On the Politics of Enmity: Party USP and the Fallacy of the Hasina Model
Political enmity will persist, and parties continue to practice it. However, I find these parties quite lost regarding this matter, and their thinking about their own Unique Selling Proposition (USP) is quite blurred! So, I want to offer a couple of tips.
But first, we should investigate a couple of reasons why the parties are so lost. The biggest reason is likely this: the parties actually consider Hasina a successful politician! Consequently, they rely on Hasina’s political calculations, and most likely use the Hasina model to fix their own strategies!
But Hasina is not a successful politician in any sense. Bangladesh is a democratic state; if, to succeed in politics here, you have to suspend democracy itself, then there is no way to call that success! Hasina is a 100% failed politician, and all her calculations are wrong if you want to practice democratic/vote/electoral politics. If you notice, when Khaleda won five seats, Hasina conducted an election in three and lost two. Yet, in their judgment, Hasina’s calculation is right—alas! But what did I mean by the Hasina model? Read below.
The Hasina Model: Defining the ‘People’
Even after suspending the election, Hasina understood the need for a kind of popularity. However, that ‘People’ did not mean the general voters; her ‘People’ meant a tiny group—Bangla-medium, Rota-devotees, loyal Awamis, extreme Bengali Nationalists whose ultimate destination is ‘Akhand Bharat’ (Undivided India). This tiny group in Bangladesh constitutes Hasina’s ‘People.’ The size of this population is likely equivalent to the number of likes on Imran H. Sarker’s page—I saw 1.5 million
add500−700moretothis;thesearetheshrewdintellectualsandbardswhomaintaintherelationshipsecretly,beingcleverenoughnottomakethematterpublicbyshowingtheirnamesonthe
′
like
′
list:)
. To be popular among them, what must you do? A few things can be considered:
a. You must hurl the slur ‘Razakar.’ You must tell them to go to Pakistan, abuse the idea of Pakistan itself, and condemn Jinnah by denouncing the ‘Two-Nation Theory.’
b. You must become a bit of a Western NGO, hire two transgenders as male employees, and falsely claim that you are employing ‘third gender’ people. A little Feminism is required; a little Environmental concern; a little Art-Culture. You must remain within a secular pretext. However, there’s no problem in calling Yunus a usurer, or saying something about how thin Khaleda’s eyebrows or saree are—that won’t cause trouble with Feminism; in fact, doing so will enable you to become their ‘true secularist, feminist.’
c. You must sing songs of Sonar Bangla (Golden Bengal), and consider Rota (Tagore) the Marx of Bengal. You must present participation in All-Indian culture through Bengali Nationalism.
Now, Hasina wasn’t worried about who wouldn’t vote for her if she said these things, because they were outside her ‘People,’ and their votes didn’t matter anyway, as the election was suspended.
The Electoral Suicide
Now, can you practice general election/vote politics with Hasina’s calculation and definition/territory of the ‘People’? And what would be the result?
Current Bangladesh has a total of 12.37 crore (123.7 million) voters. If you consider them to be equivalent to Hasina’s ‘People’ of 1.5 million, and you want to become popular using Hasina’s method, what would happen? Suppose you get all 1.5 million votes; can you defeat the remaining 12.22 crore voters with that? The BNP is doing this very thing. On the other hand, what is Jamaat doing? They too are stuck assuming that their ‘People’ are that 1.5 million, remaining silent out of fear of them. They do not consider that the remaining 12.22 crore voters do not share the mind and thoughts of that 1.5 million!
Therefore, Jamaat should locate its USP, keeping those 12.22 crore voters in mind. The fact that they were against the breakup of Pakistan in ’71—instead of being ashamed of it, they should highlight it; that is Jamaat’s USP! Those who ask them to apologize for ’71 are actually helping Jamaat; they are highlighting Jamaat’s USP! That is, when Jamaatis feel ashamed, their votes decrease, but those who ask them to apologize increase Jamaat’s votes! This means that Jamaatis are not the real Jamaatis; rather, the anti-Jamaatis are the bigger Jamaatis!
So, Jamaat’s USP is that they wanted to make Pakistan a democratic state. Their political position was that a democratic Pakistan would be powerful and would best counter the Indian threat, thereby securing the security of Muslim Bengalis. Overall, owning Pakistan as an idea is its USP, not the state of Pakistan, just the idea! Owning the state of Pakistan might not cause much trouble in elections/votes, but it would cause trouble on moral ground. That is, if they still own the state of Pakistan, then Bangladesh as a state cannot tolerate it, just as Bangladesh should not tolerate Bengali Nationalism! Both are suicidal for Bangladesh as a state!
