How Jamaat is involved in the killing of intellectuals

  • Mizanur Rahman Khan
  • |
  • Font increase
  • Font Decrease

Mizanur Rahman Khan

Mizanur Rahman Khan

Late Mizanur Rahman Khan, an expert journalist on constitution, law and parliament, published many rare documents about Bangladesh's liberation war at various times. One of the notable books written by him on these is '1971: America's Secret Document'. Also, he has arranged many unknown information about the liberation war in different newspapers at different times. Did many exclusive interviews. Published many investigative reports. In some of them, the role of Jamaat in the war of liberation, massacres, inaction of Albadar-Alshams forces, killing of intellectuals and the story of shameless justification of the Jamaat leaders in the war of liberation have come up. This series is organized with the intention of presenting some selected writings in an abbreviated form.

From November 1, 2012 to January 8, 2013, I was engaged in research at the United States National Archives. During this time, I mainly visited classified documents released under the Freedom of Information Act of the United States government from 1947 to 1975. I see there, the US Consul in Dhaka, Herbert D. Spivak, in a cable sent to Washington on December 20, 1971 (serial number Dhaka 5724 according to my notebook) mentioned that Jamaat thugs or 'Jamaat thugs' were involved in the killing of intellectuals.

In that cable, Spivak wrote, 'There may be disagreements about the number of killed intellectuals, but we believe that "Jamaat thugs" did it. It is widely believed that this happened with the 'connivance' of the Pakistani army. This incident could lead to claims of retaliation and war crimes against non-Bengalis.

And it is confirmed by Western researchers as well as in the US documents that Al-Badr led it. Among them, the American professor of Iranian origin. Syed Wali Reza Nasr's name is commendable. He also wrote two research books on Jamaat-e-Islami and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi.

Vali Reza Nasr is currently serving as the Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, USA. He is a member of the Foreign Affairs Policy Board of the US State Department under the administration of President Barack Obama. Prior to that, he served as Senior Advisor to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (2009-2011). He is recognized as a leading expert on the Islamic world and the Middle East. He received his PhD in Political Science from MIT in 1991. US Secretary of State John Kerry quoted him in a speech in the US Senate. And Richard Haas, president of the US Council on Foreign Relations, described Nasr as America's 'national resource'. On page 66 of Vali Nasr's book The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution: The Jamaat-e-Islami, he gives specific information about Albadr's relationship with the Jamaat-e-Islami Tulaba IJT and the killing of intellectuals by them. It is also significant that Maulana Matiur Rahman Nizami's name is in this book of his.

Vali Nasr writes, 'It is not surprising that the Islami Jamiat Tulaba (IJT) returned to the political limelight between 1969 and 1971 when Ayub Khan's rule collapsed and civil war broke out between the People's Party and the separatist Bengali party Awami League and the breakup of Pakistan. Under government patronage, the IJT emerged as the main force behind the Jamaat's National Campaign against the People's Party and Awami League in West Pakistan and the Bengali separatists in East Pakistan. This campaign cemented the IJT's position in national politics, particularly in May 1971. During this time the IJT joined the army's counter-insurgency operations in East Pakistan. With the help of the army, the IJT organized two paramilitary units. And that is Albadar and Alshams. Their job was to fight the Bengali guerrillas. Most of the al-Badars were drawn from among the IJT members, who supported the Muhajir community in East Pakistan. Nazim-e-Ala Motiur Rahman Nizami of IJT organized Albadar and Alshams from Dhaka University. Due to their role in the civil war, they have to pay a heavy price.

It is to be noted that on December 8, 2007, Nizami protested when Nizami was referred to as the head of the Al-Badar army in the report titled "Guilty at Birth" by The Economist of London. Nizami claimed that he had no relationship with Albadar. However, Nizami's involvement with Albadar has been claimed by Maulana Nizami in an interview given by Professor Vali Nasr. In the footnotes of his book, Professor Nasr specifically cites Syed Muttakil Rahman's Yab Bhu Nazim-e Ala Di, published in Lahore in 1981, as its reference.
US diplomats testify that Jamaat and Maududi have been sectarian, fundamentalist and reactionary since the beginning and have presented various interpretations in the name of Islam. However, we have to take into consideration the historical context behind the formation of Jamaat's Badr Bahini behind the killing of intellectuals. And we can check this with the help of American government documents. We see that Maulana Maududi knowingly or unknowingly targeted the Muslims of East Pakistan immediately after the creation of Pakistan.

