March 28, 2025
DHAKA – Several recent developments have forced us to fear that we are on a self-defeating course. The most damaging development refers to the armed forces, especially the army chief. For quite some time, a section of social media influencers have been attacking the army chief and demanding his replacement because he was appointed as the chief of army staff (CAS) by the past regime. Institutional appointments are an integral part of the governance process, and that should not be questioned just because it happened before the July uprising, especially if it had to do with the armed forces, which are tasked with the vital function of ensuring national security.
The latest controversy started with a Facebook post by one of the student leaders of the uprising, Hasnat Abdullah. He wrote on March 21 about a meeting with the CAS on March 11, in which the army chief allegedly suggested that a “refined” Awami League, which would renounce the atrocities committed against the students and the people and purge all those guilty of being involved with crimes, corruption, abuse of power, etc, should be allowed to participate in the upcoming general election. Hasnat renounced the suggestion and triggered a social media controversy.
Several questions arose as a result. Why raise it 10 days after the meeting? Why on Facebook and not on the party platform? Why without first discussing with his party colleagues? Hasnat may be young, but he is a political figure of considerable stature and must be aware of the consequences of creating controversy around such a vital institution as the army as well as the person who heads it. Taking advantage of the situation, some others made some vicious, dangerous and outright insulting remarks against the army, the aim of which could only be to create chaos.
Whatever our armed forces’ past mistakes were, their role in giving crucial support to the interim government and the round-the-clock work they are doing to maintain law and order should be highly appreciated. We must realise that without such support, the interim government wouldn’t have been able to perform as it did. The accusation that our armed forces are trying take power and that the CAS has his eyes on the takeover has no basis in ground reality as of now, and there are no facts or even remote actions to support this allegation. These are products of deliberate attempts to instigate. Gen Waker-Uz-Zaman has repeatedly stated that the army is eager to go back to the barracks and is reluctant to stay even a day longer than necessary in aid of the interim administration.
So, why attack this vital institution that has been and is serving us so well? If the army really wanted power, then the best time for them was between the time Sheikh Hasina fled (August 5, 2024) and the day Prof Muhammad Yunus returned home from Paris and took oath as the chief adviser (August 8, 2024). For three days, there was a total power vacuum, which was the perfect moment for them to make their move. But they did no such thing. I think very few armies in developing countries would have forsaken such an opportunity, and fewer army chiefs would let such an opportunity slip through their fingers, especially when they would not have been blamed for ousting any sitting government. This reminds me of the famous saying by Napoleon Bonaparte, “I found the crown of France lying on the ground and I picked it up with my sword.” For those three fateful days, the Bangladesh government was “lying on the ground,” so to speak, which was a perfect opportunity for any CAS interested in power to make the crucial move. Gen Waker-Uz-Zaman passed the test of his and his institution’s belief—that armed forces should not get involved in the running of a government—with flying colours.
The chief adviser, in his address to the nation on Tuesday, indicated that attempts were being made to create instability and warned us about rumours and false information that are being circulated—most likely by the ousted forces. That is not to be unexpected. But what worries us more is that rumours, false information, and distorted facts are being circulated by people who profess to be activists and supporters of the July mass movement. It becomes far worse when people in the leadership of that movement do the same.
What we need most at this stage is stability, followed by accountability of the killing of students and others and a path towards restoration of democracy. The sudden power vacuum created after Sheikh Hasina fled to India and the instant disappearance of not only the existing government but practically the whole governmental structure—particularly the law enforcement agencies—made the situation unstable. The inevitable impact of that on the economy and public safety further contributed to lack of public confidence.
But after seven months of rule, Prof Yunus’s government can be credited with having brought a sense of stability in the economy. Inflation eased during December 2024-February 2025, dropping below 10 percent over the last two months. Export earnings grew by around 10 percent year-on-year in the July-February period despite political unrest and severe production and supply chain disruptions. A particularly bright spot was the 23.8 percent surge in inward remittance year-on-year during the same period.
However, public safety issues continue to worry citizens.
Right now, there are two major issues: progress of reforms, and the prospect of election. About the debate as to whether we need reform or election, our position—as we have repeatedly stated—is that we need both and can have both by December this year. By that time, we should have our first fully free and fair general election after 2008—after a gap of 17 years. Much valuable work has been done by the respective reform commissions, and the follow-up work is now in progress to bring about a consensus on them, which will form the basis, as Prof Yunus declared, of the July Declaration, which is expected to give us a direction for future transformation.
The BNP, as the biggest political party in the country at the moment, seems to feel that talking too much about reforms is a ploy to postpone the election. While we also want the election as early as possible, we cannot underestimate the importance of reforms. BNP has already agreed to: i) a caretaker government with a tenure of 90 days only to hold a free and fair election; ii) a bicameral legislature with 400 seats in the lower house, National Assembly, and 105 seats in the upper house, the Senate, and a four-year term for both; iii) raise the women’s reserved seats to 100; iv) two speakers for the assembly with one from the opposition; and v) limiting the prime minister’s tenure to two continuous terms, with a possibility of re-election after a gap. On many others, there are partial agreements.
Most other important political parties have expressed similar views on the above-mentioned issues. These reforms are very important and consensus seems already in hand. On proposals of other commissions, similar points of agreements exist and the prospects of reaching consensus are quite high as well.
We strongly feel that consensus on reforms are well in hand and there is no reason not to hold the election by the year’s end. Here, the interim government is guilty of creating confusion. It repeats December and then suddenly brings up June as a possible option. The chief adviser did so in his last speech. Time is ripe for a definite position on the election date. The Election Commission has said it is ready for December. So what is the reason for the ambiguity?