That is, even after owning the idea of Pakistan, Jamaat now needs a way to believe in the sovereignty of Bangladesh. This is actually easy. Jamaat should say that the absence of Bangladesh is suicidal for Jamaat itself! That is, if Bangladesh merges with Pakistan, Jamaat will become an insignificant party! Moreover, Jamaat identifies itself primarily as the party of Muslim Bengalis, and in an undivided Pakistan, Muslim Bengalis (meaning the Bangladesh Jamaat itself…) would not get any major position; Jamaat’s senior leaders would suddenly become insignificant! Presenting these arguments would make Jamaat’s words quite believable. Furthermore, Jamaat should portray Pakistan primarily as a military-governed state—they should blame the Pakistan Military for breaking up undivided Pakistan and carrying out genocide on Muslim Bengalis, along with Punjabi racism, which is anti-Islam. Since they practice democracy, they should claim that Bangladesh is their ultimate hope! That is, Muslim Bengalis have value to the Pakistanis/Punjabis only if Bangladesh exists, but the moment they enter Pakistan, Muslim Bengalis—with their Hindu influences and Bengali language—become tainted Muslims to the Punjabi racists! But Jamaat has made its USP ‘Rule of the righteous,’ which was actually created by President Zia!
The Enmity Against BNP and NCP
Now, when Jamaat cannot be defeated by the Awami-style, Bengali Nationalist gun, how will the BNP or NCP practice political enmity against Jamaat?
Here, both parties must first understand one thing: the Bengali Nationalism repeatedly brings up the Pakistan issue to defeat Jamaat for another reason—it helps conceal the fact that they are Islamophobic and anti-Jamaat by dragging in ’71! They must abandon that Islamophobia; instead, they must defeat Jamaat on the issue of Islam itself! It’s not that the Pakistan issue cannot be brought up at all; it can and must be, but it must be done without making Jinnah the villain! Making Jinnah the villain means condemning the idea of Pakistan itself—the idea through which Muslim Bengalis, as a nation, avoided falling under India’s caste system and could comfortably eat beef! Consequently, making Jinnah the villain is a Bengali Nationalist act, and doing so will reduce votes. Condemning Jinnah and the historical truth of the Two-Nation Theory as a struggle for the cultural freedom of Muslim Bengalis will only confirm the votes of Imran Sarker’s ‘likers,’ according to Hasina’s calculation.
You must keep in mind that ‘Pakistan-sympathizer’ is no longer an insult in Bangladesh; rather, the common people interpret it to mean ‘Anti-Indian.’ That is, when you insult Jamaat by calling them a ‘Pakistan-sympathizer,’ Jamaat will become known to the country’s people as the biggest Anti-Indian force, and this will not benefit you in the country’s vote politics; rather, it will be a huge loss! Because to become popular among those 120 million voters, you yourself must become the biggest ‘Anti-Indian.’
Jamaat must be challenged on the political decisions stemming from the fallacies in their historical thinking and how wrong they are. In addition, the fallacy of Maududi’s political philosophy (Theodemocracy) must be exposed.
Historically, we will find that Jamaat was not Pakistan-sympathizer; rather, the opposite. Hazrat Maududi said, “The establishment and birth of Pakistan is equivalent to the birth of a beast.” He did not properly understand why Indian Muslims wanted Pakistan. Instead of grasping the reality of the modern state, he condemned the emergence of ‘Muslim Nationalism.’ Yet, the same Maududi condemned Jinnah when Jinnah, instead of practicing ‘Muslim Nationalism,’ spoke of making Pakistan a just welfare state in his August 11, 1947, speech. In contrast, Maududi’s suggestion meant that Pakistan should be exclusively a state for Muslims (Muslim Nationalism!).
The difference between Jinnah and Hazrat Maududi is this: Jinnah wanted Pakistan to secure the safety of Indian Muslims, who would face great danger in a non-federal ‘India’ after the British left, permanently falling under Hindu rule, which would effectively mean falling under the caste system. However, making Pakistan exclusively a Muslim state was not Jinnah’s target. But Hazrat Maududi did not understand either point, or chose not to understand. Hazrat Maududi was unwilling to worry about the security of the oppressed (Mazlum). Instead of thinking about how to alleviate oppression in the modern world, he remained stuck in the world of theory.
