Beyond blanket apologies: A call to honest reckoning

Here we are again with an apology that dodges responsibility. 

In New York on 23 October 2025, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami's Ameer Dr Shafiqur Rahman, offered what he called an "unconditional apology" for "any suffering" caused by the party "from 1947 till today". 

The phrasing was wide while the subject seemed narrow. He spoke as "I," not "we". A party's half-century of decisions cannot be absolved by a personal sigh. In a country where lists were drawn up, homes raided, and classrooms emptied by fear, a blanket "sorry for any pain" is not contrition; it is evasion. 

It is like entering a bereaved home and saying, "I'm sorry for whatever I may have done." It refuses to name acts, places, perpetrators, or the dead. It tries to make history shapeless.

This sudden humility sits alongside a new kind of swagger. Jamaat's leaders sound as if they believe the wind is finally at their backs. Secretary General Mia Golam Porwar's taunt to a newborn party — "don't compete with your father right after birth" — was not just condescension. It was a claim to seniority in the coming election. 

Meanwhile, Nayeb-e-Ameer Dr Syed Abdullah Mohammad Taher has hinted at explosive evidence about unelected advisers and appointments. If he has proof, he should reveal it. Allegation is not accountability. Democracy cannot be built on a permanent murmur of innuendo.

Why the brazenness? Because campuses have shifted. After years of dormancy and control, student unions have re-emerged, and Islami Chhatra Shibir-backed panels have picked up wins and footholds across major universities. Even where results were disputed or partially suspended, the pattern is visible: Islamists organised, contested and won some important races. 

If you are apologising for targeted abductions and killings, say where and when. An apology without particulars is amnesty without truth. Newsrooms should stop treating "unconditional apology" as a headline and start demanding a party-level resolution that names acts, policies and beneficiaries; commits to reparations; and accepts independent verification.

Jamaat reads these as omens for national polls. That is a mistake. Universities do not reflect the sentiment of the whole country. They compress the country's anxieties and ambitions into a few square kilometres, and they reward a style of mobilising that rarely survives contact with a household budget.

There are reasons for Shibir's campus surge that have little to do with a mass conversion to theocratic politics, and much to do with machinery, timing and institutional neglect.

First, continuity in disguise. Even when formal politics was throttled, structures did not disappear; they molted. Bangladesh's campuses are notorious for cross-recruitment and rebranding. We also forget what is hiding in plain sight. 

Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Shishir Monir briefly appeared for several BUET students accused in the murder of Abrar Fahad, before withdrawing under public pressure. I do not read that as random. This is my view — not a court finding — but you do not usually take that brief without prior affinities and shared ecosystems. 

His appearance signals, to me, that those accused were not merely wayward partisans wearing borrowed colours; they were embedded in Shibir's lattice. If I am wrong, let the principals publish the paper trail — retainer notes, references and affiliations. Silence is not a rebuttal; it is choreography.

Second, patronage filled the vacuum. When authoritarian scaffolding collapsed in 2024, campuses became open ground for any group with cash, cadres and logistics. The new student-union contests were not only debates; they were supply chains — of posters, transport, meals, legal help, stipends, and favours. If university administrations look away, money tilts the field. That is not an ideological failure; it is an institutional one.

Third, admissions arithmetic matters. Many public universities still mix SSC/HSC results with admission test scores. This year the Madrasa Board's pass rate outpaced the general boards by a wide margin. When eligibility hinges on cumulative GPAs across very different streams — general, madrasa, technical — the pipeline into public universities changes. 

That shapes the composition of student bodies and, therefore, voting patterns. This is not a denunciation of madrasa education. It is a call for transparency. Universities should publish the exact weighting they use and board-wise intake data so we can test perceptions with facts.

Fourth, the underdog effect. BNP's student wing has endured months of negative headlines, while the party itself is seen by many as the likely winner nationally. Campuses are often suspicious of power — especially impending power. Shibir presented itself as disciplined, aggrieved, and efficient. Others looked complacent. On campus, narrative is muscle.

All of this explains campus results. None of it predicts a general election. National votes are decided at the kitchen table and the queue outside the polling centre: by the price of rice and oil, by gas lines and transport costs, by safety, by jobs. The rhetoric that moves a dormitory rarely moves a dairy worker or a garment machinist.

So what do we do with Jamaat's apology and its growing strut?

First, insist on nouns. If you are apologising for 1971, say 1971. If you are apologising for collaboration with a genocidal regime, say collaboration. If you are apologising for targeted abductions and killings, say where and when. An apology without particulars is amnesty without truth. 

Newsrooms should stop treating "unconditional apology" as a headline and start demanding a party-level resolution that names acts, policies, and beneficiaries; commits to reparations; and accepts independent verification. Memorials, curriculum changes, and survivor support should be part of that commitment.

Second, demand adult politics from everyone. If Dr Taher — or any leader — claims to have proof of appointment-trading by unelected advisers, publish it — documents, audio or bank trails. Put it online and file cases. 

Third, pull campus politics into sunlight. University election authorities should disclose panel funding sources; cap spending; and require audited accounts. Where results are under challenge, publish the complaints, CCTV logs, and reconciliation sheets. The goal is not to discredit student unions but to protect them from capture — by any side.

Finally, resist easy binaries. The last decade has not been a tale of saints and villains neatly sorted. It is a messy ledger — the ruling student wing's documented violence, Shibir's disciplined resurgence, lawyers straddling lines, and administrators looking away. The lesson for the national vote is simple: contrition must be concrete; evidence must be public; victory must be accountable. Anything less is performance.

In this light, Dr Shafiqur Rahman's words fall short. Apologies are not poems; they are ledgers. They must name debts and promise repayments. Until Jamaat accepts party-level responsibility with specifics, and until all parties treat evidence as the minimum currency of politics, we will remain stuck between theatre and threat — applause lines on one side, real life on the other. The country deserves better: not vague sorrows, but accountable politics.

Bobby Hajjaj is the chairman of the Nationalist Democratic Movement (NDM) and a faculty member at North South University. He can be reached at bobby.hajjaj@northsouth.edu