Bangladesh National Security and its Armed Forces

Bangladesh’s national security and its armed forcesBy Dr. MahbubullahMon, 9 Oct 2006, 10:06:00
Email this article Printer friendly page Access News PhotosThere was no need of a state in the primitive society because there was no discrimination. Humans felt the need to form the state when discrimination began to surface. Discriminations also created anarchy, chaos and bloodshed making the need to create states all the more urgent. Thomas Hobbs describes the chaotic situation in the following words, " ..which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Humans felt the need of an institution that can keep man's destructive instincts in check and when necessary can punish an offender. The institution that makes men follow a set of all-accepted rules and regulations and which ensures justice and equality is called a state. The civilisation man has achieved could not be achieved if there were no states.The state not only has the authority to use forces inside its demarcated territory but also reserves both the authority and responsibility to resist any foreign states from intruding into its sovereignty. A state acquires this right from its people. It is the people of a certain state that gives a state its legal authority to use force. In 1947 people of the then East Pakistan gave this right to Pakistan and the same people took away that right and put it onto a new state we now call Bangladesh.No one has denied the necessity of the army from primitive time to today. Those who want to change the society through revolution also felt the need of "the revolutionary army". The founder of the Republic of China Mao Tsetung said "Without a people's army people have nothing." No nation no matter on which philosophy it believes in, can do without the army. But some people of our country are pouring their venom against the army day in and day out. They are speaking against the development and strengthening of the army. Sometimes they even go to the extent of dissolving the army. Unfortunately, these anti-state elements have influence on the media. Poet Abdul Hakim has questioned about the legitimacy of the birth of those Bangalis who rear hatred for Bangla language. In the same way the Bangladeshis who spread malice against the army have problem in their birth.Now, will these people, who are hell bent on dissolving the army, tell us which people in the entire world are against the army of their own country? A certain group who call themselves economists is selling the notion that the army is an unproductive sector and therefore the budget allocation for the army should be brought down. Their real desire is to see the army getting dissolved, but they are afraid of telling it openly. I want to ask them, do you think anarchy is productive?There are many problems in Bangladesh's law and order situation which is hampering our productivity. No doubt the size of the police force in our country is inadequate. Though the army is not used for maintaining the day-to-day law and order situation, their very presence in the barrack is a source of our confidence: we feel assured that there will be no civil war, no insurgency in any part of the country (for instance in the Chittagong Hill Tracts) and no large-scale anarchy in the country.In the economics there is a concept of "Public Good". Its characteristic is one's consumption does not cut away another's consumption. A country's defence service is a classic example of Public Good. As citizen of an independent state we want to see that our sovereignty is not threatened by any foreign nation. If that happens we will lose everything, our trade and commerce, industry and agriculture. The army is there as the saviour of our sovereignty and all the citizens of a country enjoy this service of the army. What will be the situation of our economy without a defense force in place? Have these so-called economists read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" where he wrote, "The first duty of the sovereign that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement."In a third world country like Bangladesh what makes the army all the more important is the army along with safeguarding our sovereignty, also ensures safety of our border from regional conflict as well as strengthens the internal unity. The army is thus the symbol of a nation's unity and prestige.Until 1815 UK's defence expenditure was never below 10% of its GDP. During the war in Austria, the seven-year long war, America's independence war, UK's defense expenditure would often go beyond 20% of GDP. During the time between two world wars a few renowned economists including AC Pigu wrote extensively about the positive aspects of defense budget cut. But when the Second World War broke out the economists began to look at the problems created because of the cut in the defence budget. During the Second World War UK spent about 50% of its GDP in the defence sector. However for an imperialist country like UK the cost-benefit equation is naturally different from a country that has no desire to colonise other countries. But that does not mean Bangladesh has no fear of falling a prey to other country's border aggression attitude, so it has to be prepared for wars that may be imposed on it. So, it must have a well-trained and well-equipped army. And Bangladesh will have to continue strengthening its army until there is a mutual agreement of all the countries about disarmament.Bangladesh has never spent more than 4 to 5% of its GDP in the defence sector. While the allocation stood at Tk 3402 crore (only 1.3% of GDP) in 2001-02 it stood at Tk 4320 crore (1.1 %) in 2005-06. In fact over the last few years allocation for the defence budget has always been declining. The other SAARC countries like Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal spend respectively 6%, 3%, 4.5% and 1% of their GDP. Bangladesh's defence expenditure