Like Badr, he started a Jamaatism or Maududiism.
US diplomats in the region have consistently noted Jamaat-e-Islami and its founder Maulana Abul Ala Maududi's hatred and hatred for Bengalis, Bengali literature and Bengali intellectuals in the political philosophy since the fifties. This position of the Jamaat appears to be unique. This position distinguished the Jamaat from those who opposed independence in the name or cause of Islam or others.

Jamaat has since its inception pitted every intellectual issue specifically against Islam, with racist positions such as Bengal, Bengali, Bengali culture, East Bengal autonomy and Nazism. This is what I call Jamaatism. Like Nazism it deserves to be banned. Maududi has distinguished himself from all other Islamist groups by calling the autonomy and independence movement anti-Islamic, the collective election system anti-Islamic, and above all the systematic killing of intellectuals. Therefore, all their activities have nothing in common with an isolated demand of three weeks of imprisonment of Prof. Golam Azam for demanding Bengali language in Rangpur.
Professor Ghulam Azam in his book [What I Saw in Life] describes his fascination with Maududi's Tarjumanul Qur'an. Vali Nasr writes, in June 1951, in response to a question from a reader of the Tarjumanul Qur'an, Maududi declared that India was Darul Kufar (land of blasphemy) and that it was haram for Pakistanis to marry Indian returnees. Apart from this, Maududi was also accused by the ulema of Mahdi and Ahmadiyya. For this, he was criticized by the ulama of all faiths in India and Pakistan (p. 129). Vali Nasr also writes, "During the 1971 civil war, the Jamaat supported the [Yahia] government with all its might and took part in the conflict to prevent East Pakistan from becoming Bangladesh." They also saw the rise of socialist Bhutto as a challenge to Islam (also Jamaatism) and thus opposed [Bhutto's] recognition of Bangladesh and renewed the Ahmadiyya riots of 1972–74' (p. 56).

On 12 May 1953 (Telegram No. 1711), the US Consulate in Karachi informed Washington that Maududi had been convicted by a military court of inciting a riot against the Ahmadiyya community in Lahore. He was sentenced to death on May 11. Maududi is the leading Mullah of Pakistan. Both Pakistan's defense and foreign secretaries have identified him as 'Pakistan's most feared man'.

On June 14, 1956, Garrett H. Solen, First Secretary of the US Embassy in Karachi (Foreign Service Despatch No. 893), wrote in a cable titled 'Maulana Maududi and the Electoral System of Pakistan' that Pakistan's most powerful orthodox pressure group launched a massive campaign to create religious differences in the national voting system. did

This view of Maududi and Jamaat determined their position in the Bangladesh War of Independence. It should be noted that in 1909, based on the report of Montagu-Chelmsford, under the comprehensive constitutional reforms of Morley-Minto, British introduced a separate electoral system for Muslims and Hindus in India. It can be seen from the records of the British Parliament that they took into account the demands of the Muslim League, but Al-Quran, religion and caste were not considered at all. Considering that Muslims are a backward section of the society, separate electoral system was adopted. But Maulana Maududi gave a fatwa accepting this matter in the light of the Qur'an during the formulation of the constitution in 1956. He wrote a three-part article in Dawn, which revealed that Maududi's real headache was East Pakistan.

The US Embassy in Karachi rightly said, 'The aim of Maududi's propaganda is to heat up the political atmosphere. The Legislative Assemblies of both parts of Pakistan sent recommendations to the National Assembly to reserve separate electoral systems for Hindus and Muslims. Hindus in East Pakistan will be economically, culturally and politically stronger in the united system. A joint electorate would weaken the Hindus, an argument Maududi called the "biggest fraud". In his words, joint electorate will result in Muslims doing more for them than Hindus can. Those who are advocates of secular and Bengali nationalism will effectively protect the interests of Hindus.
US diplomat Garrett Solen then wrote that an article written by Maududi on the subject was serially published in the Dawn newspaper. Maududi's fear of Bengali nationalism movement has been revealed in this. If a separate voting system can be implemented only for the Muslim population, then that will be an effective tool to counter Bengali nationalism. Maududi identified the proposed joint electoral system as a tool to defeat the purpose of Islam. According to him, only Muslim voters can run an ideal Islamic state. Hindus 'can't come into this scenario at all.' Anyone who wants a joint electorate will aim to join the resistance to a 'genuine Islamic way of life'. Advocating for a combined approach would amount to 'electing Muslim hypocrites and infidels'. There are some significant inconsistencies in Maududi's analysis, the US diplomat wrote in the comments section of his three-page report. As Pakistan is a multi-religious society, his views are sectarian or factional. Maududi admits that Muslims are divided. Because, a group wants to develop Bengali nationalism.
বিজ্ঞাপন