Bangladesh's Islamist party projects force with a big rally in Dhaka
An interim government headed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus said the next election would be held in April but his administration did not rule out a possibility of polls in February as strongly demanded by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its allies.
Jamaat-e-Islami, which had sided with Pakistan during Bangladesh's war of independence in 1971, said earlier it would mobilize 1 million people on Saturday.
While Hasina was in power from 2009 until she was toppled in student-led protests last year and fled to India, top leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami were either executed or jailed on charges of crimes against humanity and other serious crimes in 1971. In late march in 1971 Pakistan's military had launched a violent crackdown on the city of Dhaka, then part of East Pakistan, to quell a rising nationalist movement seeking independence for what is today known as Bangladesh.
Islamists demand free and fair elections
The party on Saturday placed a seven-point demand to the Yunus-led administration to ensure a free, fair and peaceful election, the trial of all mass killings, essential reforms and proclamation and implementation of a charter involving last year's mass uprising. It also wants the introduction of a proportional representation system in the election.
Thousands of supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami had spent the night on the Dhaka University campus before the rally. On Saturday morning, they continued to stream toward the Suhrawardy Udyan, a historical ground where the Pakistani army had surrendered to a joint force of India and Bangladesh on Dec. 16 in 1971, ending the nine-month war.
'We are here for a new Bangladesh where Islam would be the guiding principle of governance, where good and honest people will rule the country, and there will be no corruption,' Iqbal Hossain, 40, told The Associated Press. 'We will sacrifice our lives, if necessary, for this cause.'
Many of the young supporters in their 20s and 30s were also present.
'Under Jamaat-e-Islami, this country will have no discrimination. All people will have their rights. Because we follow the path of the holy book, Quran,' Mohidul Morsalin Sayem, a 20-year-old student, said. 'If all the Islamist parties join hands soon, nobody will be able to take power from us.'
It was the first time the party was allowed to hold a rally on this ground since 1971. To many, the decision signaled a shift supported by Yunus' government in which Islamists are gaining momentum with further fragmentation of Bangladesh's politics and shrinking of liberal forces.
Tensions between parties over Yunus' reforms
Hasina, whose father was the independence leader and the country's first president, is a fierce political rival of Jamaat-e-Islami. The party is expected to contest 300 parliamentary seats and is attempting to forge alliances with other Islamist groups and parties in hopes of becoming a third force in the country behind the BNP, headed by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, and Hasina's former ruling Awami League party.
The party had previously shared power with the BNP, and it had two senior Cabinet members under Zia in 2001-2006. After Hasina was ousted, tensions grew between parties over reforms agenda undertaken by the Yunus government, which is facing challenges to establish order in the country.
The government has been criticized by Hasina's party and others for using force in a confrontation with protesters in a Hasina stronghold on Wednesday, where four people died. Their families complained that authorities did not conduct autopsies and hurriedly buried or cremated their relatives. Autopsies are part of an investigation in any violence. Yunus' office said the government was doing everything lawfully in Gopalganj, the district where the violence occurred.
Jamaat-e-Islami has now established close ties with a new political party formed by students who led the anti-Hasina uprising. Both Jamaat-e-Islami and the students' National Citizen Party also promote anti-India campaign.
