Army chief puts Yunus on notice: What it means for a beleaguered Bangladesh
Bangladesh Army Chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman has finally sent a stern message to interim government chief adviser Muhammad Yunus: hold early elections, stop interfering with military matters, and keep the military in the loop on key issues like the proposed Rakhine Corridor.On Wednesday, in a Durbar bringing together 'all available officers in combat uniform' at Dhaka's Senaprangan, General Waker declared that the interim government will have to hold national elections by December this year. After the violent ouster of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in August last year, Waker installed the interim government to create conditions for "a free, fair, and inclusive election".advertisementGeneral wisdomGeneral Waker avoided the temptation of going for a direct seizure of power because he seems to be driven by a sense of history. He is known to tell his friends that Generals who seized power in the Bengali nation ended up in death or disgrace. Instead, he focused on three tasks: restoring democracy, maintaining stability, and upholding the Bangladesh Army's professional standards that made it one of the leading contributors to United Nations peacekeeping missions.
This explains his push for early elections. He wants to take the army back to the barracks, playing the role of a saviour, not a usurper. But this push is also at the centre of his spat with Yunus, who, on the one hand, lambasts Hasina for rigging elections, but on the other, wants to rule without a mandate.advertisementSources close to the development say Waker also suspects Yunus is trying to orchestrate his ouster by combining street agitation with external machinations. Hence, the stern words to Yunus on Tuesday, with the Air Force and Navy chiefs by his side. This show of strength was meant to drive home three important messages: that the military is united behind the chief, that it will not tolerate "being kept in the dark" about important national matters related to security and defence (as Waker stressed during his speech), and that the military will no longer tolerate chaos and anarchy (hinting at the street agitations through Islamist mobs, a pet tactic of the Yunus brigade).Corridor of powerGeneral Waker raised the issue of the Chittagong-to-Rakhine corridor, which Yunus was willing to create to deliver humanitarian supplies to Myanmar, but which the US is likely to use to send military supplies to the country's rebel groups. By calling it a 'bloody corridor', the army chief made it clear he is firmly against dragging Bangladesh into the festering Burmese civil war. Senior US diplomats lobbying for this corridor met the General this week, but it seems he hasn't changed his mind.Yunus's attempts to pilot this project appear aimed at pleasing the US — something that could help him continue to run the country without being elected. Bangladesh's leading political parties, the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, as well as Left parties, have all opposed the Rakhine corridor, which was seen as part of an American power play to block China's land-to-sea access granted by the Burmese military junta.Ruffles and shufflesadvertisementAnother sore point between the two was the appointment of former diplomat and now US citizen, Khalilur Rahman, as Bangladesh's National Security Adviser, a position created by Yunus to, perhaps, offset the military's control of security matters. Rahman, seen as the man behind the corridor idea, backed out on Wednesday, telling the press after the army Durbar that there was 'no military dimension' to the proposed corridor.Rahman's appointment was followed by rumours that Yunus was promoting Lieutenant General Kamrul Hassan, the Principal Staff Officer of the Armed Forces Division in the Prime Minister's Office, as a possible replacement for General Waker.With no prime minister following Hasina's ouster, Hassan reports to Yunus and has made several important overseas trips, like the one to Pakistan. Bangladesh military sources say the General will likely push Yunus to remove Hassan and a few other officers he believes are not loyal to him. Kamrul Hassan's meeting with senior US diplomats last week, without prior clearance from the army chief, was the tipping point.advertisementThe General's worries about an ouster attempt also stem from a recent pitch by Yunus's student-youth brigade to finalise the July Declaration and use it to run the country in keeping with the 'spirit of the July-August revolution'. The nascent National Citizens Party is already out in the streets, demanding a proclamation that will nullify the 1972 secular constitution and help Yunus run the country without holding elections.That would surely mean the end of the current presidency, and the ouster of President Mohammed Shahabuddin Chuppu would be a prelude to a massive rejig in the military ranks and the ouster of the three service chiefs, including General Waker-Uz-Zaman. This roadmap is acceptable to the Islamist radical groups but not to the country's major political parties. On Wednesday, military officers at the Durbar made a strong pitch for the 'spirit of the 1971 Liberation War' and said that it was non-negotiable.So, Wednesday's Durbar at the army headquarters was meant to send out a clear message: if Yunus does not stop his manipulative games, the military will act. All it has to do is get the president to declare an emergency, dismiss the interim government, for which there is no provision in the Constitution, and get cracking with elections.(Subir Bhaumik is a former BBC and Reuters correspondent and author who has worked in Bangladesh as a senior editor with bdnews24.com)(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Uddhav Thackerays Saamana Slams Shinde Faction Minister, Demands Dismissal For Marathi Insult
