allies? Together they contested the 1986 election and went to Parliament. In the 1986 election Jamaat first contested with the “scales” symbol and went to Parliament with 10 members. Under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership they became the opposition party. Thus in 1986 they gained political legitimacy. And by contesting that election Sheikh Hasina also gave political legitimacy to Ershad’s military rule.

On the other hand, in 1991 we saw an understanding behind the scenes between Jamaat and BNP. Because of this Jamaat got 17 seats and BNP won a single majority. Decisions were made by margins of 400–500 or 1,000–2,000 votes. Then Jamaat sent a written letter to the President pledging support to BNP, after which Justice Shahabuddin invited Khaleda Zia to form the government. Until then her majority was not visible. Without Jamaat’s support BNP could not have become Prime Minister in 1991. In 2001 there was no pretence, Jamaat and BNP openly allied and formed government together. Jamaat got 18 seats that time and joined government with two ministers.

Thus in this subcontinent, in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan there are Jamaat organisations. Only in Bangladesh did Jamaat become part of government. So despite so many questions about Jamaat’s role in 1971, they have ruled in this country – how was that possible? Awami League and BNP themselves gave legitimacy to Jamaat. So all together they did this solely for narrow party and group interests. They always calculated how they would benefit as a party or group. These equations they did as part and parcel of power politics. We cannot change this. So there is no use in rhetorical talk against Jamaat.

Rased Mehedi: Those who are facing Jamaat politics with higher ideals, they must prove that through political activity. Then Jamaat politics will be defeated anyway, right?

Mohiuddin Ahmed: You spoke of people’s aspirations. But we do not see reflection of the aspirations of ordinary people. Who are the opinion makers here? People listen to them. Here the opinion makers are the political leaders of BNP, Awami League, Communist parties. Here the opinion makers are the media, intellectuals. So these opinion makers, with their pervasive influence on the people, as they say, so we learn to think. Ordinary people cannot generate ideas that way. Ideas are generated from where? If there is a flaw there, then there is a problem. If we are to resist Jamaat politics, then I must bring in better politics. But I am not bringing better politics. All together they are revalidating Jamaat in politics for narrow interests. I would still say, the opinion makers in various spheres of our society can do this work constructively.

And the most important thing is, if elections are fair, the voters themselves will decide which party they will keep and which they will throw out. There is no need for you to say ban this party. The only legitimate authority to ban is the citizens. You do not have five votes that you can say ban this party – that cannot be.

I think citizens should decide whom they will vote for. Yes, you can say those who get less than one per cent of votes will not be allowed to contest the next election. Then you will see many people will become serious.

Transcribed: Shahadat Hossain Touhid