By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
13 October
2020
• All Bets Are Off On Hefazat-E-Islam
By Nazmul A Khan
• Ananta Jalil’s Dangerous Tirade
By Elita Karim
• Why Do We Have To Take To The Streets For
Justice?
By Meer Ahsan Habib
-----
All Bets are off on Hefazat-e-Islam
By Nazmul A Khan
October 13,
2020
Large
crowds flocked to the namaz-e-janaza of Shah Ahmad Shafi, held at Hathazari
madrasa in Chattogram on September 19, 2020. Photo: Rajib Raihan
-----
Bangladesh's
most influential and powerful Islamist pressure group, Hefazat-e-Islam,
witnessed a dramatic upheaval earlier this month. Its centenarian founder, Shah
Ahmad Shafi, died hours after he was forced to relinquish power in Hathazari
Madrasa, the de facto headquarters of the Hefazat where he ruled for decades.
Faced with
unprecedented student protests, Shafi was first forced to expel his son Anas
Madani from the institution before stepping down himself. In the media, the
agitations and the subsequent fall of Shafi were attributed to Junaid
Babunagari, the group's defiant secretary-general.
But there
were several other reasons too. Students had genuine frustrations at the
mismanagement of the Madrasa, internal strife among teachers and officials,
corruption allegations in the Madrasa exams, and an increasingly intolerant
Anas Madani.
The context
of the protest
Albeit
under his father's shadow, Anas Madani was a key player himself. He was
instrumental to Hefazat's rapprochement with the government. After Hefazat's
massive rally in 2013, the government employed every trick in the book to tame
the Deoband-influenced religious group.
In a
classic stick and carrot approach, authorities have used criminal cases and
other forms of legal harassment like punishment and largesse (such as money and
lucrative public lands) as rewards. The scheme has produced stunning results.
Although some such as Babunagari and Nur Hossain Kashemi (the Dhaka chief)
remain defiant to pressure, others such as Madani and Mufti Faizullah willingly
or reluctantly acceded.
But of
course, for the government, the success did not come without a cost. It had to
amend the national curriculum to remove certain articles and poetry written by
secular writers, soften the age restrictions designed to prevent child
marriage, relocate the statue of justice to a less prominent place in the
Supreme Court premises, denounce atheists, promise to prosecute those insulting
Islam, and recognise the Qawmi Madrasa degrees.
Shafi often
touted these as the success of his realignment with the government, but
Babunagari clearly disagreed. In June this year, the discord became more
visible as Shafi issued a public rebuke amid rumours that Babunagari would
succeed him.
Soon afterwards,
Babunagari was expelled by Shafi from the Hathazari Madrasa. Nonetheless,
Babunagari's supporters blamed Anas Madani for the decision and still insist
that he was loyal to Shafi's leadership.
Other
senior teachers were already aghast at the brash and assertive behaviour of the
younger "prince". Several teachers were removed, demoted or replaced
by those close to Madani. The final straw was the corruption allegations and
dysfunctionality in Befaq (the Qawmi education board), where Madani was seen protecting
controversial officials.
As a
result, with Shafi's health deteriorating, several factions presented a united
front and successfully captured the frustrations of the students and evicted
Madani, along with most of his key supporters, and finally Shafi himself.
A victory
for Babunagari?
Although
Babunagari supporters were the key backers of the student protest, the fall of
Shafi and Madani does not necessarily translate into his victory. Several
factions may have found some commonality, but not all of them are equally
enthusiastic to rally behind Babunagari.
In the end,
Babunagari did return to Hathazari Madrasa but was forced to accept a demotion.
He was not given back the deputy director post, which he last held, but
assigned the role of the education director. Far from being the successor of
Shafi, he was not even part of the Madrasa's three-member committee that now
acts as the interim head.
However,
within Hefazat, it is a totally different game. Sources say it is all but
certain that Babunagari will be the successor of Shafi.
But much
will depend on how accommodating the government will be to the idea of Hefazat
being run by Babunagari. There are rumours that Anas Madani has been encouraged
to return to the game by capitalising on the circumstances under which Shafi
died (the ambulance carrying Shafi was blocked for a considerable time by
protesters who were concerned that police would swoop in). After all, moments
after Shafi died, Anas and his supporters claimed protesters were to blame and
they have not yet retracted from their positions.
There are
also signs that the government might offer an olive branch to Babunagari if he
agrees to reciprocate. The local MP, Anisul Islam Mahmud (of Jatiya Party but
aligned with the Awami League), recently visited the Madrasa and met with
Babunagari and others. It was rumoured that he carried the government's message
for Hefazat but that his exit from the Madrasa premises was not very gracious.
Who will
sit on the throne?