The Shiv Sena(UBT) in a scathing attack against the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena following its Minister Pratap Sarnaik's statement that Hindi has become a dialect or a spoken language in Mumbai, said on Monday that this is "humiliation" to the Marathi language and the minister should be dismissed. Minister Pratap Sarnaik, while addressing an event organised on the occasion of Hindi Patrakarita Diwas in Mumbai on Saturday, said, 'Hindi has become the language of speaking in Mumbai'. He also said that Marathi is his mother tongue, while Hindi is 'ladki bahin' (beloved sister), who helped secure 237 seats in the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha. The statement has been criticised by the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT). In its hard-hitting editorial in the party mouthpiece 'Saamana', the Thackeray group claimed the Shinde faction, which considers itself the heirs of Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray, has become the pawns of the BJP. 'The BJP people do not leave a single opportunity to weaken Maharashtra, humiliate the Marathi language and the Marathi people. Therefore, the Shinde camp, a dependent of the BJP, is also repeating the BJP's anti-Marathi stance.' 'The ministers concerned should be dismissed for insulting the Marathi language and Maharashtra like this. Did 107 martyrs sacrifice their lives in the Samyukta Maharashtra struggle just to hear that Mumbai's language is not Marathi? But Mumbai and Maharashtra are currently ruled by traders and builders, and our Marathi language is being crushed under their bulldozers," said the editorial. 'When I come to Mira-Bhayander areas, Hindi automatically comes out of my mouth. Because the language of this area is Hindi, and you all vote for me," said the minister of the Marathi state. Does this Marathi fit into the official language policy? The official language of Maharashtra is Marathi, and now Marathi has been made mandatory in the central establishments in Maharashtra as well. This is not a policy for Maharashtra only. Those living in Bengal will have to learn Bengali, those living in Gujarat will have to learn Gujarati, and those living in the North will have to learn Hindi and deal with that language in that state. Being proud of our mother tongue or official language does not mean that we hate other language sisters. As soon as Pratap Sarnaik showered love on Hindi, BJP President Bawankule came to his aid. "Don't forget that we have given Marathi the status of a classical language," he said. Have your ministers been given the licence to insult Marathi by giving this status?" asked the Thackeray camp. "Have you been given permission to accommodate foreigners under the Marathi umbrella? Answer this first. Maharashtra has a population of 11.5 crore, and about nine crore of them speak Marathi. They do business in Marathi. Don't the ministers of the Shinde group know that there is a law that says that Marathi is the only official language of the state of Maharashtra, and everyone living here must know Marathi?" asked the editorial. "Marathi language is the language of Chhatrapati Shivaji, Veer Savarkar, Lokmanya Tilak and the Hindu Hrudaysamrat Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray," said the editorial. A few days ago, a leader of the RSS leader Bhaiyaji Joshi, visited Ghatkopar and mutually declared that the language of Ghatkopar is Gujarati. "When there was an uproar in Mumbai over this, Joshi clarified. Sarnaik and his leaders did not even show that much courtesy," claimed the editorial. "Shiv Sena was formed so that the Marathi people of Mumbai can live with dignity, and the Marathi language remains respected. Shiv Sena has been fighting many Marathi battles for 50 years. The Shinde faction has been working to tarnish Balasaheb Thackeray's struggle for the growth of the Marathi language, which is the language of the farmers of Maharashtra, the working people of Mumbai and the mill workers,' said the editorial. "Someone should tell all these BJP supporters that Marathi pride cannot be bought with corruption and contractors' money. Marathi is the language of every corner of Maharashtra. Ghatkopar and Mira-Bhayander have not been torn apart and thrown out of Maharashtra, and private builders have not made them independent, autonomous states. Maharashtra is and will remain intact. No matter how many raids the BJP conducts and no matter how much the Shinde faction people try to force Mumbai down the throats of the builders, every particle of Marathi soil will erupt like a volcano. The BJP's East India Company (Surat) has already sold Mumbai. The hypocrites, who call themselves the heirs of Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray, will definitely expel Marathi people from Mumbai when they become partners of this East India Company. Saying that the language of Mumbai is not Marathi is just the beginning. Marathi people will have to fight," said the editorial.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Pakistan has no natural tendency to be democratic. Rule of Islam is the priority
