PM’s security adviser pats armed forces, says military in Bangladesh gets ‘nothing extra’

The prime minister’s security affairs adviser has praised the Bangladesh armed forces for the work they do and the way they manage resources.

Tarique Ahmed Siddique, a retired major general, also described as “perceived deprivation” to the general impression that military gets much more than the civil bureaucrats.

"The armed forces have earned the confidence of the people," Siddique told a seminar on 'civil-military relations in democracy' at the Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BIISS) on Wednesday.

The government’s think-tank, BIISS, organised the seminar as it believes “Bangladesh can be a model for balanced civil-military relations in nation building."

Bangladesh experienced military rule between 1975, when the country’s founding father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was killed in a coup, and 1990, when military dictator General HM Ershad was brought down from power by a people's movement.

The adviser to the prime minister, however, believed that military-led regime “would not have existed without encouragement and support from bureaucrats, politicians, businessmen and even some diplomats.”

He also linked the long period of authoritarian rule with the current rise of terrorist threats and said, “national interest varied at different times (during such rules) causing severe negative impact of national security.”

“That’s why today we witness the impact of detrimental aspects in the emergence of terrorist influence and extremism in the country,” he said.

Chiefs of the army, navy and air force, director general of the Rapid Action Battalion, diplomats, academicians, and journalists were present at the inauguration of the seminar.

Military ‘earned people’s confidence’

Siddique, who has been serving as an adviser to the PM since 2OO9, said the level of “trust and coordination” between civil and military organisaitons varies from country to country.

 “In a developed country, the role of military is different. But in developing countries military may be engaged more in various national activities like development."

 “Bangladesh is not exception and that’s why military is engaged in so many activities,” he said and they were “doing an excellent job and they had earned the confidence of the people.”

He said, when he came to the BIISS for the programme in the morning, he used the army chief’s protocol to get the street cleared.

“Nowhere did I see disgruntled and disgusting look among people on both sides. It was full of respect.

“They have seen what the army is doing for national development and security. They are happy about that. Maybe, my flag would not have been welcomed that much as the four star was welcomed.

“Armed forces in Bangladesh had proved themselves,” he said.

 ‘Military gets nothing extra’

 Military budget is the least discussed issue in the Bangladesh parliament. The budget is also sometimes higher than the spending on health and education.

Siddiqui, however, said military was not getting anything “extra” compared to civilian officials.

“They (armed forces) are managing their resources in their own way. We have better accommodation, and housing society. Nothing extra is given by the government. Whatever resources (are) given, we manage within that.”

“Many think our army gets many things free, which is not the case. May be they spend less than what the civil bureaucrat spent. Whatever resources we get, we manage within it,” he said.

‘You are paid to protect society’

The adviser, however, reminded the armed forces that they have to act in coordination with the civil authorities.

He said military should be “strong enough to protect the society and meet any external threat.”

 “We have to think of the threats we are fighting. Are we protecting the geographical border or the people in it, is what we have to keep in mind.”

“It is of utmost importance for a healthy democratic environment to continue a meaningful relationship between civil authority and military organisation. We should be focused on faith, transparency, mutual understanding and respect.”

He, however, said national security was not only a concern for those in uniform, but one equally important for civilians and the military.

ISPR not adequate

He also mentioned the structural difference and said military rules, regulations and culture are “conservative and traditional” in nature and “we always stick to it.”

“On the other hand civil machinery is rather more flexible and adaptable to change."

He pointed out that the conflict between media and the armed forces stemmed from the conflicting nature of their jobs.

Armed forces maintain confidentiality while media want to explore and make things public. This is the conflict, he said.

But he suggested that “informed citizen is the best friend of military.”

He said that the media see military as a ‘coercive force’ sometimes in Bangladesh. "That is only because they are not informed. Misinformation gives rise to problem.”

He, however, acknowledged that the existing ISPR, the military’s public relations wing, was not adequate, which he described as ‘unfortunate’.