This failure to consider the alleviation of oppression against the oppressed can be found in the politics of Maududi and Jamaat in all eras! Just as they did not consider how Muslims would live under the caste system, Jamaat or its leader did not understand the oppression of the feudal system (Jamindari)—they opposed the abolition of the Jamindari.
Hazrat Maududi’s logic for keeping the Jamindari was later contradicted by his own discussion of the state! That is, regarding the Jamindari, he said that Islam permits private ownership, and in his view, the abolition of the Jamindari was anti-Islamic, communist.
Notice: regarding Jamindari, he sided with ownership. Now, think: if you own a piece of land, does that negate the Heavenly or Divine ownership? No. Human ownership is temporary, while Divine ownership is absolute. It is precisely because Allah permits this temporary human ownership that theft is a crime or that Allah has prescribed the law of Zakat. And it is because the ownership is absolutely Allah’s that He has the authority to command Zakat.
Hazrat Maududi comfortably understood this distinction between temporary and absolute ownership regarding Jamindari, but he failed to heed the basic principle of justice when judging the Jamindari. How will the oppressed and their heirs receive justice from the immense oppression caused by the unjust power of the Jamindari system, which was built upon the oppression of 1793? Due to this fundamental flaw in his thinking, his theory led him (and you) to the side of the oppressor (Jalim)! We saw the same thing in ’71; even then, he/Jamaat either did not recognize the oppressor-oppressed divide or sided with the oppressor after recognizing it!
On the other hand, the distinction and potential of temporary worldly ownership and absolute ownership regarding land, which he understood, he failed to grasp regarding sovereignty! He perceived the idea of the people’s (citizens’) sovereignty in the modern world as a challenge to Divine sovereignty! But, like the idea of ownership, the idea of sovereignty is merely a matter of authority (Ekhtiyar). We can subtly understand that this sovereignty is not absolute, but temporary and worldly, when we note that this sovereignty is bound within the limits of justice (Insaf). The people cannot move toward injustice from sovereignty; the ultimate destination of sovereignty is justice. We need to note that while humans are bound by the rope of justice, God is not. Justice is merely His Will or Desire, which He has revealed Himself, and sometimes Divine justice may be beyond human comprehension. Because justice is the Divine Will/Desire, it is absolute, while the will of the state’s citizens is limited. This temporary worldly sovereignty cannot cross the boundary of justice and touch oppression; if it goes outside the territory of justice, that sovereignty is illegitimate. Beyond that, we need to consider the history of the origin of this idea. It was born in response to the oppression of kings and emperors becoming Nimrods—in response to tyranny. Through revolution, the power was seized from the hands of the individual king by the populace. This idea of sovereignty is in no way challenging absolute Divine sovereignty; rather, the opposite. Because the ‘collective’ called the people is actually an idea that prevents the individual from becoming a Nimrod.
Hazrat Maududi probably failed to notice a fundamental point. That is why, despite being confused about the idea of sovereignty, he also fell into a theoretical fallacy regarding Shariat or Law! He failed to note that after the Messenger, there is no direct connection to Allah! Consequently, in the world, humans are like lost calves; they only have their intellect, and the Book of Allah and the Messenger.
Hazrat Maududi says that humans cannot make laws; that authority belongs only to God. Therefore, he seeks the ‘Law of Allah’ [Jamaat’s political destination] in the state (Pakistan). Hazrat Maududi/Jamaat are thus separating ‘human law’ and ‘Allah’s law.’ According to this thinking, note that they are seeing something in the world that is not Allah’s!
Returning to the idea of ownership, we will understand that just as humans can own a house, build a house, kill, or commit injustice, they can also make laws in that sense. Again, these are temporary, but in the absolute sense, they are Divine.
On the other hand, who will inform us that what he is trying to separate as ‘Allah’s law’ is actually so, when there is no Divine connection to attest/validate it after the Messenger!
Allah created humans, and Allah created Satan; Allah gave humans intellect. Both good is Allah’s, and the owner of evil is Allah—both angels are Allah’s, and Nimrod is Allah’s. Therefore, bad law is also Allah’s, and Allah created oppression. Consequently, Hazrat Maududi should not seek ‘Allah’s law’; that does not create the possibility of justice. Instead of establishing tyranny with a bad law that Allah Himself created, the duty of humans is to establish justice using intellect. Therefore, humans have Divine permission in their authority to make laws for the sake of justice. And it is because there is Divine permission that Allah gave humans two great things—Conscience and Intellect.