The
recently concluded elections of Befaq (the Qawmi madrasa education board) offer
some clues as to what direction Hefazat is heading. The government-backed
cleric Mahmudul Hasan has been elected to be the acting chief of Befaq, while
the BNP affiliated Kashemi (also an ally of Babunagari) was a close runner-up.
Mahmudul
Hasan, however, is generally accepted by all factions. The Babunagari camp has
not claimed any foul play and accepted Hasan, although Kashemi himself issued a
moderate protest that security officials attempted to influence voters (as a
compromise measure, Kashemi has been selected as the senior deputy chief.)
However,
Befaq and Hefazat are not the same thing. There was an emphasis that Befaq
leadership should not be politicised. This is the argument that went in favour
of Mahmudul Hassan. And the general secretary, Mahfuzul Haque, has agreed to
step down from Khelafat Mazlish, a party founded by his father Shaikhul Hadith
Azizul Haque.
On the
other hand, Hefazat acts more like a political organisation. And, there are few
in the organisation who can match Babunagari's political credentials and
popularity. Unlike Befaq, there will also be a strong Chittagonian (more
specifically, Hathazari) influence in deciding Hefazat's next leadership.
In the end,
depending on the government's responses, both sides may agree to a compromise
candidate. Babunagari has already demonstrated that he is willing to accept
compromises twice (first, by agreeing to return to Hathazari with a demotion
and second, by accepting the Befaq election).
In this context,
several allies of Babunagari are also trying to claim the spotlight. Nur
Hossain Kashemi (the Dhaka chief of Hefazat), for example, is sending out
frequent statements on pressing issues (such as the Babri mosque demolition
case, or the much-talked-about rape case in Sylhet). The senior deputy chief of
Hefazat, Muhibullah Babunagari (Junaid Babunagari's maternal uncle), is also a
strong contender as a compromise candidate.
Anas Madani
supporters, such as the joint secretary Moinuddin Ruhi, are already hinting at
a possible split. Nonetheless, the Madani camp may rally behind Sheikh Ahmad,
now one of the three interim chiefs of the Madrasa (the other two being
sympathetic to Babunagari). Sheikh Ahmad replaced Babunagari in Hathazari
Madrasa when he was ousted in June.
There is
also a fundamental question: how interested is Babunagari in becoming the next
Hefazat leader? People close to him suggest he may not even vie aggressively
for the leadership position as he does not want to be seen undermining Shafi's
legacy.
The
council, where the new leadership will be chosen, is expected to take place
next month. Will Babunagari assume control as expected? Or will it be a repeat
of the Befaq election and a pro-government candidate will emerge victorious?
Or, consistent with the history of Qawmi-Madrasa based Islamist political
parties, will Hefazat too split into factions? This one might just be too close
to call.
-----
Nazmul A Khan is a journalist based in
Bangladesh.
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/all-bets-are-hefazat-1976905
-----
Ananta Jalil’s Dangerous Tirade
By Elita Karim
October 13,
2020
Ananta
Jalil created controversy after suggesting women should dress decently to
prevent rapes. Photo: Star
-----
One of the
proverbs that I have grown to dislike, especially in the last many years is—ek
haathe taali baaje na (you need two hands to clap), roughly translating to, a
deed is done only if two or more people come together to do it. It is not
possible for one sole person to accomplish something.
Although
this proverb has been used to justify ideas of working together for better
accomplishments or to admonish children over breaking window panes during
cricket matches in the streets, over the last many years, it has also been used
to explain why and how rape victims are at fault. It takes two to commit a
crime, and in the case of rapes and gang rapes also, women are blamed for
enticing the opposite sex—either by smiling too much, being friendly, talking
to a man, or most popularly—wearing the "wrong" or
"revealing" clothes.
Even though
one usually hears these statements from individuals with limited exposure to
reality outside of their little world, or from people with little or no
education, it was baffling and hurtful to hear someone like Ananta Jalil, an
actor and a filmmaker, move along the same lines of victim blaming.
At the time
of writing this opinion, Ananta Jalil has released three videos to date—the
first one where he spoke against rape and blamed women's attire, a second video
where he edited out the part about women's clothing and a third talking about
how people are focusing on the negative and not the positive elements of his
video.
Jalil's six
minute long video, the first one that rightly earned him all the backlash, was
curiously posted from actor (also his wife) Barsha's verified page. He had
started off normally—calling out the perpetrators, trying to instill fear in
them by urging them to think about their own family members in similar helpless
positions. However, as the pathetic background music moved towards the
crescendo, his voice too was raised as he began to advise women on how not to
get raped. The actor was heard addressing women "as a brother,"
saying "Women (in Bangladesh) wear indecent dresses inspired by women from
other countries, cinemas, television and social media. People look at your
figures instead of your faces because of the indecent dresses. They make
indecent comments (about women) and think of rape," he said. "Do you
(women) consider yourselves modern? Is the dress you're wearing modern, or is
it indecent? A modern dress means only showing your face and covering your body
which will make you look good." He went on to say that any dress that does
not cover the whole body makes women look "very bad". "You go
out on the streets wearing a t-shirt like boys. And then you're dishonoured and
return home… you either die by suicide or can't show your face in public."