in terms of GDP percentage is lowest in the whole Asia. Besides the loin share of the allocation is spent on the salaries and other allowances while expenditure for purchasing war equipment never really crossed 10% of the total allocation. There is no allocation in the R&D sector while arms are bought with soft loan. In reality, hardly any money is being spent for modernising the army which is frustrating.Over the last 18 years, 55,984 members of our army took part in 37 missions in 26 countries under the United Nations Peace Keeping Mission. At present 9992 members of Bangladesh army that happens to be the biggest contributor in the UN peace-keeping mission, are engaged in 12 countries. During this 18-year period Bangladesh earned $1.5 billion, which is equivalent to $230 million dollars in remittance annually. Since the entire amount is being earned in foreign currency it would have been logical to spend it for the development of the army. But even there is misery.The army has always been in the front line whenever there has been any natural disaster like flood or cyclone. Unfortunately, they cannot sometimes intervene more promptly due to limitations in necessary equipment. Again, the army has been an institution that has created high quality human resources. The Army Staff College, National Defence College, Medical College, Pathological Laboratory and CMH have been rendering invaluable service in this respect. But members of the so-called civil society appear to be blind to such noble service of the army.There is another major contribution of a standing army. About 90% of the jawans in the army come from the peasants' families. They can be called "Peasants in Uniform". These soldiers send a part of their salaries to their parents living in the villages which undoubtedly help make the agricultural economy of our country more productive. Indian economist Amit Bhaduri has written on the importance of this remittance provided by the army personnel in the agricultural economy. The military expenditure in the developed countries like USA and UK also played a crucial role to maintain the demand level during under-consumption and stagnation. Socialist economists like Paul Baran and Paul Suiji have shown this positive impact of the defence expenditure. The synchronisation of military expenditure and cutting in unemployment rate by the rich countries during the period between two world wars is a fine illustration of their theory.Those who talk about cutting defence expenditure and dissolving the army are 'in fact' supporters of an undivided India. Significantly, they don't have anything to say when they see India is arming itself with modern military equipment, which is more aggressive than defensive. Now what is undivided India? Many westerners believe an undivided India means British India before 1947 with Pakistan and Bangladesh inside it while others draw the borderline covering Afghanistan and Myanmar. Though the Indian governments never admitted it openly it becomes obvious from its behaviour with its neighbouring countries. A hint of undivided India can be heard from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery of India : " India will inevitably exercise an important influence. Indian will also develop as the centre of economic and political activity in the India Ocean. The small national state is doomed. It may survive as a culturally autonomous area but not as an independent political unit." Nehru's philosophy clearly expresses India's real intention about its small neighbours like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan. Indian war experts also very much nurture this dream. Rabi Rikhi in his "The War that Never Was" writes, "India should at earliest opportunity incorporate Pakistan into the Republic followed by all the territories that composed India before independence. The natural boundary of India encompasses the present- day states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Our geo-strategic imperative requires a subordinate Sri Lanka, Burma and Bhutan and a buffer Tibet and Afghanistan. No matter what the cost we must start the process of reintegration. Reintegration can be conducted either peacefully or by war. In 1975 Sheikh Mujibar Rahman was assassinated. Though Mrs Gandhi first considered intervention and the army alerted three divisions, in the end the government hesitated and the moment passed. The result: Our choice to keep Bangladesh in our camp vanished. India would have been fully justified in intervening under the same doctrine that lets the Soviet Union intervene in Poland and Afghanistan and the Americans in Nicaragua and Grenada".So, India is never willing to deter from realising its dream of undivided India. Following the 1991 elections an editorial in Kolkata's Anandabazar newspaper in March urged the people of Bangladesh to get united with India. Again India's support for Bangladesh's independence war was also not a selfless act of generosity. Moudud Ahmed in his "Bangladesh: Constitutional Quest for Autonomy" writes, "India's support for Bangladesh basically emanated from its negative approach towards Pakistan. For political, historical and economic reasons, it was India's natural desire to see that her rival power structure in the subcontinent is weakened. It was not so much love for democracy or sense of brotherhood for the people of Bangladesh that Indira Gandhi decided to support the Bengalis in their war to achieve independence." India supported Bangladesh's liberation war only to realise its national and international goals. It wanted to have a government in Bangladesh who will be loyal to it. The ''7-point treaty" between India and Bangladesh's temporary government led by President Syed Nazrul Islam was framed with that aim in view. Moulana Bhasani opposed this controversial treaty and demanded to make it public. One of the major points in the treaty was there would one common army of India and