Military autonomy

On 15 June, General Moeen U Ahmed, the allegorical Man on Horseback of Bangladesh who was instrumental in installing a military-backed government through a coup in early 2007, rode off into the sunset in an armoured vehicle in line with army tradition. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed has appointed General Mohammad Abdul Mubeen to take his place. But will the daughter too be challenged by the 'guardians of the state', just as her father was? A disturbing question indeed, but one that needs to be asked whenever security forces begin to consider themselves as the 'last line of defence against anarchy' or the 'ultimate protectors of national interests'. Such are the excuses that defence forces often use to dispense with that constant military bugaboo – civilian control.

It can be argued that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman erred grievously by declaring himself president-for-life. But in any functioning polity, such issues are resolved through political initiatives. Ouster, imprisonment or assassination of political leadership by army commanders is a crime that cannot be condoned under any pretext. But such excesses have been more or less routine in several countries of the region – not only in Bangladesh, but also in Burma and Pakistan. In Nepal, the military was used by the king; more recently, under Chief of the Army Staff Rukmangud Katawal, it has been emboldened by the turn of events that led to the departure of the Maoist-led government. This anomaly continues to repeat mainly because of the flawed modernisation in postcolonial countries, wherein the military is often the only functioning institution for states under the multiple stresses of ethnic tension, socioeconomic inequality and regional upheaval.