Political Islam has different shades and colours now. The majority of Talibans of Afghanistan, if not as a whole, are not so much hostile towards America. The Talibans were created by America and patronised by both America and Saudi Arabia.

Before the Twin-Tower tragedy Taliban government in Afghanistan was aided economically and militarily by America. The conflict started when Afghan Taliban Government refused to hand-over Osama bin Laden to America, who was hiding in the mountainous area of that country as claimed by America.

Though Al-Qayeda created by Osama bin Laden was once an American ally, it became a vicious enemy of America and Saudi Arabia owing to their policy of appeasement towards Israel against the Arab interest. Now in Afghanistan, after America failed in its military expedition, it is trying to come to a compromise with the Talibans but not with Al-Qayeda. After the death of Osama bin Laden, Al-Qayeda became more anti-American and anti-western-imperialism and Washington is very fearful of Al-Qayeda’s influence on neighbouring Pakistan.

Now America is in a fix. Their military might fail to destroy the armed wing of political Islam. Al-Qayeda, the most powerful anti-imperialist section of the political Islam is still feared by America. Washington was trying to woo the moderate Islamists in Middle-East and to prop them up on power like in Egypt and Turkey to prevent the extreme Islamists (popularly known as Jihaadists) from capturing power in the Muslim states.

Unfortunately, by destroying the secular states like Iraq and Libiya, America has strengthened the hands of Al-Qayeda and its influence is spreading quickly in Iraq, Libiya and also in Syria. The moderate Islamist party in Egypt called ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ was propped up in power and bestowed with western blessings but in the face of violent democratic movement the regime collapsed. Military had to intervene and now military is in power again. The pro-Islamist (moderate) government in Turkey is now facing an uncertain future as well.

Western powers are probably going to lose on all fronts. If they help the secular movements in Muslim countries, the secularists will not accept the American hegemony. If they provide support to moderate Islamists the extreme factions will soon oust them from power and turn the state into an anti-western base.
Al-Qayeda movement is now stretching out a long arm towards the Muslims all over the world. To halt Al-Qayeda’s advance America is dependent on their old ally again, i.e. the military. Military has already taken power in Egypt and perhaps Turkey will follow.

In Bangladesh, western Imperialism wanted to play the same game. They first wanted to patronise Jamaat by certifying them as a ‘moderate Muslim democratic party’. With Jamaat’s help they hoped to resist the rise of extreme Islamic groups in Bangladesh. When Jamaat was in power with BNP, they had to allow the hanging of some Islamist terrorists like Bangla-bhai.

But Jamaat’s association with more vicious terrorist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir got exposed and Washington was alerted. The state department understood that, though Jamaat was a party patronised by Saudi Arabia they were gradually succumbing to the extreme terrorist influences. America had to change its policy and later allowed Awami League to come to power.

So long the western powers along with India hoped that Awami League government would be able to eliminate the extreme religion-based terrorists from the politics of Bangladesh. But recently the rise of Hefazot e Islam supported by Jamaat and BNP has cast doubts in the western minds that Awami League government might be gradually losing the battle against extremism.

The government’s policy of appeasement towards Hefazot helped those fundamentalists to overcome their debacle in Shapla Square on 5th May and prompted a miserable defeat for Awami League in four city corporation elections.

The old and new nemeses of Hasina’s government are now united. The so-called civil society, big NGOs and big media are not alarmed at all by the rise of anti-democratic anti-people alliance which might capture power and replace a democratic one. The present democratic government may be weak and corrupt, but it is not an anti-people government.

With its possible defeat the country may plunge into medieval darkness. Dr. Yunus, Dr. Kamal Hussain and other leaders of the civil society who are now critical of Hasina’s government, apparently did not take lesson from the fate of Banisadr, the president of post-revolutionary Iran.

When parallel movements of Khomeini’s party and secularist Khalq party were trying to end the rule of the Shah of Iran, Banisadr was the leader of a powerful section of civil society in Iran. He sided with Khomeini’s party and stood against the secularist and democratic Khalq. Khomeini’s Islamist party captured power and Banisadr himself became the president after a moderate presidency. Within a few months Khomeini’s party was against him and there were attempts on his life. He fled from Tehran to Paris under the disguise of a woman.
I hope some of our eminent leaders in Bangladesh who are now engaged in ousting a democratic government from power to satisfy their personal or political ego, would not have to flee from the country like Banisadr if the Hefazot or Jamaat dominates the next government. May God bless the people of Bangladesh so that they can get their strength to resist the destruction of their democratic future.