The Yunus-led administration has banned the Awami League and Hasina has been in exile in India since Aug. 5. She is facing charges of crimes against humanity. The United Nations said in February that up to 1,400 people may have been killed during the anti-Hasina uprising in July-August last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
No proof Hamas routinely stole UN aid, Israeli military officials say
Now, with hunger at crisis levels in the territory, Israel is coming under increased international pressure over its conduct of the war in Gaza and the humanitarian suffering it has brought. Doctors in the territory say that an increasing number of their patients are suffering from -- and dying of -- starvation. More than 100 aid agencies and rights groups warned this past week of 'mass starvation' and implored Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian assistance. The European Union and at least 28 governments, including Israeli allies like Britain, France, and Canada, issued a joint statement condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid' to Gaza's 2 million Palestinian residents. Advertisement Israel has largely brushed off the criticism. David Mencer, a government spokesperson, said this past week that there was 'no famine caused by Israel.' Instead, he blamed Hamas and poor coordination by the United Nations for any food shortages. Advertisement Israel moved in May toward replacing the UN-led aid system that had been in place for most of the 21-month war in Gaza, opting instead to back a private, American-run operation guarded by armed US contractors in areas controlled by Israeli military forces. Some aid still comes into Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations. The new system has proved to be much deadlier for Palestinians trying to obtain food handouts. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, almost 1,100 people have been killed by gunfire on their way to get food handouts under the new system, in many cases by Israeli soldiers who opened fire on hungry crowds. Israeli officials have said they fired shots in the air in some instances because the crowds came too close or endangered their forces. The military officials who spoke to The New York Times said that the original UN aid operation was relatively reliable and less vulnerable to Hamas interference than the operations of many of the other groups bringing aid into Gaza. That's largely because the United Nations managed its own supply chain and handled distribution directly inside Gaza. Hamas did steal from some of the smaller organizations that donated aid, as those groups were not always on the ground to oversee distribution, according to the senior Israeli officials and others involved in the matter. But, they say, there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole from the United Nations, which provided the largest chunk of the aid. A Hamas representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment. An internal US government analysis came to a similar conclusion, Reuters reported Friday. It found no evidence of systematic Hamas theft of US-funded humanitarian supplies, the report said. Advertisement 'For months, we and other organizations were dragged through the mud by accusations that Hamas steals from us,' said Georgios Petropoulos, a former UN official in Gaza who oversaw aid coordination with Israel for nearly 13 months of war. The senior military officials and others interviewed by the Times spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the military or government. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a statement, the military said that it has been 'well documented' that Hamas has routinely 'exploited humanitarian aid to fund terrorist activities.' But the military did not dispute the assessment that there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole aid from the United Nations. The Israeli government and military have often clashed over how to conduct the war in Gaza. Early last year, top commanders urged a cease-fire with Hamas to secure the release of hostages. Netanyahu's government instead expanded the ground operation in southern Gaza. Israel used the rationale that Hamas steals aid when it cut off all food and other supplies to Gaza between March and May. In March, after a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel collapsed, Netanyahu said: 'Hamas is currently taking control of all supplies and goods entering Gaza,' and he declared that Israel would prevent anything from entering the territory. That blockade, and problems with a new aid system that launched in May, brought hunger and starvation in Gaza to the current crisis levels. For most of the war, the UN was the largest single source of aid entering Gaza, according to data from the Israeli military unit that oversees policy in the territory. Advertisement Now, the new aid system is managed instead by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private American company led by a former CIA agent. It was intended to eventually replace international aid organizations and the UN role. But it has only a few distribution hubs, compared with hundreds under the former UN-run operation. The new system's rollout at the end of May was quickly followed by near-daily episodes of deadly violence near distribution sites. Desperate and hungry Palestinians must go to the few aid distribution sites located in areas controlled by Israeli forces. The hours of operation are limited and supplies run out, so crowds arrive early, with some walking for miles to get there. Since May 19, when Israel allowed emergency supplies to resume entering Gaza after its two-month blockade, half of the aid has been distributed by the United Nations and international organizations, with the other half coming through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the Israeli military says. Petropoulos welcomed the notion that some Israeli officials had recognized the UN-led aid system as effective during the war. But he said he wished that endorsement had come much sooner. 'If the UN had been taken at face value months ago, we wouldn't have wasted all this time and Gazans wouldn't be starving and being shot at trying to feed their families,' he said. This article originally appeared in
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Cameroon's election board bars main opposition candidate from presidential race
