We have always been under military control M Asafuddowla, former secretary and former editor of the Bangladesh Today, tells New Age. Interviewed by Shameran Abed  Do you think the two-year emergency rule was constitutional? The interim government was absolutely unconstitutional and unlawful. How can you continue a state of emergency for two years, keeping suspended the rights and liberties of the people? Do you know how much I personally suffered? My son lost his job; my daughter, who was the deputy attorney general, lost her job just because I was considered by that regime to be too vocal and critical; because I spoke too strongly and loudly. Anyone who was associated with this regime, whether he was president of the republic, chief adviser or an adviser of the government, should be tried before a court of law for being party to this crime. And if that cannot be done, parliament should form a committee and declare that all these people supported an unlawful regime, and they should be censured. What do you think were the forces/factors/events that led to the January 11, 2007 intervention? Some say it was inevitable, that there was no other alternative at that point. Do you agree? Rubbish. The January 11, 2007 intervention was an organised conspiracy. It was stage-managed, I believe, by a military intelligence agency — the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence. They wanted to declare martial law but they did not get the support of the Americans and the Indians. They even tried with the British but the British said that if you impose outright martial law, we will throw you out of the Commonwealth. So the intention was there [for martial law], but they failed to do it because the world would not accept Bangladesh going under full martial law again. And now it seems as though the Awami League, which came to power following this two-year emergency, was party to the conspiracy. Otherwise, why has the government not set up a parliamentary committee to look into what has happened in the last two years? How is it that a government official [army chief Moeen U Ahmed] can write a book while still in service without facing any consequences? He should have been dismissed. If I had written such a book as a secretary to the government, my only fate would have been compulsory retirement. But nothing is happening now because they are above the law. And how has the country been affected by this interregnum? Well, we have lost two precious years, and look at what we have now: the same Khaleda, the same Hasina. The last regime told us it would bring democracy. But we are back to square one. Look at what the students are doing now. After the 2001 elections, it was the BNP affiliated students, now it is the Awami League affiliated students. We haven't changed at all. Economically, there was no foreign direct investment in these two years. Prices of essentials went out of the reach of the people. We have just lost two precious years, which were taken from us through a military intervention. And what do you think will be the long-term impact of the fact that after 15 years of civilian rule, the armed forces were once again in control, albeit indirectly, of state power? Well, let me tell you something, in our country we have never had civilian control over the military. In 1971, the Pakistani army surrendered to the Indian army and the Indian army handed our country over to the Bangladesh army. Where were our civilian political leaders at the surrender on December 16, 1971? How can it be that all of the 7 Bir Shreshthas are all from the armed forces? Are they the only ones who fought with valour? Could they not find even one non-military person — a teacher, a student, a farmer — who is worthy of that honour? When we talk about the war of liberation now, we talk about the sector commanders, the Z-force and that K-force, but not about the government in exile and the role it played. The war of liberation was hijacked by the army. They have taken away all the medals, and we, bloody civilians, have been condemned. We are less than humans because we don't wear uniforms. We have always been under military control. Can you remember when we last had a defence minister? The military chiefs will not accept it, they won't report to anyone; so they tell the prime minister not to put anyone over them. In India, the army chief reports to the defence secretary. In our country, the defence secretary is the army chief's subordinate; the army chief summons the defence secretary to the cantonment when there is a meeting. As a matter of fact, we do not have a ministry of defence anymore — all it does is looks after the combined military hospitals and cadet colleges. The military is run by the Armed Forces Division, which is situated at the same campus as the office of the army chief. The division is run by some general who reports to the army chief. There is no civilian political oversight. Does the army chief appear in front of the parliamentary public accounts committee? For 14 years I was a secretary to the government and I became tired of having to answer to the public accounts committee. But has an army chief ever been summoned by the committee and made to account for the Tk 6,300 crore that is allocated for the armed forces, which is more than the budgetary allocation of 22 ministries put together? I have never seen it. Our president has a military secretary, who is an agent of the army chief and whose only job is to pass on information to the army chief. Same with the prime minister; I do not know of any other country where an elected chief executive has a military secretary. All he does is pass on information to the army chief about what files are being signed, who the prime minister is talking to, what is being said, what decisions are being taken. What approach should the current parliament take in dealing with the decisions and actions of the emergency regime? Every political government trembles in fear of the army. They all try to keep the armed forces happy; they try to outdo each other in pleasing the armed forces. What is Hasina doing now? Is she allowing any discussion of what happened in the last two years in parliament? She was herself locked up for 11 months, but now she is not allowing her MPs to talk about what happened in the last two years. Those who were taken away blindfolded and tortured, they cannot talk in parliament. Like I said, those who were associated with the last government should be tried, or at least the parliament should set up a committee to look into the constitutional breaches that have taken place and to censure those who were responsible. But nothing of the sort will happen. How can recurrence of such undemocratic interventions into the political process be deterred? There is only one way. A line has to be inserted into the constitution which says that usurpation of state power in violation of a provision of the constitution will be deemed as sedition and punishable by death.. You know, the president, the prime minister, the speaker, the chief justice, the ministers, all take an oath of office. The army chief does not have to take any oath. He should be made to take an oath which says that he will be one of the defenders of the constitution and that if he ever usurps state power, it will amount to sedition and he will be punishable by death. After all, the worst kind of sedition, the worst kind of betrayal, is when the army itself takes over state power. And there is only one punishment for sedition — death. Had Ershad been charged of sedition and punished, none of this would have happened. So my suggestion is, revisit the constitution and introduce the strictest punishment for usurpation of state power.. If you do that, then it will stop because no one will dare to do it. Otherwise it won't. An army that has no war to fight will continue to go on these picnics of taking over the Bangabhaban every few years. You suggested that the emergency was brought about and stage-managed by the DGFI. What do you think ought to be done about the DGFI? Can it be reined in? It should be dismantled. I don't understand what we need the DGFI for. As the forces intelligence, this was the agency which was supposed to look out for signs of conspiracies within the armed forces. It was set up to forewarn any rebellion within the forces. But they do everything but that. They do surveillance of civilians. It is as if we are living in a Stalinist state. When it was started, it was housed in 3 rooms in the cantonment. Now it has a modern skyscraper with hundreds of rooms. Does that not bear testimony to the enlargement of its power and influence? The DGFI decides who will come to power and it does what it needs to do to make that happen. That is why they are so loved by the army chief. But let me tell you, I feel persecuted. If I die an unnatural death, there will be only one killer — the DGFI. |
__._,_.___