Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dhurr
Call it what you want, try to put whatever spin you wanna put on it, but this is basically an army take-over. For those who are delusional enough to think it might work, look at recent history. It has worked nowhere in the world. No good comes off a military regime. So the chances of a benevolent army rule in Bangladesh are not very high. Can it happen? There is a low possibility. Can Bangladesh win a 3-test series against Australia in 2007? There is a low possibility. It could happen, but any reasonable human being knows the chances of it happening are low.
Look at the flip side. Let's say this attempted takeover falls through. Let's say AL, BNP or some variant thereof comes to power. All the politicized changes the army has made in the country would probably be overturned. The army would be seen as a politicized entity and hence a) not be trusted by any political government for a very long time, or worse yet, b) used as a tool by future political governments to keep their opponents at bay.
Do you still not see how wrong this is?
For a small country like Bangladesh that is surrounded by a nuclear-power on three sides and the sea on the other, keeping a large functional army is just a matter of show. If a war broke out, our military would be rendered useless. So why keep such a large military? Where the ordinary person cannot have three full meals a day or send their children to school, why are we spending a big chunk of our budget year after year on the military?
The politicians have been pandering to the army for years and now, they are paying the price for it. What is too bad is the ordinary citizen has to pay the price for it too.
|
your analysis is ultimately quite correct but there are potential flaws in any attempt to implement what you have stated above. sohel had pointed out quite correctly how the army came to be. after any arms struggle, there would be an awful lot of arms and ammunitions in the hands of a disbanded freedom fighting force. there would have been many reasons to form a formal bangladeshi armed forces in 1972 but the most practical reason was one of control. so many incidents of petty crime and other disturbances had littered the daily lifes of communities, that it felt necessary to bring in all those elements in a legalised military force. this had actually worked as whatever violence transpired after the formation of the armed forces were large politically motivated, rather then through personal inclinations.
the army, in any civilised country combines an educated or aristocratic officer class and a largely uneducated infantry base. as a result of the political unheaval, the officer class in the bangladeshi army also contained many brave young participants from the freedom struggle of 1971, who had been promoted. so in a way, there wasn't the homogeneity of experience that you would see in the present indian, pakistani, british or us army. this gave rise to further strugges throughout the 70's and 80's between rival fractions. sometimes, these struggles were played out in the national political field.
as time goes by, the majority of those originally recruited officer class would reach the age of retirement. in fact, whatever happens politically, in the next 10-20 years you will see the rise of a much much stable officer class based on middle class and educated new recruits. they new men would not have experienced the internal struggles and even the catastropy of 1971. their experience would be shaped by a new, educated and politically aware world. we are only just a few years away from that stage of maturity.
in fact, if you compare the present situation with previous military takeovers, this feels much more civilised. there is even a political burnish added as the final gloss through the executive council comprising of civilians.
over the years there had been political attempts to cut down on the size of the army, reduce spending on the armed forces, curtail its influence by reducing the number of retired army officers allowed to enter civil service, but ultimately, those who wield the guns would not tolerate these changes. politicians had been deposed over these issues. the demicratically elected preident sattar suffered such a fate at the hands of general ershad.
however, as i said earlier, we need to be a little more patient. in years to come the armed forces would cease to wield as much power as it thus through its own internal cohesion. when that happens, we shall have a formal mandate to reduce the size of the army, create a new border force, national guard and perhaps a much stronger police force out of the remnants of the present structures.