In late September, Bangladesh’s army chief, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, did something unprecedented — he gave an interview to the press and discussed politics. Unlike its Pakistani counterparts, Bangladesh’s generals don’t talk to the media. Not about politics.
The last time someone of Zaman’s stature did something similar was in 1982, when Lt. Gen. H. M. Ershad, the then-army chief, gave an interview to Bichitra, a popular Bengali magazine, days before assuming power in a bloodless coup.
Seen in that light, what Zaman said needs to be taken seriously. He is after all, not just a private individual sharing his thoughts on politics with journalists but the army chief.
Zaman is married to the cousin of deposed Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. He was only 22 days into his role as army chief when the most significant event in the protest against Hasina took place — the live telecast of the death of Abu Sayed in police firing. Within hours of that killing, students across Bangladesh poured into the streets. Over a hundred people werekilled in the next four days, forcing Hasina to deploy the Army to impose a nationwide curfew.
And the security forces, under Zaman’s watch, responded to Hasina’s call with much gusto — some army commanders even forgot to remove U.N. logos from the vehicles they used to suppress the protests.
Responding to this bizarre act, Farhan Haq, a deputy spokesperson for the U.N. secretary-general, said that the U.N. sought “…clarity regarding reports that some U.N.-marked vehicles may have been used during recent events.” It prompted the then-Bangladesh Foreign Minister Hasan Mahmud to claim that they forgot to “remove the logos” from the vehicles that were “rented to the U.N. peace mission.”
There is footage of soldiers in full combat gear using lethal weapons against unarmed protesters. However, some in the military establishment got a jolt three days before Hasina’s ouster, when young officers, whose friends and family members were a part of the protests, vented their anger against their commanders at a meeting. At that meeting, Zaman allegedly defended the army’s anti-people stance by saying that “if the transition of power happened in a non-democratic way, then our country might become like Kenya or other African countries.”
It was only when hundreds and thousands of protesters were getting ready to march into Ganbhaban, the prime ministerial palace, where Hasina was holed up, heavily guarded by the army, that the military establishment switched sides. Yet, only a month and a half later, Zaman, in an interview with Reuters, sought to portray himself as the savior of democracy.
He even went out of his way to declare that the transition to democracy should be made between a year and a year-and-a-half. “If you ask me, then I will say that should be the time frame by which we should enter into a democratic process,” he said.
But it is not the job of the army chief to declare when the elections will take place.
This view was articulated by Muhammad Yunus, the chief of the interim government, who said that only his administration would decide the length of the reform process that would pave the way for a democratic handover of power.
In his interview to Reuters, Zaman also said he would stand with Yunus “come what may. So that he can accomplish his mission.”
Then again, isn’t the army always subservient to the government, especially to one that is the outcome of a revolution that has witnessed the fall of South Asia’s longest-serving dictator? Isn’t it the duty of the army chief to stand by the head of government, come what may?
And the general has more useful things to keep himself busy.
Last June, Bangladesh’s border with Myanmar witnessed heavy clashes between the ethnic Arakan Army (AA) of Burma’s Rakhine State and the Myanmar military. For about a week, Bangladesh’s Saint Martin’s Island was cut off from the mainland.
A Rakhine Buddhist armed organization, the AA, which consists of around 20,000 fighters, is said to be getting Chinese arms through the Wa State Army, a Burmese rebel group that is also a Chinese proxy. The AA is also a part of the Three Brotherhood Alliance, which has close relations with China; in January this year, China brokered a ceasefire between the rebels and the military junta. That the China-backed AA has overrun a huge area of Rakhine State that borders Bangladesh and India is a major security concern for both countries.
The Rakhine State is also home to India’s Kaladan Project, a $484 million multi-modal connectivity project aimed at connecting India’s landlocked Northeast with Sittwe port. But this project is believed to be “almost dead” after the AA captured Myanmar’s Paletwa township in January.
For Bangladesh, the situation in Rakhine State is even more ominous. The AA is accused of killing Rohingya civilians, a million of whom have already taken refuge in Bangladesh. As the situation in Rakhine worsens another exodus to Bangladesh cannot be ruled out.
More importantly, the Bangladesh Army is in urgent need of reform. Army officials are said to have been involved in torture and extrajudicial killings. The involvement of the army in enforced disappearances and especially in the shooting of unarmed civilians during the recent anti-Hasina protests are matters of serious concern.
Calls for punishing human rights abusers in the army have grown, and Zaman did promise to look into the matter. But weeks later, the general has done nothing to punish those who shot at the peaceful protestors.
The presence of torture cells inside Dhaka Cantonment and the alleged involvement of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence tells us that a section of the armed forces was involved in crimes against humanity. Zaman has to look into that too.
Bangladesh’s history is littered with ambitious army officers dabbling in politics. These incidents never brought anything good to the country. And we don’t live in the 1980s anymore — Bangladesh’s young people are highly politicized, and, as evident in the events of July, they envision a democratic future for their country.
The Bangladesh Army has been a symbol of the country’s pride and unity. It has earned praise across the world for its peace-keeping roles across continents. Its peacekeepers have been described by the international media as the “Cream of Peacekeepers.”
A few bad apples must not be allowed to destroy the good name that its valiant young officers have earned for the force over the years. That reputation is, in fact, at stake now, as Zaman has not taken any visible action to bring the perpetrators of human rights abuses to book. This inability will understandably raise questions about the army’s commitment to practice and preserve human rights at home and abroad.
General Zaman has more urgent tasks to fulfill than proffering an election timeline. He should focus on his responsibilities.