Curiosity is inevitably piqued when anything is prohibited. And when it comes to any political ideology, a state-imposed ban can often generate a sense of sympathy toward it.
During the prohibition, the concerned political organisers gradually go into hiding and it becomes difficult to keep them under surveillance. There is always a risk of their re-emergence in an unexpected form. Sometimes, this even gives rise to extremism. On the other hand, state bans also block the path for the development of many ideologies. It will take time to see what kind of situation arises from the decision to ban the activities of Awami League.
However, based on previous experiences with similar bans in Bangladesh and the region, the outcomes suggest that using the state and law enforcement mechanisms to suppress any particular ideology or politics is very difficult.
Let's take the example of Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh to begin with. For 15 years, this party existed under various restrictions, akin to a ban. Eventually, it was legally banned. But what has been the outcome? Before going into that, let's take a look at RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh).
In 2025, the RSS will be 99 years old. The secular society in India attempted to step this organisation by imposing bans on four times. These bans were significant.
In 1948, the involvement of its members in Gandhi’s assassination was one reason for a ban. In 1992, they faced similar trouble when the Babri Mosque was demolished. But despite repeated bans, the RSS could not be stopped or suppressed. Today, its affiliate party, the BJP, is in power in 21 states and union territories of India — and is serving its third consecutive term at the center.
This example from India demonstrates that as long as there remains a base of support for a political ideology within society, it is difficult to keep it banned even after criminal activities. What is needed is an intensive dialogue with the public. There is no shortcut to defeating such ideologies and practices. It requires a long democratic process of presenting better alternatives to the people.
People living in a state modeled on colonial structures often develop hostility toward the state in their mindset. This too is a characteristic of South Asian societies. So, even when the state takes justifiable action, the collective social consciousness tends to turn its back to this
The Communist Party of India (Maoist) was also banned in 2009. This 21-year-old party was term as the main enemy of the state. This conflict starting during the Congress rule, was stepped up during the BJP rule. Since its establishment, nearly 5,500 of their members have been killed, including around 25 central leaders. Yet in many states, many of the activists remain active and influential.
There are similar examples in Pakistan. In Punjab, TLP, or Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, was banned by the government in 2021. There were credible allegations against them, including the killing of police officers. Even before 2021, they were facing state repression. However, by 2022, the ban had to be lifted. Their growing local popularity made it untenable to keep them from operating openly.
In the most recent national election, they received 3 million votes, earning recognition as Pakistan’s fourth-largest political party. They received twice as many votes as the older Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami. Notably, Jamaat has also faced multiple bans in Pakistan, similar to the repeated restrictions they have experienced in Bangladesh. Many of their leaders have also been executed following war crimes trials related to the 1971 war.
Even without any official declaration of a ban, during the tenure of the previous government, no stone was left unturned to suppress Jamaat and its student wing. Many students were harassed and tortured on suspicion of being affiliated with Shibir. Yet, by 2024, the entire nation has witnessed that despite direct and indirect restrictions, the organisation has continued to grow. Everyone is aware of their role opposing Bangladesh’s Liberation War in 1971, and many allegations have been raised in this regard. But as a political party, they continued to advance. They could not be halted.
These contemporary examples of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh raise a very straightforward question: Why are groups like the RSS, TLP and others mentioned continuing to gain public support despite having an image of involvement in criminal offences? Why haven’t bans been able to stop these groups? Is there some psychological factor at play that prevents state-imposed bans from producing the expected outcomes in society?
Sociologists, in particular, are trained to systematically seek answers to such questions.
Alongside involvement in various types of criminal offences, oppression, and corruption, these groups also used to advocate certain ideological positions up until the point of being banned. Whether such ideologies can also be suppressed under the pressure of a ban is another consideration that lies before sociologists. In truth, the testing ground for politics, ideology or any school of thought is the public sphere. Whether an ideology will survive there, whether it will bud, blossom, or bear fruit, that approval ultimately comes from the soil and water of society itself.
People living in a state modeled on colonial structures often develop hostility toward the state in their mindset. This too is a characteristic of South Asian societies. So, even when the state takes justifiable action, the collective social consciousness tends to turn its back to this. Conversely, if the public ever chooses to reject or distance itself from a particular politics from within, then no amount of state propaganda can keep it alive.
Everyone is familiar with the history of the once-powerful Muslim League fading into obscurity. However, the immediate impact of state decrees cannot be denied either. And though law is a fundamental pillar of the state, there is still debate over how effectively it can bring about sustainable change in people’s collective behavior.
Despite extensive efforts of the League government, it could not erase Ziaur Rahman from the history of Bangladesh.
If Zia fulfilled any hunger or aspiration within the social psyche of Bangladesh, then his impact in history with remain. The same holds true for all other national leaders.
Tarique Rahman, the current leader of the BNP, in recent years had been under a court-imposed media ban in Bangladesh. Yet he is now regarded as one of the country’s leading political figures, even while living abroad. For the time being, people also seem to think less about the BNP’s past stint in power. Understanding why, when, and how such things happen could help us reconsider the ways in which controversial political parties, trends, and ideologies are accepted or rejected.
An impartial trial of any political party’s involvement in criminal offences, mass repression, and killings is certainly warranted. However, when politics becomes too entangled with the justice process, that process itself comes under question. Public sentiment starts to shift in favour of those who have been punished. This has happened before in South Asia.
Nathuram Godse has now begun to be venerated in many parts of India. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, despite having conducted a tainted election in 1976–77, is still regarded as a hero in Pakistani society, largely as a reaction to the heavy-handed trial and execution carried out by Zia-ul-Haq
There are many allegations of various injustices committed during the League’s rule in Bangladesh. If these were punishable by fair trial, the argument for bans would be stronger. On the other hand, in a democratic society, the public wants to take the opportunity to judge politicians’ wrongdoings with their own hands. If a party that has engaged in wrongdoing or objectionable behaviour is allowed to contest elections, and the people reject it at the polls, then that ban becomes a truly powerful message both domestically and internationally. At that point, there is nothing for the party to refute or argue against. The League does not face that risk for the time being.
* Altaf Parvez is a researcher on South Asian history.
The views in this article are the author's own.