& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Some Thoughts on Civil-Military Relations

by Matiur Rahman
REGARDING the veiy sensitive issue of civif-ml-litary relations and its present and future implication for Bangladesh, there exist concerns of different dimen sions and magnitude in all circles including the government and the opposition. The question of the army s role in politics creeps in almost in all their political discussions. Because we have seen that not only during the military rule, even the elected government of BNP had tried to use the army In their partisan interest.
The newly-elected Awaml League government too has been trying In some way to be popular with the army. The question is why this hyper sensitlvitY? To me the answer is. it is the result of political considerations mixed with a sense of fear. The reason for this may be ascribed to the fact that the army has played a direct role In the ups and downs of the political events of Bangladesh during last two decades Someone can say that in the present world, af ter the end of the cold war era. the possibility of the army's interference in politics is no more there.
However, this reasoning is not enough for the political leaders to trust on and feel comfortable. The army is a highly disciplined, armed and powerful institution. They can have influence upon events and developments. if they want to. They can. even if in a limited way. influence the political developments of the country. We think, the fear psychosis emanating from this potential power of the army is still working. This sense of fear must be removed. Now it has become imperative for us to build our civil-military relations up on the basis of mutual trust.
In the beginning I would like to mention that starting from my college days in 1962 to 1990 I was actively associated with student politics and political movements. From the early months of 1962 movements
against the military rule began in the then East Pakistan. And this movement against direct and proxy military rules continued till 1990 with a brief pause of three years and a half just after the liberation of the country It means that three decades of our life have been spent fighting against direct and proxy military rule, and for democracy. This is the experience of our lives and the lives of the generations following ours. It gave birth to a long-term suspicion about the army in our minds.
The Legacy of the Past
The experience of the past reflects the multifaceted problems facing the civil-military relations. This is more so because the political force, i.e., the Awaml League which was overthrown by the army, has relumed to power after 21 years of struggle against the army and military rule and through a general election held in June last year. And that is also why we are keen to see how the civil-military relations develop in the present situation. Our initial understanding of the process is that both the political party in power and the military are acting cautiously. And they are trying not to create any misunderstanding from either
We the people of Bangladesh have achieved our independence after a long struggle of 25 years against the oppression of the military and civil bureaucracy of Pakistan. And one of the major demands of that struggle was to establish a system of parliamentary democracy. Just after the Liberation War the parliamentary system of democracy was established: but only three years later, one-party autocratic rule was imposed in place of parliamentary system. A small group from within the army ousted die government which imposed the one-party rule in an armed massacre in 1975. Almost everyone in the army endorsed that bloody change in power. It has been learnt subsequently that many of the high-ranking officers of the army knew in advance about the conspiracy of the coup being hatched. Some politicians, who thrive on conspiracy. were also associated with this process.
The political rule that reigned over Bangladesh for one decade and a half and the political changes that took place during the period since the military coup in 1975 had been the results of either direct initiative or indirect manoeuvre of the army leadership. To be very specific, it can be said that the main goal and objective of the higher-ups of the army were to protect and promote the vested interest of the military in many ways and means. The military leaders also tried to get allies from different sections of the
civil society. In this effort they had succeeded to some extent However, throughout the whole period the civil society had taken a position opposed to the army rule, and struggled for a democratic system. This post tion sometimes took the form of severe confrontations, and sometimes remained dormant. A major part of the whole period experienced military rule, and intermittent curfew. Political leaders and activists were arrested and tortured. The Press was gagged Many activists sacrificed their Ilves In the struggle against the military rule. And in the process the anti-military view of the civil society became more stronger.
Coups and counter-coups were staged several times, mill tary leaders were killed In rebellion within the army, hundreds of rank-and-file military personnel were sentenced to death in military trials in cam era All this had repercussions not only in the civil society, but also within the army Moreover. the stories of corruption and debauchery of some military leaders became open. As a consequence, the sense of opposition to the military in different sections of the people and the society as a whole grew stronger. For all this, we can blame a section of the power-mongering high army officials And, though not the army as a whole, a section of It of course, worked in cohort with the corrupt officials. They had associated themselves with the corrupt and conspiratorial politics of their bosses.
As a result, mistrust and fear gained ground in civil-military relations. The severe damage done to the civil-military rela tions and the division created during the period are still prevailing. It will take time to heal the wound, overcome the mistrust and division, and create a balanced relation between the army and civil society. To achieve this objective, well-
meaning efforts are required from both the army and the government. In this regard. I think, the military, particularly its leadership, should have to be more cautious. They should prove by all their activities that in future the army will never associate itself with the politics of the country. I do not know whether it is possible, however I wish the army should try to exonerate itself by apologising to the people for its past deeds, such as violation of the constitution, assumption of power by illegal means, and for oppressing the people. What I actually mean to say is that the army should dissociate itself in clear terms from its past deeds of political usurpation and wrong-doings. The earlier the army does it. the better its image will be. And in the process the mistrust and fear of the political leadership and civil society as regards the army will be removed.
Why the Aggravation in Relations?
The question is, why had the civil-military relations aggravated so much? Could it not have been checked? We must look back if we want to go deep into the problem. We know that the Bangladesh Army developed as an institution in British-Indian and Pakistani style. Not only that, they also maintained a negative attitude towards politics and politicians after the British-Indian and Pakistani army fashion. Moreover, in the process of armed struggle against the Pakistan occupation army the political thinking of the army started taking root, and they became interested even in political power. In those days, cross-current of thoughts prevailed among the high officials of the army.