In the last
month or so, reports have been rushing in about children under the age of six
being brutally raped, of boys being raped by their teachers in madrasas, a
married woman roaming the city with her husband raped by Chhatra League
activists, and the one that shook the country to the core—a group of men
stripping off a woman's clothes and raping her while she pleaded for mercy. Yet
another video that was also shared on social media before being taken down was
of a group of young men trying to take off a woman's burkha, molesting her and
kissing her on the mouth while she pleaded for them to let her go. The woman
was walking home when she encountered the group of molesters.
How is it
that Ananta Jalil feels that women are to share the blame of this heinous
crime? How does a commercially important person, considered a highly respected
position, especially in a developing economy, dare to speak to women, advising
them not to get raped by wearing "decent" clothing? Is he oblivious
to the previous cases of rape mentioned here? Or is he simply trying to move
with the trend, making videos and disbursing weakly gathered information and
ideas? Lastly, why does he not use his space to demand punishment for the
rapists instead of advising women on decency?
One might
also point out that the world of cinema over decades in Bangladesh has always
portrayed women as objects of desire, as beings who are unable to think for
themselves and, of course, the ones who end up destroying close family bonds.
Female characters have rarely been showcased as heroes, courageous
personalities, human beings ready to take on the world or simply take a stroll
in the neighbourhood without being sexually harassed or cat called by the young
men next door.
With all
his resources and finances, why does Ananta Jalil not work towards changing the
age-old narrative and make films where women are not treated like sex objects
but as equal beings capable enough to fight for love, family and friends? Why
does Jalil not create opportunities for female (and male) technicians, actors,
art directors, writers, directors to develop and grow in the industry?
It's unfortunate
that he would rather choose to create videos with petty messages where women
and rape victims are put down.
As Jalil's
video went viral within hours of release, social media users were surprisingly
divided into three groups, instead of the usual two. While one group of people,
mostly men of all ages and individuals holding on to antiquated beliefs, agreed
with him wholeheartedly, another group vehemently opposed this thought on
platforms, speaking against the actor's illogical tirade about how to protect
women from rape.
There was
yet another group of people, smaller but influential, who spoke about why
Jalil's words and thoughts should not be given any importance. He, after all,
according to the third group, has been making absurd storylines for films,
gained fame because of his over the top appearances and the nonsensical
statements he had been making over the years, giving breaks to many a genius
meme maker. In a nutshell, Ananta Jalil is a joke and not to be taken
seriously.
But this is
where it gets problematic. What the minority group—comprising a small
percentage of individuals exposed to global trends when it comes to films,
literature, politics and much more—fails to realise is that to the majority of
film lovers in Bangladesh, Ananta Jalil is no joke and his words are taken very
seriously. Especially in smaller towns and villages, where young women are
still blamed by family members and neighbours for being sexually harassed or
"eve teased" on streets while going to school, Jalil's words on how
women must share the blame of rape simply because of what they wear, have
destroyed years worth of work done to empower women in Bangladesh, by
policymakers, government bodies and human rights groups.
Art can
change one's outlook towards life. Films change lives and stories of long lost
lovers coming together have managed to fill people's hearts with inspiration
for years. However, it is a shame that in a country where films, music, the
arts and stories are still struggling and fighting to stay alive, a Pied Piper
like Ananta Jalil pops up from the rubble of his own money, creating laughable
content and making a comfortable space for himself. To make things worse, Jalil
used this space to spread hate instead of love, as he claims to do.
It is high
time to destroy these nooks and spaces built by big time influencers and focus
on education, the arts, films and teaching compassion to people—instead of
dwelling in the mediocrity that we are so used to.
-----
Elita Karim is Editor, Arts & Entertainment
and Star Youth. Twitter: @elitakarim
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/ananta-jalils-dangerous-tirade-1976889
-----
Why Do We Have To Take To The Streets For
Justice?
By Meer Ahsan Habib
October 13,
2020
Eleven
people have so far been arrested in connection with the Noakhali gang rape.
Most of the suspects were arrested within days after the video of the heinous
crime landed on social media. The graphic content rattled the nation as people
of different quarters took to the streets across the country demanding justice.
What would have happened had the video not gone online? After all, it happened
more than a month ago and nobody knew anything. Now that we know she had been
through this ordeal for many months at the hands of an organised gang led by a
Delwar Hossain, we can genuinely raise the question, did the law enforcing
agencies not know about Delwar and his unscrupulous gang?