Bangladesh headed by an Indian. Bangladesh could form a paramilitary force to maintain its internal law and order. Indian army will stay in Bangladesh for an indefinite time and India and Bangladesh will have a common foreign policy, the other points said. However neither India nor Bangladesh government admitted the existence of such a treaty. Sheikh Mujibar Rahman also ruled out this notion with apparent hatred, but there was no dearth in his interest for forming a paramilitary force (Rakkhi Bahini). Again, the army was subject to neglect and discrimination during his rule.Those who preach that the army is not necessary are actually out to materialise that 7-point secret treaty. They want to see Bangladesh losing its independent self and get united with India. Some of these known faces of our country who rear such dream believe Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Haq, Huseyn Shahid Suhrawardi, Moulana Bhasani and Sheikh Mujibar Rahman committed "a great sin". The greater sinners were the millions of independence-loving people who made highest sacrifice for liberty. These anti-state elements are thinking of correcting that "sin" by Bangladesh liquefying Bangladesh and making it a part of India.Prothom Alo is one of the top and most influential dailies of the country. If this daily creates confusion regarding issues of great national importance then there are reasons to be alarmed. The daily ran a series story on August 5, 6, 7 and 8 under the title of "Which way the modernisation of Bangladesh army is heading for?" After reading the story I wondered what does Prothom Alo and its editor Motiur Rahman want? I know Rahman since my school days. Rahman since college days was involved with communist party and later was the editor of the communist party's paper weekly Ekota. Though he is not related with the party now Prothom Alo has explicitly or implicitly advocated Soviet thoughts and ideas. The foreign policy of Soviet Union was to re-establish undivided India as it was before 47. It is the same philosophy that Congress and extremists Hindu leaders relish. They want to make Bangladesh and Pakistan their states and no patriotic Bangladeshis can support such mischievous scheme. Though Mizanur Rahman Khan wrote the report Motiur Rahman as the editor will have to shoulder responsibility for the story.About the first part of the story titled "Senabahini chay beshi shakti, beshi dapat, beshi ostra" the army headquarters sent a rejoinder saying, "the report bears the reporter and the newspaper authority's hatred against the army and expresses ignorance about military terminology. Though it was promised that the report will be based on the interview of Bangladesh army's chief published by Janes Defencse Weekly, the story in the end has created confusion and disputes about the army's image among people ." "More strength, more teeth, more fire power" is a frequently used phrase in military terminology which Bangladesh's Chief of the Army Staff used in his interview. But take note how Mizanur Rahman, the reporter, translated these words. He translated "more teeth" as beshi dapat. In the army the word "teeth" means ''fighting arms". Will it be unjust if one thinks that the Bangla word dapat was used with evil intention. In Bangla dapat is a negative word which is used to indicate unjustified usage of strength and power. So, it does not require any research to see the malevolence the writer is spreading about the army by intentionally using this negative word.In the report Mizanur Rahman writes that the Bangladesh army's philosophy is centered on gathering more power and more arms. Now, doesn't this reporter want to see a strong and capable army? These Khans actually want to see a crippled and pathetic Bangladesh army. Any patriot would want that they army is provided with from whatever national resources we have, so that it can ensure safety of the nation. He also writes, "It seems both the leaders of BNP and AL share similar attitude towards the army as both of them support big purchase for gradual modernisation of the army." When these two leaders take opposite side in every national issue it should be greatly appreciated if they are found in agreement about a certain issue. But the reporter cannot be happy for understandable reasons.Mizanur Rahman in the second part of his story titled ''The Navy's dream of purchasing submarine" writes "it is apparent that all the governments have maintained continuation of military purchase. But though the education sector gets the highest budget establishing a university or raising teachers' salary are often ignored or delayed by the governments. The pace of development is so slow when compared with the rocket-speed development of the army." The malice is explicit here. When Bangladesh has the lowest budget in terms of GDP percentage for the army, how can the reporter make such a comment? No doubt the people of Bangladesh want to see development of the country's education and health sector, but not by turning the army crippled.Again the reporter has quoted former army chiefs in an abrupt manner and partially creating scopes for misinterpretation about the army. Such practice, specially for a country as Bangladesh is in, can prove very dangerous.The national security of Bangladesh is too important an issue to deal haphazardly. It has different dimension and of them the most important one is the issue of core security. Our army is responsible for providing us with the core security. But it is also true that the army alone cannot perform this duty if the countrymen are not with them. The people of Bangladesh have never seen the army with suspicion. It is those people who cannot tolerate Bangladesh's existence as an independent state in the world map and who want to see it dissolved into another large country, who cast aspersion against the army. (Dr. Mahbubullah is Professor, Development Studies Department, University of Dhaka)