There were in the army the supporters of the ideals of the then government as well as the adherents of the "revolutionary ideology". The ambitious power-mongers were there, as were the reactionary groups thriving on conspiracy. From this point of view, the army at that time was not at all united.
After the political change in 1975. the confrontation of different thoughts within the army intensified, and their adherents tried to defeat each other. And this had caused several ups and downs and unfortunate events occurred within the army.
In our understanding, the remnants of over-pollticlsatlon of the army at that time are still there. From the experience of the political developments of the last two decades of Bangladesh it can be said perhaps without ambiguity that the army for its own sectoral and partisan interest had interfered in politics time and again, grabbed power, and had taken recourse to any means to prolong it. The military leadership
had tactfully used in their favour the failure of the political forces in running the government and also the institutional weakness of democratic
In this context. 11 has to be said that the opportunists and reactionary sections of the politicians worked hand in gloves with the military leadership in their anti-constitutional activities. After the assumption of power by the military. they came forward to cooperate with the army and took part In plundering national wealth. And in this process a breed of politicians emerged who can be termed as oppor tunists by any definition, and who are still active In politics.
Civil-Military Relations Just after Independence
During the years immediately following the Independence the country was going through a period of abnormal ity. In the euphoria of indepen dence. as those of the general public we could not realise that the difference between the political leadership and the army had grown so fast and so deep. 1 can still remember that when any foreign diplomat enquired about the state of affairs of the army we enthusiastically said that everything was all right, that there was no problem, and the Bangall military leaders would never behave like the brutal Pakistani generals. However, though unbelievable it was. a section of the military staged the coup against the government of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujlbur Rahman in August 1975. Military rule was promulgated. And within three months we found the army taking full control of the country
As a matter of fact, during the years immediately after the independence the issue of civil military relations received little importance In the war-devastated Bangladesh. The gen-
eral opinion was that the army would remain under the control of and act as directed by the political leadership, so to say the government. But the army had different aspirations; they as pired for greater budgetary allocations and other facilities and benefits. There were allegations that their demands were not being considered with due attention. The then political leadership failed to address the issue for various reasons. The seeds of division were sown the day when the army, developed in the process of our Liberation War of 1971. was merged with i the Bengali army personnel repatriated from Pakistan (they were greater in number). The experience of those who directly took part in the Liberation War and that of the repatriated personnel gave birth to doubts and mistrust between them. It continued for quite a long period of time. It worked as a catalyst of many events within and outside the army. In my opinion, even after 25 years of liberation its remnants, though feeble, are still there within the army. And it is still a talked about topic outside the cantonment.
There happened another important event. In 1972, the then government established an armed agency in the name of "Jatiya Rakshi Bahini" to control the law and order situation, which was deteriorating fast. The army could not accept the presence and the activities of this agency. And who does not know that ho army can tolerate the formation of any agency parallel to it!
Besides all these, the political-social situation of the period was very tense. The promulgation of presidential form of government, the formation of unitary political party, closure of almost all newspapers, and the high-handedness of the Earty in power and its affiliated □dies gave birth to adverse reaction among the general mass. The above mentioned measures of the government went against the ideas and emotions of the civil society. There were reactions within the army as well, against these measures. All these show that the civil-military relations during the reign of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mu-jibur Rahman was not normal. The relation further deteriorated. and the background for confrontation started looming large.
The Emergence of Highly Ambitious Ziaur Rahman
After the coup of August 1975, in the background of the confrontation between the army and the civil society and total uncertainty, the highly ambitious freedom fighter Major General Ziaur Rahman emerged as a powerful person surviving a series of coups and counter-coups. He assumed to-
tai control of the country in cooperation with the high officials of the army During his reign, he brought in the army in al) spheres of politics and administration of the country Simultaneously, being in power and depending on military, he first formed a political front (Bangladesh Jatiyatabadi Front) including In Its fold the rightists as well as the leftists, then established a political party called Jagodal. which he renamed afterwards as Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). With the help of this party he arranged a referendum first and then a presidential election to put on the garb of so-called civilian administrator. It can be mentioned here that General Zia. though was dependent on the support of the freedom fighters within the army, made General Ershad. a corrupt and weak personality, the Chief of Armv Staff Zia might have thought that his position will be less threatened bv a personality like that of Ershad
Though General Zia was never alleged to be corrupt while in power, there were many allegations of corruption against his government and his party. It would not be an exaggeration to say that during Zia s period, corruption was so rampant that it was almost Institutionalised. And on the other hand. It was during his period there were almost a dozen attempts of coups in the Army. Some experts say. the number may be even higher General Zia crushed the coup attempts brutally. During his period, hundreds of soldiers were hanged to death following so-called trial inside the jail. All these he had done only to consolidate and strengthen his power. He had little concern for the greater civil society. During the last two years of his reign though Zia tried to put on the garb of a democratic system he in prac tlce established an autocratic rule. To consolidate his own power base and to keep the army satisfied, the power of the
army was strengthened to a significant extent. At the same time the strength of other law and order enforcing agencies was expanded. And for this purpose budget allocations were increased. But, after all these, even after taking all these measures. General Zia was killed in an armed rebellion by a faction of the army.
(To be concluded tomorrow) The author is the editor of the daily Bhorer KagoJ. This paper teas presented in the recently, .held seminar at the Armyr Staff Colleg'e. Mirpur.