Foregrounding Rupganj: the civil-military relationship

Hasan Reza
Published : 12 Nov 2010, 03:03 PM
Updated : 12 Nov 2010, 03:03 PM

Events in Rupganj where the public and some members of the armed forces clashed are very troubling and unfortunate. What triggered this series of violent events is still murky. The media reported that the escalated tension resulted in a full-scale confrontation when the so-called "housing project for army officers" forced people to sell their land at prices lower than the market value. When the frustrated land owners protested they were allegedly subdued by local high-ups and the law enforcing authorities. Loss of life also occurred in the process. Officially, the army issued a press release which stated that the project is not an official enterprise of the army. Rather, the project is sponsored by individual army officers. The press note brushed aside any possibility of wrongdoing and claimed that appropriation of land was based on mutual understanding. Unfortunately, we did witness similar events in the past where the army collided with the public, including the dispute with the faculty and student of Dhaka University during the "shadow martial law-cum emergency period".

What is lost in the current conflict is civility and professional integrity. The visual evidence of our defence forces being forced to desert their burning camps and being air-lifted make us very nervous and uncomfortable. The questionable posturing that the 'army officer housing project' is protecting private interest of a selected few at the cost of ordinary people is detrimental to the principle of protecting the people of the republic. Furthermore, this event points at a salient issue that is conspicuously absent in our public discourse — namely, a healthy debate on civil-military relationship. Unfortunately, an uneasy 'cold' and 'fearsome' relation exists between these two entities when both are integral parts of an independent and democratic Bangladesh. We need to open up with the soul-searching question: why our army proudly achieves a "saviour" image in many peace missions abroad is unable to establish a comparable relation with its own geography and with its own people.

The 'cold' relationship between the military and the "ordinaries" may have originated during our experiences as "East Pakistani". This began with the army as a 'ruler' during the Pakistan era. The Pakistan Army trained its military to view itself as 'superior' to any ordinary citizen and vulgarly displayed their political and personal arrogance against any individual or institution that challenged that notion. There were exceptions where some individual army officers, especially those who were from East Pakistan, did not buy that notion. Yet, the philosophy of Pak army and its institutional arrangements were always oppressive and anti-citizen. On the other hand, our Bangladeshi public was always suspicious of the 'military as government'. It was the general mass who was defiant against the oppression of the army rulers. However, the unprecedented brutality that the Pakistani Army imprinted on the collective psyche of the people in 1971 had implications on how the ordinaries view our army in later days.

Unfortunately, part of our post independence experiences remained somewhat similar where two successive military dictators (Zia and Ershad) acted against the public in the same manners as the Pak army dictators did. Both of these juntas intimidated people and injected 'fear' in public psyche mimicking the actions of Pakistani dictators. One qualitative difference was that post independent dictators could not use the army to systematically massacre ordinary people. Yet, they equated to Pak army in generating fear and suspicion.

A different story unfolded during the democratic movement of 1990 when the military backed off from supporting its own political monsters. The military transformed its old makeup as if a Phoenix has reborn! They, under the civil administration, contributed enormously in establishing a democratic state and did not aspire to intervene into politics. Their allegiance to the democratic process remained intact for three democratically elected regimes. It would not be hyperbole to suggest that the new makeover of the army was very careful not to make the same mistakes as their predecessors. Part of this credit goes to the new breed of army leaders who were trained in Bangladesh and always knew that this was their homeland. A philosophy of professionalism was also carefully crafted by the top brass of the army which was mainly professional and least political. We saw a 'democracy-loving' army until the time of so-called 'presidential emergency' in 2007. During this time, some of their actions (such as depoliticisation, militarisation of civil power, anti-poor evictions) remind us of same old trick of intimidation that their predecessors used to inflict on. Such debatable actions brought back the forgotten 'fear' in public psyche that our army is something to be afraid of.

Apart from this historical fear and suspicion embedded into public psyche for such a long time, there has not been any initiative to improve the relationship between ordinary citizen and the military. Part of this problem is political as the government of the day is the only authority that could initiate such a move. There is not any apparent move from any parties (neither military nor from government) to ease the impasse. It is my view that the ordinary citizen would welcome any move that would allow them to have a better understanding of the military forces. For instance, we could start with a public debate about the role of the respective constituencies in the development of the country's defence policy for the 21st century. Furthermore, how can the different branches of military including air, navy and ground force be made instrumental to this end. It would be desirable if every branch of military participates in this discourse. Better use could be made of occasions when interaction can occur between the military and citizens. Military-sponsored social and cultural programmes where ordinary citizen could coax with them would help ease relationships. Furthermore, we could invite the army to simulate a drill of public evacuation if a natural disaster strikes the country. This is not to imply that the military forsake their prime responsibilities and act like a civil institution. Make no mistake we Bangladeshis are responsive enough to understand the sensitive nature of the function of the military. Yet, they (the military) must not be made an isolated institution of the country neither it is desirable to make them 'fearsome' in the eye the ordinary public.

The troubling events at Rupganj points again at the deep suspicions that prevail between these two institutions. This calls for actions that can encourage mutual cooperation by the two constituencies. Unfortunately, our pre and post independence experience required that civilians be regarded as an inferior to the military. Such an experience could not be maintained. Our values are such that as a people we can only succeed by the flow of mutual respect. We are therefore called to a way of life that is consistent with respect for all and the necessities of cooperation. It is that principle that guides our interaction in the larger community of our citizenry; the military-civil society relationship included. Anything less than that falls short of what is dictated by an independent and secular Bangladesh. It is not surprising that there cannot be any place for the "Pakistani-hangover of privileged military".
—————————
Hasan Reza is a social work faculty at Shah Jalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet and a Doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago, USA.