So let us see whether these beliefs about Pakistan are true, or merely our own confirmation biases in action, where we evaluate others by our own standards and historical experience. It is my belief that you cannot judge an Islamic state by any standard except the one set by Islam's history. Three other statements made about Pakistan are equally worth questioning. One, Pakistan is a failed state. No state is a failed state unless it is totally incapable of using power to achieve its basic aims. This is far from being the case in Pakistan. Another half-truth is that the country has no self-definition beyond hatred for 'Hindu India'. And yet another assumption, which we have now begun to question, is that religion cannot be a basis for statehood. We started saying this after we helped create Bangladesh, but now we are back to square one, for the post-Hasina Bangladesh government is Islamist and effectively anti-India. We now have two Pakistans to confront, not just one. One of the enduring myths Indians are told about Pakistan is that the real hurdle to peace is its army, which is a state above the state. It is the Pakistani Army that needs to use terror as state policy against a stronger India, and this, in turn, enables the army to retain extraordinary power. That the Pakistani Army chief was recently elevated to the rank of Field Marshal after an indifferent performance in the short, near-war with India seems to reinforce this statement. Victory or defeat, the army will rule. Let's start with the frequently made statement—partially in jest—that other countries have an army, but in Pakistan, the army has a country. There is surely some truth to this, but we must consider other explanations too. Ask yourself, was the Pakistani state any different at the time of Partition, when its army, then run by British Generals, decided to use tribal forces to overrun and take over Jammu & Kashmir? Did a democratically elected Zulfikar Ali Bhutto have any different notions about India than its rapidly Islamising army under Zia ul-Haq? An alternate hypothesis would be that Muslim majority states have no natural tendency to remain democratic or secular, because Islam puts religion above the state, umma (a global community of Muslims) above the nation-state. In the imagined existence of an umma, the existence or non-existence of a state like Pakistan is immaterial. What matters is whether the state, or states, are under the rule of Islam. So, when secular historians point out that Islam does not provide a template for national unity, they are partly wrong. In Islam, a legitimate state must merely follow the sharia; so whether we have one Islamic state or 100, the umma remains one in theory. And this situation does not change whether it is an army that rules or a theocracy (with some notable exceptions). Neither of them is willing to accept the normal checks and balances that apply to any functioning democracy. This is why, despite having lost almost all wars with India and behaving brutally with its own insurgencies in Balochistan, the army is still the most popular institution in Pakistan, with 74 per cent approval ratings. The most important aspect of Islam (as with the Communists) is the acquisition of power, and hence it does not matter whether the person wielding the power is a mullah or a soldier, or someone who combines both functions. So when Field Marshal Asim Munir declares himself to be a believer in the two-nation theory, he is only validating his right to rule over all Muslims in Pakistan. Also read: Pakistan cyber attacked India right after Pahalgam. How govt acted against it Who rules an Islamic country? The ideological underpinnings of Islam start with the Prophet, who combined the roles of political, religious and military head of the community in Medina. His successor Caliphs followed the same policy. Unlike Christianity, which, after repeated clashes between church and state, accepted a bifurcation of sovereignty based on whether something belonged to the temporal sphere or the religious, in Islam, there is no such separation. In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, the military has often dumped the elected government, and the military uses religious authority to remain in power. Among Muslim-majority countries that have had short or long spells of military rule—Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Yemen and Turkey (before Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist party came to power). Even the most benign of Muslim states, Indonesia, had a general, Suharto, as its president for nearly three decades. The rest are either theocratic (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) or ruled by Muslim monarchs. And Nigeria, which is evenly divided between Muslims and Christians, has seen military dictatorships. Boko Haram, one of the most brutal terrorist organisations in the world, wants to turn it into a full-blown Islamic state. Some rulers may be liberal and some conservative, but the idea that the head of the state must represent religious authority is key in Muslim majority states (no doubt, with some honourable exceptions). Malaysia is somewhere in between. Islam is the official religion, but it gives guaranteed political spaces to its minorities as long as they don't threaten Islamic supremacy. The second part of the statement is vital, for it does not imply equal treatment for all religions. A Pew Research survey on Muslim attitudes to Sharia law in 39 countries (India was not surveyed, for some strange reason) found an overwhelming majority of Muslims favouring Sharia. By implication, one can conclude that—since Sharia needs to be imposed from above, by a ruler who has to be Muslim and proclaims Islam as the state religion and sets up laws to align with Sharia—the people who want Islamic law may not object to any ruler who promises them the same. Whether they wear the robes of clerics or military uniforms does not matter. In India's neighbourhood, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have 82-99 per cent of the population supporting Sharia. In Bangladesh, support was 82 per cent, which explains why even with a friendly Sheikh Hasina in place (before last August's student-led coup), the de-Hinduisation of Bangladesh continued. It is the nature of society that determines democracy and inclusion, not whether it is an army running the show or clerics or some more secular dictator. Nothing else can explain the steady decline of Hindus in Bangladesh