A failed coup, political immaturity and all that talk

A military coup to take over the country is everyone's business and not just of the military's. In the last edition of this business, the state authorities came to the people to explain matters and invited media as the conduit of public information to distribute their words. Media has of course used this opportunity to report very extensively on the coup and the processes of conspiracies in military politics.

Now the military has complained that media reporting were not responsible and consequently advised restraint. One finds a catch-22 like situation in this. First, the media is used to create a positive public opinion in favour of the government and also use it to drum up support against the coup plotters but when media pushes on to report on contingent issues there is unhappiness.

Someone up there doesn't see this contradiction. Nor does that someone sees the fact that a coup is not a military matter or one relating to political parties and their quantity of patriotism, but of those to whom the country belongs to and who are most affected by it — the average people. They have a right to know what is going on and that too to the fullest extent of the issue.

* * *

The coup that failed—if it had been successful— would have been an unpopular and a dangerous one. As it is, military rule is hugely unpopular in Bangladesh and one wonders how the plotters had thought that this would be swallowed. Islamic types particularly of the uniformed variety are even more unpopular and it is difficult to see how they would get any popular backing.

Finally, any coup particularly those working to establish Islamic rule is going to face stiff opposition from India who have a stake in the kind of government in Bangladesh and it would have been a matter of time before an intervention. This coup if successful would have been bad news for everyone concerned including the coup makers; so it was a fortunate escape. It is all the more reason why the issues should be aired publicly.

* * *

The chances of the mainstream army taking over are slim because it has few advantages to them. The experience of the 1/11 can't be ignored which shows that the two major political parties are capable of generating enough support to contest the military so there is most possibly an unwritten understanding about take-overs and not taking over.

The military is the most organised political force in the country though they are paid staff of the state. They can exert enough force on the other two less organised political forces to make a difference to the complexion of Bangladesh's ruling government. It doesn't make any sense to take over when the same benefits can be had without the hassle of managing a chaotic people. So they would rather stay put and enhance their clout with the civilian political leadership.

It is only the Islamists and the Leftists who would want to take over because they are the ones who are completely convinced of their cause and are not bothered about what people want.

With the Left not in existence anymore, it is only the Islamists who pose a threat.

* * *

Bangladesh's problem is also in having an army that really has little to do. It has only one enemy and that is India and who really won't want to take over Bangladesh unless in an emergency like an Islamic coup. Otherwise Bangladesh is one of the worst invasion objectives anywhere. One also hopes that the strategic analysts are not as dim witted as one security chief who explained to me years ago how the military exists to protect Bangladesh from India.

His argument ran this way: "When a beautiful woman is attacked by an aggressive male the woman can only shout to draw attention so that others may come forward and save her." One hopes that the thinking level in today's army is more sophisticated and realistic than this since holding off India militarily is quite beyond us. As long as anti-Indian anxieties dominate without a reality check, we shall have an army about to defend us theoretically.

With the duties taken care of, the army has always focused on its role as the self-declared white knight of the state in line with the Pakistan model rather than its servant. Its interventions have all been negative but the army thinks it must have the final say. Such attitudes are possible because the civilian state structure is underdeveloped and shows little sign of growth. Both civilian and military politics are caught in a web of immaturity which has created much of the problems and since they are not about to disappear, things are not about to change.

* * *

No less disturbing is the fact of admission by the authorities that the Hijb ut Tahrir (HT) has gotten bigger and better over the days. They are more organised and have been able to avoid attempts to curb them quite easily showing how competence can triumph over shortage of resources. It is a bit embarrassing to hear that the HT has been able to develop a cadre base that is committed to its principles rather than to chandaabazi unlike the national political parties and their activists.

If the JMB was full of 'rural schmucks' who failed to ignite, the Hijbuts are well or highly educated young people who believe in their cause. It would be foolish to write them off as 'fanatics' because these people are there because they believe it to be better than what national political parties have to offer. They are not the typical Jamaatis, the India hating-Pakistan-loving anachronistic product of ancient tribal politics of colonial India. They are independent of such baggage and are products of frustration and lack of principles in national politics.

When the Government says that it has failed to crack down, it is really saying it doesn't know how. Inevitably, they are becoming part of the 'third force' in a nation tired of the first two.

* * *

If there has been anything seriously scary about the whole matter, it has been the reaction of the political parties to the coup. The Awami League seemed to be more concerned about linking the BNP to the coup attempt than asking why a coup now and why it was put down so late and as some suggest due only to the help of Indian spooks.

The PM of Bangladesh sounded as shrill as ever and one had expected that she would not turn the entire episode to another opposition bashing spree but she did. As if the coup was not a national issue but a partisan one.

As for the leader of the opposition, she has made loose and careless remarks that are her trademark. She has no idea of her status and seems able to make any remark irrespective of consequences. The AL doesn't have to look for fodder to attack her because she seems to be able to provide them even before asking. They are not just our national leaders but our national embarrassments too.

The media has explored the situation and not made any independent conclusions. Instead of advising the media on how to behave, it would be best if the military tried to train itself about how to communicate with the public and upgrade its press wing to a level so that it could work more effectively and the media took it more seriously. Of course, it would be improper for the military to ask its two great allies, the AL and the BNP to exercise some restraint while talking publicly.

——————————————-
Afsan Chowdhury is a Consulting Editor of bdnews24.com.