This is not
the first time that the people, and the youth in particular, have taken to the
streets to demand justice. Whether we support them or not, there is a
perception that justice is not always a straightforward process, even in a
democracy that is built upon the principles of rule of law and protection of
human rights of all the citizens.
The
extrajudicial killing of Sinha Md Rashed Khan and subsequent incidents are
blatant examples of abuse of power by state institutions and the people within
them. Immediately after the killing, the local police made every effort to make
it look like a usual case of drug peddling. Members of the local police
frantically tried to kill the truth in a bid to conceal years of corrupt
practices in the name of maintaining law and order. To divert peoples'
attention, the police resorted to character assassination of Shipra Debnath.
Similar to Noakhali, people from all walks of society condemned the killing and
demanded an impartial and transparent investigation into the incident. The
media too reported on the corrupt practices of members of the local police. It
will not be unjust to say that peoples' agitation and media reporting
contributed to unearthing many facts that otherwise would never be known.
The rise of
Delwar and his gang is not a lone example of political patronage. In the past,
we have seen a similar uprising of criminals leading to a crime empire being
built with political blessings and institutional patronage. Readers may recall
that the most powerful students' movement after the 90s movement for democracy
was against organised rape. Having lost faith in the political system and
institutions, the students of Jahangirnagar university organised the anti-rape
movement in 1998 against Jashim Uddin Manik and his gang. Over the years, the
students witnessed how criminals rose to power under political blessings and
how the institutions failed to check them. This led them to take to the streets
to get justice.
In most
cases, a criminal does not commit a crime on a mere whim. It is the result of
abuse of power. Such a person gains and maintains power over an individual,
group or community within a society and subjects them to various forms of
abuse, including but not limited to sexual, physical, financial and
psychological abuse. The curious cases of exercise of power and control by
Jashim Uddin Manik, Tufan Sarker, Rifat Farazi, OC Pradeep, Saifur Rahman and
last but not least, Delwar Hossain, indicates their motivation toward
psychological projection, greed and personal gratification with systematic
political and institutional blessings—some politicians facilitated their rise
to power and institutions bestowed with the responsibility of protecting the
victims turned a blind eye, until people started demanding justice.
Sadly, our
political process is such that politicians always tend to shrug off their responsibilities
and deny existing flaws. It immediately starts a blame game as if it is the
cause and effect of the other party. The state institutions too, play a
reactive role instead of a proactive one in protecting the human rights of the
people. They act only after it turns into a sensational case. The National
Human Rights Commission, for instance, have hardly conducted any investigations
into extrajudicial killings, which constitute extreme abuse of power, although
it enjoys the power of a civil court. Unfortunately, civil society
organisations also do not always act beyond political ideology. Such inaction
or reactive actions have created a vacuum that leads to people taking to the
streets for justice.
Demanding
justice on the streets is the last resort for people, but it is likely to
happen every now and then when the institutions of society continue to fail.
The question is, how did we get here? The answer is infuriating and
disheartening—we have been here for quite some time. The culture of injustice
against the vulnerable and powerless has been built and fortified over time.
Over these years, we have failed to build a democratic and inclusive society.
We have beautifully decorated our democratic institutions but without the
desire and capacity of serving the vulnerable and marginalised people who
comprise the major portion of the population.
Then what
is the best way to fight and mitigate such violations of human rights and rule
of law? We have to fight both the criminals and the background of the crime. It
will be a mistake to judge the MC College and Noakhali gang rapes, and the
brutal killing of Sinha, merely through the lens of criminal laws. When the
country speaks in the same language by demanding quick justice for the victim,
the culprits are more likely to be punished under the existing laws of the
country. To prevent a repetition of such crimes, we need to simply understand
the criminology—what led to Delwar's uprising and how did OC Pradeep, being an
officer of law and order, continue his wrongdoings for years?
Many human
lives were saved in the month of September as it did not see any extrajudicial
killing. The countrywide agitations and media reporting against extrajudicial
killings contributed to this achievement, which otherwise might not have been
the case. But it is an underlying fact that when a society is politically and
economically strong, the crime rate will decrease and we will not need to take
to the streets for justice. The renewed stance of the government in the
backdrop of the Noakhali gang rape is encouraging. Amending the Women and
Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000 may not be enough. Different
provisions in the Evidence Act and Code of Criminal Procedure and prosecution
of violence against women need to be revisited as well, but nothing can be
achieved without a strong political system.
A strong
political system and its institutions will stand ready to fight for its people
irrespective of age, gender and economic status. Therefore, it would be far
more effective to invest in criminology to analyse the main reasons behind the
crime and eliminate them. A society without crime is perhaps impossible. The
criminology here, in this case, is that we have a fair and transparent
political process in place and that the institutions are not blindfolded and
biased.
----
Meer Ahsan Habib is a communication of
development professional.
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/why-do-we-have-take-the-streets-justice-1976861
----
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism