A post on the social media platform, X, has now become the focal point of a political controversy. Not only netizens, but also the two principal leaders of the two main rival political parties have become embroiled in the debate. Setting aside the dispute over whether the ameer’s account was genuinely hacked, it can be stated without hesitation that, apart from the highly offensive word used, the remaining assertions in that post are not materially different from what the Jamaat ameer said in his interview with Al Jazeera.
When asked by Al Jazeera whether a woman could become the ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Jamaat ameer replied, “It’s not possible. It’s not possible because Allah made everyone (men and women) its own entity. Because you will never be able to bear a child; we will never be able to breastfeed our child. This is God given. And, there are some differences between men and women. What Allah made we cannot change it (sic).”
The presenter then posed a follow-up question, “Not all women necessarily want to be or will be mothers. But even if they are, even if they’re raising children, why can’t they head an organisation like the Jamaat? I’m not able to understand.”
The ameer responded, “There are some limitations. In some cases, they will not be able to perform their duties. There will be limitations; there will be inconveniences. We cannot deny it. When a mother gives birth to a child, how will she perform her duties? Is that possible? Allah knows everything best.”
Listening to the Jamaat ameer’s remarks raises a number of serious questions. When Jamaat leaders served as ministers under the leadership of a female prime minister, how was that considered legitimate? Why does the first clause of the party constitution, which outlines the qualifications for becoming the ameer, not explicitly state that the ameer must be male? Why was this condition kept ‘implicit’? If, when in power, what else might they intend to do that they neither say openly nor write it into the constitution?
On the issue of women, Jamaat has already faced criticism in this election for not nominating a single female candidate. When asked by Al Jazeera why not even one woman had been nominated, the Jamaat ameer said that they were “preparing”. Yet we constantly hear from Jamaat leaders themselves that 40 per cent of their party members are women.
For decades, members of Jamaat’s women’s wing have gone door to door spreading the party’s message, an experience almost everyone in this country is familiar with. Not only that, during this election as well, Jamaat’s female activists have gone from house to house campaigning, a fact widely acknowledged. Many even believe that Jamaat will reap positive results from these efforts. So the question naturally arises: why does Jamaat believe that women cannot contest elections? The answer becomes clearer when one considers the Jamaat ameer’s recent statements.
Jamaat-e-Islami has produced yet another ‘surprise’ in this election by nominating a candidate from the Sanatan (Hindu) faith, a man who claims to have been sent as a “messenger of Allah”. Yet according to Jamaat’s constitution, followers of any religion other than Islam cannot become full members (rukun) of the party. A non-Muslim may only become an associate member.
It should be noted that within Jamaat’s organisational structure, power rests exclusively with full members; associate members are, in effect, like the ‘dummy players’ we had in childhood games. Needless to say, when a non-Muslim is treated as a ‘dummy’ within Jamaat’s organisational framework, raising the prospect of such a person becoming the party’s ameer is entirely absurd. Can any political party operating within Bangladesh’s constitutional framework adopt such a position?
Evidence of Jamaat’s negative attitude towards women is also found in many of the ameer’s recent statements. His declaration that women’s working hours should be limited to five hours, and his remarks in that context, effectively demonstrate a mindset intent on confining women to the home. At one meeting, he stated, “The employer will pay for five hours, and the government will pay for three hours. Those who work at home will be honoured as ‘ratnagarbha’ mothers. If women want to work eight hours, they will be honoured.”
More recently, at a gathering of young people, the Jamaat ameer made sharply sarcastic and derogatory remarks about women who work outside the home. At that meeting, he first asked how many attendees were unmarried, then offered advice on marriage: “From now on, resolve to bring home a queen, not a labourer. Whomever you bring, give her the status of a queen, the status of a rose.” (https://youtube.com/shorts/Tj58qgC1j9s?si=dDfoZPvlGA4-8PPz)
Individuals may, of course, hold personal opinions about how women should be positioned within the family, society, or the workplace. But can a political party operating within a state embed provisions in its constitution that directly contradict the national constitution?
Interestingly, Jamaat’s women have stated that they accept this position. Nurunnisa Siddika, secretary general of Jamaat’s women’s wing, said on the question of women’s leadership, “Almighty Allah has said in the Holy Qur’an that men are the guardians of women. We accepted this when we embraced faith. Therefore, women attaining top leadership positions is not important; what matters is whether women’s rights are being realised.”
However, the Proclamation of Independence, the commitment to human dignity enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution, and Article 28 of the Constitution do not permit any political party to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, gender, or socio-economic status. Yet we can clearly see that Jamaat-e-Islami, through both its constitution and its conduct, discriminates against Muslim women and all non-Muslims alike. In Jamaat’s worldview, they are effectively treated as second-class citizens.
Citizens who wish to see Bangladesh develop as a democratic state must continue to ask this question: does a political party like Jamaat have the right to remain registered and operate within Bangladesh’s existing constitutional and legal framework? And until these fundamental questions are resolved, it would be irresponsible even to consider entrusting such a party with the responsibility of governing the state.
* Zahed Ur Rahman is a university teacher and political analyst
* The views expressed are the author’s own