We must judge and consider the thoughts of Hazrat Maududi. Hazrat Maududi put forth the most powerful Islamic thought in the modern world. Consequently, if his flaws are not understood, there is a great possibility that those flaws will be reproduced in all the thoughts influenced by him or born to counter him. I call Hazrat Maududi the most powerful because the entire credit for introducing Islamic thought into the politics of the modern state belongs to him. He showed Muslims the way to deal with the modern state. Before him, there was not much scope for Islamic thought beyond creating a political party for Muslims like the Muslim League. In that regard, Jamaat, Chormonai, or Hizb-ut-Tahrir—all are influenced by Hazrat Maududi. Critical engagement with Western thought is not found in Hazrat Maududi
SomemightmentionSayyidJamal−al−DinAfghani;buthewaslikelyunwillingtodigestthemodernstatelikeHazratMaududi
. In my estimation, the ideas of Bhasani’s Rububiyat or Mazhar’s Ruhaniyat were also created out of the necessity to counter Maududi’s thought, just as much as countering Western thought.
The Divide: Duty vs. Right
I’m saying something big with my small intellect: my guess about the essence of Islamist politics is that both those who practice Islamist politics and those who dislike it misunderstand that essence! To explain this, I need to discuss the political divisions of the current world.
In the West now, an understanding of politics has emerged in two parts—Right and Left. It actually emerged earlier. Our Khaleda Zia also has a saying popular in the country: We (BNP) are the Left of the Right, and the Right of the Left.
So, there is a long history of this Right-Left division, from the French Revolution through Marx to Neo-Marxism. It often seems that even those who use this division do not properly understand the issues! For example, when talking to many of those known as the Left in Bangladesh, you will probably feel that they are actually ‘Bengali Nationalists’! Yet, Nationalism is quite a Right-wing phenomenon! In today’s America, Marx is no longer much of a factor in the Left’s calculation; they are basically Social Democrats—they don’t want state monopoly, they are not against private ownership, they don’t want the autocracy of the proletariat, and they don’t want Communism itself.
So, Islam can actually help you divide this Right and Left! That is, the Right is the politics of Duty, and the Left is the politics of Rights. The Right says that if everyone performs their duty, rights will be established automatically. The Left says that if everyone’s rights are secured, then duty is fulfilled! Neither side considers duty or right pointless. Let’s examine this a bit: why is Nationalism Right-wing? Because it sings the song of citizens’ duty, asks for self-sacrifice for the Nation/Country, and suspends human rights. Notice, when a nation is subjugated, its nationalism fights to secure its rights, so it seems quite Left-leaning! But the moment it gains independence, that nationalism stops talking about rights and only speaks of duty; nationalism then becomes the veil of oppression!
The essence of Islamist politics, in my opinion, is in between these two. Because Islam seeks to judge between the duty and right of humans/citizens in society/the state. In a worldly political sense, Islam is thus the true moderate (Madhyapanthi).
I couldn’t find a general definition of Right and Left in the current world, so I decided to devise one myself.
Political Enmity with BNP and NCP
A few aspects of the division I made using Duty and Right need to be clarified further.
Notice: the concept of Right (as per the West) is what the individual is owed by the state, but the concept of Duty is not readily found in their defining terminology. But with a keen eye, we will understand that Society/Collective is at the center of the idea of Duty. The relationship between the two is likely this: there is a dialectic/tension between the individual and society, and the citizen-voters empower the side whose deficiency they see in society at that time.
On the other hand, there is a very complex point of convergence for both: if both go to the extreme, we get Fascism! For example, Nationalist politics is the politics of Duty, and when Nationalism goes to the extreme, it converts itself into Fascism! Conversely, what happens if the idea of Rights goes to the extreme? This is a bit difficult to understand, because the general notion is that we haven’t yet seen the extreme of it in any state. So, we need to find another way to understand the outcome!
