Why Is Jamaat-e-Islami Becoming Attractive to Young Bangladeshis?

As an atheist Bangladeshi, I find the growing influence of Jamaat-e-Islami among the younger generation deeply disturbing.

This concern does not come from hatred of religious people. It comes from an understanding that religion becomes dangerous when it is transformed from a private belief into a political authority. Jamaat does not merely represent individual faith. It represents an ideological project in which religion seeks power over the state, law, education, culture and personal freedom.

That distinction matters.

A person has every right to believe in Islam, practise Islam and organise around religious values. But no political party should have the right to define citizenship, morality or national identity according to one religion.

Jamaat’s growing appeal is therefore not simply another development in electoral politics. It raises a more fundamental question: what kind of country will Bangladesh become if religious authority is allowed to determine who is moral, who belongs and who deserves freedom?

Jamaat Is Exploiting a Crisis It Did Not Solve

Many young Bangladeshis are frustrated with the political system, and understandably so.

They have grown up under corruption, authoritarianism, political violence, unemployment and institutional decline. Traditional parties have repeatedly failed to offer dignity, accountability or meaningful participation.

Jamaat has positioned itself as the disciplined and morally superior alternative.

But this image should be questioned.

Jamaat did not create a credible economic programme for unemployed graduates. It did not build an inclusive political philosophy for a diverse country. It did not develop a convincing framework for protecting freedom of thought.

Instead, it has benefited from the collapse of public trust.

It presents religious certainty as an answer to political failure.

This is effective because uncertainty makes people vulnerable to simple solutions. When institutions fail, an organisation that speaks confidently about morality, justice and social order can appear reassuring.

But moral language is not the same as moral politics.

A party does not become honest merely because its members appear religious. It does not become democratic merely because it has suffered political repression. And it does not become progressive simply by using modern language on social media.

Jamaat’s greatest success may be its ability to repackage an old authoritarian ideology as a fresh political alternative.

The Rebranding of Jamaat

Jamaat understands that its historical image creates a problem, particularly among educated young people.

It therefore attempts to present itself through softer themes: discipline, charity, anti-corruption, justice, merit and national renewal. Its online supporters often avoid openly discussing the more restrictive implications of religious government.

Instead of speaking directly about theocratic authority, they speak about “Islamic values.”

Instead of openly debating limitations on personal freedom, they speak about “social morality.”

Instead of explaining how dissenters would be treated, they speak about “unity.”

These phrases sound harmless until we ask who defines them.

Who decides what counts as Islamic values?

Who determines what behaviour is moral?

Who is included in this unity, and who is treated as a threat to it?

As an atheist, I know that the answer is unlikely to include people like me as full and equal participants.

Religious political movements may temporarily use democratic language, but their ultimate moral framework does not come from equal citizenship. It comes from the belief that a religious truth stands above human disagreement.

That is fundamentally incompatible with genuine pluralism.

Democracy Requires the Right to Be Wrong

Democracy is not only about elections.

It is about the right to disagree, offend, question and reject dominant beliefs. It means accepting that a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, atheist and agnostic must have exactly the same political status.

Jamaat’s worldview places Islam at the centre of political legitimacy.

That immediately creates a hierarchy.

Even when religious parties promise minority protection, the language itself is revealing. Minorities are often discussed as groups to be protected by the religious majority rather than as equal owners of the state.

I do not want to be protected through someone else’s religious generosity.

I want equal citizenship guaranteed by secular law.

My rights should not depend on whether a religious political leader considers me respectful enough, quiet enough or harmless enough. I should not have to prove that my lack of faith poses no threat to society.

An atheist should be able to say that religion is man-made, question religious texts and reject divine authority without fearing violence, prosecution or social punishment.

Would Jamaat defend that right?

Would it defend someone who publicly criticised Islam?

Would it protect a writer accused of blasphemy?

Would it challenge mobs demanding punishment for a Facebook post?

Would it defend the right to leave Islam?

These questions are more important than campaign slogans.

A party committed to democracy must defend freedoms it finds uncomfortable. Protecting only agreeable speech is not democracy.

The Threat Is Not Only Legal

The danger of religious politics does not begin only when religious laws are formally introduced.

It begins much earlier, through culture and social pressure.

When a religious political party becomes powerful, its worldview gains legitimacy throughout society. Teachers, employers, local leaders and government officials may become more willing to judge people according to religious behaviour.

Women may face greater pressure regarding clothing, mobility and employment.

Artists may avoid controversial subjects.

Writers may practise self-censorship.

Religious minorities may become even more cautious.

Atheists may disappear from public discussion entirely.

This is how freedom is often lost—not through one dramatic law, but through thousands of small acts of intimidation and conformity.

Jamaat does not need to formally establish a theocracy to make Bangladesh less free. It only needs to make religious conservatism more politically powerful and social nonconformity more dangerous.

What Does Jamaat Offer Women?

