Ghulam Azam: Controversial or Venerable Leader?
By
Abdullah al-Ahsan
Professor of History and Civilization — Malaysia
Saturday, 01 November 2014 00:00
Ghulam Azam closely cooperated with most government leaders in establishing democratic institutions.(Reuters)
Last Saturday, October 25, Hundreds and thousands of people turned out in the Bangladeshi capital to pay their last respect to Professor Ghulam Azam, the former leader of Bangladesh Jamaat-i-Islami party, who had passed two days earlier.
Millions more prayed salatul janazah (funeral prayer) without the dead body all over the country and the rest of the world. Ironically, many of his critics made mock of his character mostly through the print, electronic, and the social media. This debate and disagreement about this gentleman raises a lot of question marks.
Azam died in prison hospital at the age of 91. Last year, he was sentenced to 90 years in jail after a court found him “guilty of charges relating to 1971 war of independence with Pakistan.” But why was the 90 years old awarded a 90 years sentence? The mammoth turnout in his funeral prayer and his opponents’ media hype demands some reflections on his personality.
Azam’s Political History
Follow Politics Zone on:
Facebook Twitter
Born in 1922 and brought up at the height of the Pakistan movement, Ghulam Azam became General Secretary of Dhaka University Students’ Union — a position any politically ambitious young man in the newly born East Pakistan would have fervently aspired. Ghulam Azam also played the most important role in placing the demand for Bengali language being recognized as Pakistan’s one of the state languages in newly independent Pakistan. This role too any Bengali leader would have loved to see in his/her political career.
However, something seems to have gone wrong in the case of Ghulam Azam. Both journalistic and academic writings in contemporary Bangladesh have ignored this role of Ghulam Azam. Paradoxically, for Ghulam Azam, who has spent almost his century-long life in what is Bangladesh now, 1971 seems to be the most significant year. He is accused of committing so many serious crimes and vices during this one year of his life. Otherwise, generally he has been a sophisticated gentleman. Why is this paradox? What really happened in 1971?
The popular rhetorical narrative in Bangladesh about 1971 is that the country was engaged in its war of independence during that year.
The call for complete Indian independence was made during the 1920s, and Pakistani leaders coined the term known as “the two-nation theory” in the 1930s for Pakistani’s independence. Bengali Muslim leaders were at the forefront of Pakistan movement. In fact, the 1940 resolution demanding Pakistan as an independent state was moved by a Bengali leader and in 1946 the resolution was amended to incorporate then East Bengal into one Pakistan was also moved by a Bengali leader.
Earlier, All India Muslim League, the party that led to realize Pakistan, was founded in Dhaka in 1906. Most important of all, without the support of Bengali Muslims, Pakistan could not have come into existence. Why then Bengali Muslims revolted against the central administration in Pakistan in 1971? This question will need books to answer. However, the fundamental question here is how one describes the events of 1971. It was hardly a war of independence, mainly because there is no record of any political leader demanding independence of East Pakistan.
Bangladesh: Independence from Whom?
One leader of Jamaat-i-Islami has already been executed in December last year and a number of others are awaiting execution or final judgment.
East Pakistanis constituted majority of the population in united Pakistan and had majority seats in the national parliament. Why should the majority seek “independence” from the minority? Was that a revolt against an oligarchic rule? Was the civil and military oligarchy composed mainly by West Pakistanis? Perhaps. This demands serious reflection particularly at this juncture in history when the question of the practical relationship between democracy and Islam has re-emerged.
Also, noteworthy in this context are the challenges that the nation-state system is encountering in many parts of the Muslim world today and demands for an Islamic caliphate has become quite popular among many Muslim groups and non-state elements.
In 1971 Ghulam Azam demanded that the military government, which had conducted a free and fair election in the country a couple of months earlier, hand over power to Shaikh Mujibur-Rahman, leader of the parliamentary majority party Awami League. However, the oligarchic vested interests conspired against the democratically-elected political party, arrested the leader, and cracked down on the protesters. Ghulam Azam stood strongly in favor of democratic principles and re-affirmed his call for democratic transfer of power.
But, unfortunately, Awami League leaders decided to abandon the democratic method, ran away to neighboring India, and launched an armed confrontation against the military rule. Violence erupted all over East Pakistan.
In the capital city, the armed forces carried out massacre while the supporters of Awami League began to attack non-Bengali civilians; an all-out civil war broke out. Ghulam Azam and his party, Jamaat-i-Islami, decided to assist the government in power in restoring law and order.
Why did they decide to support the corrupt, undemocratic, and oligarchic Pakistani rulers? This stand was taken in view of East Pakistan’s geography and history, Ghulam Azam later explained. However, within days, independence of Bangladesh was declared and many more East Pakistanis, who were not originally supporters of Awami League, joined the armed struggle. India came out with full support for the creation of Bangladesh.
angladesh
Read Also:
Both sides committed atrocities during the nine-month long war. While Pakistan armed forces were deliberately creating terror and trying to push the people to flee to India, pro-Bangladeshi armed groups attacked non-Bengali civilians and placed their dead bodies in front of the advancing Pakistani troops. A huge propaganda war ensued. Islamophobic elements in the international press found an opportunity to attack Islam and Pakistan; one must remember that Pakistan was named the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1956. The Indian media found remarkable companion in the Soviet Pravda — the official Communist newspaper — in their campaign of misinformation.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary General Tunku Abdul-Rahman of Malaysia attempted a negotiating settlement and wanted to visit India to speak to Awami League leaders. But the Indian government prevented the effort and nobody raised any question about this in the international media.
Bangladeshi authorities claim that three million people were killed by Pakistani armed forces, and obviously this figure does not include non-Bengali civilians.
When some observers expressed doubt about the number, Bangladeshi authorities undertook a survey, but never released its findings. This number has remained a major ambiguity in Bangladesh’s history. Interestingly, all major players in this tragedy met with vicious and violent death.
Shaikh Mujibur-Rahman was assassinated along with his family by his own army and the people of Bangladesh celebrated the assassination; in Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was condemned to death by his own court for murdering one of his political opponents; and India’s Indira Gandhi was murdered by one of her personal bodyguards. Were these heavenly chastisements? For victims, perhaps, they were. However, hopefully history will judge it better.
Already Indian author Sharmila Bose has produced a very good academic work —
Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, Columbia University Press, 2011 —challenging the three million figure. Another Indian author Srinath Raghvan wrote
1971: A Global History of the Creation of Bangladesh, Harvard University Press, 2013,highlighting the roles of international actors in the war. Many more academic works will be necessary to put the history of Bangladesh in its proper place.
Gross Injustice
International institutions such as the Amnesty International and Human Right Watch pointed out that the courts set up by the government did not meet international judicial standards.
As for Ghulam Azam, who was outside of East Pakistan during the last days of united Pakistan, he returned to Bangladesh and restored his Jamaat-i-Islami Party and got involved in politics. He revived his struggle for democratic change in the country. Within years he succeeded in making significant contribution to democratic reforms in the country.
Interestingly, Ghulam Azam closely cooperated with most government leaders in establishing democratic institutions. But, unfortunately, the military again intervened in politics in 2007 and the politics of conspiracy resurfaced. Pro-Indian Awami League came to power through a sort of staged election and the government after almost forty years decided to prosecute Ghulam Azam for his political involvements in 1971.
Most observers believe that the government undertook this task with a political motive. International institutions such as the Amnesty International and Human Right Watch pointed out that the courts set up by the government did not meet international judicial standards. One leader of Jamaat-i-Islami has already been executed in December last year and a number of others are awaiting execution or final judgment. The government has ignored international appeals from among others the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Ghulam Azam was a magnanimous character. The people of Bangladesh have expressed their love for Ghulam Azam by attending his funeral. But this seems to have infuriated the government. The so-called war crime tribunal has almost immediately announced death sentence of another leader — Matiur-Rahman Nezami — who succeeded Ghulam Azam as the chief of Jamaat-i-Islami.
Will the international community continue to witness this gross injustice? Shouldn’t they find means to address this issue? Don’t they realize that such unfair treatment of these leaders, who represent many positive ideas, may create more frustration among the youth which might lead to disastrous consequences? Ghulam Azam’s legacy demands serious considerations.
Related Links:
Bangladesh: Islamists Vs Secularists
Investigating Bangladesh (Media Report)
Bangladesh Opposition Cries Foul
‘De-Islamizing’ Bangladesh
Prof. Abdullah al-Ahsan is professor of History and Civilization at the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC), International Islamic University of Malaysia. His books and articles have been translated into Arabic, Bengali, Bosnian, Turkish and Urdu.
See genocide defined for English-language learners »