Here, it is important to note that Marxism begins with the complaint of the theft of the rights of labor, and Marx’s manifesto seeks to retrieve that Right, seeking liberation from the grip of Capital. So, its foundation is Rights. But in all states built according to Marx’s method, that Right ultimately converted itself into Duty, and the concept of Rights was essentially overturned! That is, in those states, Right meant the right of the state (under the pretext of the collective called the Community) over the individual, and those states, in terms of character, became the biggest Capital, a corporation that traps the individual with a set of Duties. This means that all Marxist states, starting from the Left, ultimately walk towards the Right, arriving at Fascism according to my definition! Thus, Hitler and Stalin become synonymous! We often don’t notice when the politics of Right became the politics of Duty, because of the label attached! Duty is being presented as Right; this appearance of Duty under the pretext of Right was seen in Dhaka recently: an organization for the rights of women was seen trying to remind women of their duties and present the fulfillment of those duties as women’s rights 🙂 .
Anyway, according to this definition of Right-Left, we can now judge the two parties, the BNP and NCP, and find ways to practice political enmity against them.
BNP has Nationalism in its name, so some might tag it as Right-wing. But we need to keep in mind that, according to my definition, this tagging is not inherently bad; it is merely choosing a side in the debate over which is more important in society/the state—Duty or Right. However, those aware of Zia’s Nationalism know that BNP’s Nationalism was merely a solution-seeking attempt—he merely proposed a state-relative nationalism as an answer/solution/point of consensus for the many nationalisms already present and causing conflict (Bengali, Muslim, Bihari, Jumma). He did not raise the banner of nationalism because one must be a nationalist. But if the BNP pushes this too hard, it has the potential to become Fascist, like Bengali Nationalism. Just as in India’s BJP today, a term like ‘Anti-National’ has become popular; if you don’t say ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ or ‘Jai Shri Ram,’ you are apparently ‘Anti-National.’ Therefore, in the case of enmity with the BNP, the complaint can be made that their nationalism is actually ‘Bengali Nationalism under cover’—and there is an opportunity to show some Bengali Nationalist elements within them.
But the real enmity must be directed at their extremely vague political position; that is, they have no clear political dream for Bangladesh. While this is good in one sense—not having a dream means not having a fixed ideal, so they remain flexible. A fixed ideal tends toward excessive Duty, with the probability of sliding toward Fascism. From Mussolini-Hitler to Stalin, all were rulers with very fixed ideals (and thus ‘righteous’).
The trouble is, when there is no dream, they can go in any direction, like opening an umbrella based on the wind, increasing the probability of becoming a populist (the BNP essentially started a formal cross-fire). A bigger problem is that the party workers have no political training; anyone can join the party. Then, to control the party, there is no way to be democratic within the party; power remains permanently stuck in a small top circle.
Besides, although the BNP speaks of democracy and so on, the form of that democracy is not clear at all! China also claims its one-party system to be ‘People’s Democracy.’
On the other hand, what is the NCP’s dream? That is not clear either! In this respect, the NCP is politically close to the BNP. How their ‘Bangladeshism’ is different from BNP’s ‘Bangladeshi Nationalism’ is also not clear; however, they claim to be centrists! So, there is an opportunity to practice enmity against the NCP in the same style as the BNP—regarding populism and so on.
However, those who practice Islamist politics can condemn the BNP-NCP as too Western, and claim themselves to be the true Post-Colonial force! They will claim that the true resolution of the conflict between Duty and Right lies in Islam. It is possible to claim that Western democracy is actually a perverted imitation of Islam; they might claim that the modern West derived its political ideas of Duty and Right from Islam, but they did not properly understand the matter, so they failed to achieve a good resolution, thus leaning extremely toward the Right or the Left, and failing to manage it! In contrast, Islam shows the way to that resolution! This means that Islamist politics actually doesn’t need to be so defensive; they should claim that the concept of modern politics itself is Islamic (because modern politics operates with the ideas of Duty or Right), and that they are the ones who can manage it best. They should move beyond pretexts, own democracy, and present their intent to work for its development. The matter of caution is that they might slide toward Fascism by practicing the politics of excessive Duty under the pretext of Rights, which is not exactly consistent with the essence of Islam. As far as I understand, Islam is supposed to work through invitation (Dawat) and acceptance (Kobuliyat), not by force. Because Islamist politics should mean overthrowing oppression and establishing justice, and the essence of Islam lies in being the true moderate by arbitrating between Duty and Right.
//August 14-29, 2025 #Rokom_Shaher_Nosihot
comment/ফতোয়া