US embassy cable - 05DHAKA1922

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 DHAKA 001922 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/25/2015 
TAGS: PHUM, KISL, PGOV, BG, BG Terrorism 
SUBJECT: AHMADIYAS ALLEGE JI BEHIND LATEST VIOLENCE 
 
REF: DHAKA 01853 
 
Classified By: P/E Counselor D.C. McCullough, reason para 1.4 b, d. 
 
1. (C) Summary.  After the recent anti-Ahmadiya attacks, 
Ambassador paid a well-publicized visit to the Ahmadiya 
central mosque to underscore USG support for the security 
and rights of Ahmadiyas.  Ahmadiya leaders now say that 
Jamaat Islami was behind the attacks, which might explain 
why the BDG appears to have backtracked on its commitment 
to protect Ahmadiyas from 
extremists.  End Summary. 
 
2. (C) Following the recent upsurge of violence against 
Ahmadiyas in several parts of Bangladesh (reftel), 
Ambassador, accompanied by IO, met with Ahmadiya 
leaders on April 20 at their Dhaka headquarters to 
demonstrate USG support and concern.  The BDG, the 
Ahmadiyas said, had stepped up their efforts in late 
2004 to protect them, but is now backtracking in a renewed 
bid to pander to extremist sentiment and influence.  The 
BDG effectively sanctioned the recent attacks when it 
allegedly instructed police and local officials to 
rescind their ban on demonstrations and allow them to go 
forward.  The Ahmadiyas called for equal protection under 
the law and full freedom of religion.  The BDG, they added, 
should remove the provocative signboards posted at their 
mosques by police in Khulna and Bogra, and bring to justice 
those responsible for the violence. 
 
3. (C) Ambassador reiterated the USG's strong support for 
freedom of religion, minority rights, and due process, and 
undertook to convey the Ahmadiyas' 
grievances to Washington. 
 
4. (SBU) On April 22, local officials in Satkhira denied 
to reporters that there had been any attacks on Ahmadiyas 
in their areas.  On the same day, leaders of the Khatme 
Nabuwat Movement, which spearheads the anti-Ahmadiya 
campaign, claimed that the Ahmadiyas were the perpetrators, 
not the victims, of the violence. 
 
5. (C) On April 25, we asked Mobashsher Ali, deputy leader 
of Ahmadiya Jamaat, about his press statement the day 
before alleging that Jamaat Islami (JI), a key member of 
the ruling coalition, was behind the new attacks.  Asked 
for details, he said the BNP is trying to solidify its 
Islamist political support for the general election 
expected in early 2007.  He complained that the Awami 
League, which had sometimes publicly stood by the 
Ahmadiyas, is now maintaining a conspicuous silence. 
(Note: At an April 25 lunch, AL leader Kazi Zafarullah 
told us the AL stands squarely with the Ahmadiyas but that 
he would raise the issue of a statement with Sheikh 
Hasina.)  The Khatme Nabuwat, Ali said, could never muster 
10,000 demonstrators without JI support. 
 
6. (C) Abdul Awwal Khan Chowdhury, an Ahmadiya missionary 
referred to us by Ali, told us that he had just spent 
eight days in Satkhira, and was certain that the violence 
could not have occurred without JI's "green signal."  The 
local MP, Gazi Nazrul Islam, is from JI and was in town 
on the day of the demonstration to meet with shrimp 
factory workers.  A shrimp union unit chief, and JI 
activist, was allegedly one of the demonstration 
organizers.  MP Islam could have stopped the demonstration, 
Chowdhury said, but took no action to do so.  He also 
claimed that a local official offered the Ahmadiyas 
protection in return for removing the Ahmadiya sign from 
the mosque after he he had met with JI and BNP leaders. 
 
7. (SBU) On April 25, JI publicly denied any involvement 
 with the Ahmadiya violence. 
 
8. (C) Comment: Local media continue to give the issue 
broad coverage, with the English-language press being 
generally critical of the attacks and the BDG's failure 
to stop them.  Denials of involvement may reflect some 
sensitivity to this criticism and the Ambassador's public 
show of support for the Ahmadiyas.  The Ahmadiyas' 
evidence of JI complicity in the violence seems shaky but 
is worrisome since, if true, it would represent an 
escalation in the anti-Ahmadiya campaign and could 
explain the apparent erosion of the BDG's commitment to 
protect Ahmadiyas from extremists.  JI leaders make 
little effort to hide their disdain for Ahmadiyas as 
"false" Muslims, but they have always insisted that 
they had nothing to do with the violence or the 
campaign to declare Ahmadiyas non-Muslims.  The openly 
extremist IOJ, the other Islamist coalition partner 
which recently split into a third faction, has been 
the public champion of that effort. 
CHAMMAS