YAOUNDE, Cameroon (AP) — Cameroon 's electoral commission on Saturday rejected the candidacy of Maurice Kamto in the upcoming presidential election, fueling fears of unrest and increasing the likelihood of another Biya victory. Kamto, a former government minister, is seen as the main challenger to long-serving President Paul Biya. The electoral commission, ELECAM, said it approved 13 presidential candidates, excluding Kamto. No reason was given. Biya is included. Kamto, who has two days to appeal, was considered Biya's strongest rival in past elections. He came second during the last presidential election in 2018 with 14% of the vote, while Biya cruised to victory with over 70% in an election marred by irregularities and a low turnout. Biya, 92, the world's oldest serving head of state, said last month he would seek reelection on Oct. 12 despite rumors that his health is failing. He has been in power since 1982, nearly half his lifetime. Biya's rule has left a lasting impact on Cameroon. His government has faced various challenges, including allegations of corruption and a deadly secessionist conflict in the nation's English-speaking provinces that has forced thousands out of school. Security forces were deployed around the ELECAM headquarters and along major roads in Yaoundé, the capital, and in Douala, the economic hub. The United Nations Department of Safety and Security had warned Friday that the announcement could trigger protests in the capital.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it
There is seemingly no worthwhile accomplishment or good deed authored by President Trump that the left will give him credit for achieving. That in and of itself speaks to the bottomless pits of partisanship and rhetorical poison some have eagerly embraced in the 'Age of Trump.' Unfortunately for the Democratic Party as a whole, such anger-fueled denial has a spillover effect that hurts the party's electoral chances. In speaking with former high-level Democrats, I am told that one of the main reasons Trump sailed to victory last November was because almost the entirety of the Democratic and far-left echo chamber mortgaged its energy and treasure seeking to demonize Trump rather than addressing the solvable real-world problems plaguing their constituents and fellow Americans. But at what cost is this coming to the Democratic Party or, more importantly, Americans looking to it for desperately needed help? Don't take my word for it. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban recently laid into Democrats for having no policy or strategy beyond 'Trump sucks.' 'We picked the wrong pressure points,' said Cuban on 'Pod Save America.' 'It's just 'Trump sucks.' That's the underlying thought of everything the Democrats do. 'Trump sucks.' Trump says the sky is blue. 'Trump sucks.' That's not the way to win! It's just not! Because it's not about Trump — it's about the people of the United States of America — and what's good for them! And how do you get them to a place where they're in a better position, and it's less stressful for them.' Cuban — who a growing number of Democrats believe might make a credible presidential candidate in 2028 — is correct. When will it be peak 'theater of the absurd' for that echo chamber? When do working-class and disenfranchised Americans once again matter to it? When does national security once again matter to it? When does the performance art — aimed at literally just a few thousand entrenched elites living in bubbles — stop? If you only got yours information from that echo chamber, you would believe that Trump never accomplished anything; never built anything; was never successful; never made a correct decision; and never had a worthwhile instinct. Ever. And that was before he became president. Since Trump became president, inhabitants of that echo chamber have seemingly been in a constant state of rage. One of the issues that has most made them apoplectic is Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the last three decades or longer, the Nobel Prize Committee has become for many the poster child for a 'woke,' in-the-tank for the left organization. Especially when it comes to the Peace Prize. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, if the committee members admit that they have morphed into a propaganda arm for the far left and its causes. But they won't. Instead, they — like the Pulitzer Prize Committee — proclaim their nonpartisanship while actively discriminating against conservatives or those they perceive to be on the right. In 2015, one of its members, Geir Lundestad — possibly suffering a pang of guilt — had the good grace to admit to a mistake. That mistake being the laughable and sycophantic decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for literally doing nothing. Obama had been in office for less than nine months when he got the award. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it 'premature.' Obama himself felt so self-conscious about getting the award that he gave serious thought to skipping the ceremony. Years later, while giving that 2015 interview, Lundestad said, 'Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for.' Well, the committee did achieve what it set out to do, which was to fawn over a far-left president by giving him an award he never earned. It just didn't anticipate the immense blowback and ridicule. Again, it seems that, for the left, Trump should never be given any credit for anything. No matter how patently obvious that he deserves it. Even about keeping the peace and saving lives. For years prior to him becoming president — when many powerful Democrats courted his friendship and money — Trump spoke out against the war in Iraq and the needless waste of lives, something he continued to do as president. Just as he has done about the war in Ukraine. Did those calls against war and to save hundreds of thousands of lives ever register with the Nobel Committee? What about in 2020 when Trump created the Abraham Accords, an agreement that normalized relations between Israel and Arab countries? Again, in 2009, the committee awarded Obama the award for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.' Except, that is not what he did — and yet, he still got the award. Trump established the Abraham Accords — and was ignored by the committee. In 1998, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for 'their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.' Okay, let's compare. Just recently, Trump was instrumental in preventing all-out war between India and Pakistan. Two nuclear-armed nations. Is that more valuable to the world than finding a 'peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland?' Apparently not to the committee. In 2019, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to Abiy Ahmed 'for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.' Again, earlier this year, Trump brokered a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. While much of the mainstream media sought to bury the accomplishment, surely the committee knew of it. Mark Cuban was correct to call out the Democrats for only having one failed campaign policy. Trump is correct to call out the Nobel Prize Committee for its obvious and shameful bias. Brokering peace and saving lives should always be recognized — no matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican.