Any discussion about Jamaat’s political future must include women.

Religious parties often claim to respect women while defining their proper roles through conservative interpretations of religion. Respect is offered as long as women behave according to an approved moral framework.

But equality is not the same as respect.

Women do not need to be praised as mothers, daughters or guardians of family honour. They need independent political and personal rights.

They must be free to choose how they dress, whether they marry, whether they have children, where they work and how they live.

Can Jamaat accept a woman who openly rejects traditional gender roles?

Can it accept women as equal authorities over men?

Can it support laws based entirely on equality rather than religiously defined family structures?

Can it defend women whose choices offend conservative religious opinion?

A party that cannot answer these questions clearly should not be trusted with power.

Young People Are Being Offered Certainty Instead of Freedom

Many young people are experiencing a genuine identity crisis.

They are caught between global digital culture and local conservatism, between personal ambition and economic insecurity, and between inherited history and present political failure.

Jamaat offers certainty.

It provides a clear identity, a disciplined community and a simple moral map. It tells young supporters that society is corrupt because it has moved away from religious principles. It gives them an explanation for disorder and a mission to correct it.

That can be psychologically powerful.

But political certainty is often the enemy of freedom.

A free society is complicated. People disagree. They live differently. They make choices that others dislike. Democracy requires us to tolerate that uncertainty.

Jamaat offers belonging, but belonging can come at the cost of individuality. It offers purpose, but that purpose may require obedience. It offers moral order, but that order may be imposed on those who do not share its beliefs.

Young people should ask whether they are joining a movement that teaches them how to think, or one that tells them what they are allowed to think.

The Failure of Secular Politics Does Not Justify Jamaat

Secular political forces in Bangladesh have failed in many ways.

Some used secularism as a slogan while behaving undemocratically. Some defended freedom selectively. Others became detached from ordinary people and failed to explain why secular government benefits religious citizens as much as non-religious ones.

But the failure of secular parties does not prove the superiority of religious politics.

A corrupt government that calls itself secular does not make secularism wrong, just as a corrupt religious leader does not make every religious person immoral.

Secularism is not a promise that politicians will be good.

It is a principle that prevents any religion from possessing the state.

It protects Muslims from state-controlled Islam, minorities from majority domination and atheists from religious coercion. It creates the legal space in which everyone can practise, change or reject religion.

Jamaat’s rise should therefore not be treated as an inevitable response to failed secular politics. It should be treated as a warning that secular democracy was never properly established or defended.

Jamaat Must Answer for Its History

Jamaat also cannot demand political legitimacy while avoiding serious confrontation with its historical role.

Young people are often encouraged to believe that 1971 is simply an old controversy used by rival parties. But history does not become irrelevant because political actors have exploited it.

A party seeking power must explain its institutional responsibility, not merely distance its current members from previous generations.

Has Jamaat clearly acknowledged its historical wrongdoing?

Has it apologised without qualifications?

Has it rejected the political ideology that guided its position during the Liberation War?

Has it accepted that Bengali national self-determination was legitimate?

Political renewal requires more than replacing old leaders with younger faces. It requires ideological accountability.

A party that asks society to forget without first demonstrating genuine remorse is not asking for reconciliation. It is asking for amnesia.

Religious Morality Is Not Public Policy

Jamaat’s supporters frequently present religious morality as a solution to corruption and social decline.

But religion does not provide a technical solution to inflation, unemployment, healthcare, climate change, banking instability or education reform.

Public policy requires evidence, institutional competence and accountability.

A politician’s personal prayer does not guarantee economic skill. Religious language does not make a budget realistic. A reputation for piety does not prevent the abuse of power.

In fact, religious politics can make accountability more difficult. When leaders present themselves as defenders of faith, criticism of the party can be portrayed as criticism of religion.

This gives religious politicians a powerful shield.

Their opponents can be labelled immoral, anti-Islamic or hostile to the culture of the majority. Political disagreement becomes a moral accusation.

That is precisely why religion and state power should remain separate.

No party should be able to turn criticism of its policies into an offence against God.

Jamaat-e-Islami’s growing influence among young Bangladeshis is not evidence that it has solved the country’s problems.

It is evidence that the political system has failed so severely that an authoritarian religious ideology can reintroduce itself as a symbol of change.

That should alarm everyone who values freedom.

Young people are right to reject corruption, inherited power and political repression. But replacing a failed political establishment with religious authority is not liberation.

It is simply a different form of control.

As an atheist, I do not fear Jamaat because I oppose Muslims. I fear its politics because I know what happens when one group’s sacred beliefs become everyone else’s legal and social obligations.

Bangladesh needs political reform, accountability and moral courage. But morality should come from respecting human dignity, not enforcing religious obedience.

The true test of a democracy is not how it treats the majority. It is how safely a person can stand outside the majority and still speak, live and belong.

Under the political vision represented by Jamaat-e-Islami, I am not convinced that people like me would ever be truly equal.