from 22 per cent after Partition to under eight per cent now. Even when the ruler may be mildly secular, its polity is definitely not on the same page. Also read: India-Pakistan conflict exposed the real danger — China Pakistan will always be a problem The second point, that Pakistan is a country without a positive self-definition, is equally unimportant. Reason: Hatred is a strong binding force for nationhood. It gives the rulers and the population enormous ability to withstand economic deprivation. This is the main reason why Bhutto said that he would eat grass in order to fund the country's efforts to build a nuclear bomb. Hatred for the 'other' is one of the most powerful motivators. In our own Mahabharata, we can note how Ashwatthama's hatred for the Pandavas—for using subterfuge to kill his father Dronacharya in the Kurukshetra war—motivated him to kill almost the entire Pandava clan in the stealth of night. This happened even after the war had formally ended with the killing of Duryodhana. This is why Aman ki Aasha can never trump Pakistani hatred of India. The third point relates to Pakistan's status as an Islamic state, created as a redoubt to strengthen Islam against 'Hindu India'. This idea, too, has its roots in Islamic history, where the Prophet, when he was weak, chose to establish a regime in Medina, where he fused religion with military and political power. Once he gained in strength, he could take over Mecca without a fight, after abrogating the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, a 10-year peace treaty he had signed with the Meccans. Peace is useful only when you are weak. Pakistan, to note a scholarly work by Venkat Dhulipala, was about 'Creating a New Medina' for undivided India's minority Muslims. A Medina is always temporary, and meant to provide a sanctuary to build your strength till you are ready to take on your enemy. Two Medinas or three do not make this template irrelevant to understand what Pakistan is all about. The mere creation of Bangladesh did not enable the country to embrace secularism or pluralism, as it is now becoming apparent. For the future, it also implies that Balochistan may also become another Islamist country once it achieves freedom from Punjabi-ruled Pakistan. We must, of course, support the freedom movement to weaken Pakistan, but we should not be naive enough to believe that it implies a win for secularism in the end. As far as Pakistan is concerned, India has to reckon with the possibility that even if, at some point, its army were to be cut down to size, that country's enmity to 'Hindu India' will not cease. Terrorism could remain a way of life in Pakistan, either as one country or in truncated form, especially since terrorists are integrated into the army and civil society. A smaller Pakistan will become even more prone to foisting terror, since its army can no longer defeat India. What a truncated Pakistan will give us is a brief reprieve. Pakistan, as one unit or many mini-Pakistans, will continue to remain a problem for India, and possibly the world, under army rule or civilian rule. Also read: Asim Munir just stole his 5th star & has nothing to show for it. It'll make him desperate, dangerous Open up for reinterpretation So, what hope is there for peace in the future? The answer lies with thinking and questioning Muslims, who have been intimidated into silence by jihadi elements. It is only when ordinary Muslims start openly questioning the basic tenets of Islam and modifying or reinterpreting them for the modern era that jihadism will start shrinking. It is worth noting that global Islam closed the doors to ijtihad—the use of reason to interpret sacred texts—nearly 10 centuries ago, after briefly trying to begin the process during the 10th and 11th centuries CE. The age of Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd (Avicenna and Averroes to western writers), which dawned when Islamic armies ruled parts of Europe and came in touch with Greek philosophy, died by the end of the 11th century, when Al-Ghazali and the Asherite movement closed the gates to ijtihad and declared the Quran as not subject to revisionist and reason-based interpretations. These trends and the victory of non-reason are brilliantly captured in Robert R Reilly's book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. The revival of reason and tolerance needs the wider Muslim polity to end this continuing intellectual suicide. Things will change when Muslims reopen ijtihad. The starting point will be reached when they openly disown the idea of the umma as a brotherhood only of Muslims, or that the kafir is undeserving of equal rights. In India, Muslims must see other Indians, especially non-Muslims, as part of their core umma. The word kafir must be outlawed, for it is does not just mean non-believer, but someone worth dehumanising, and made actionable under the law as a put-down. Till then, we must judge Pakistan or any Islamist nation only in the context of Islamic history and experience. And be ready to defend ourselves. R Jagannathan is former Editorial Director, Swarajya. He tweets at @TheJaggi. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Mexicans elect their judges under shadow of crime, corruption
Mexico City: Mexicans chose their judges Sunday in unprecedented elections that sharply divided opinion in a country plagued by rampant crime, corruption and impunity. The government and its supporters said the reform making Mexico the world's only nation to select all of its judges and magistrates by popular vote was needed to clean up a rotten justice system. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Arturo Giesemann, a 57-year-old retiree, said his main motivation for voting was "the disgust I have with the current judiciary because of its corruption." Turnout reached only around 13 percent of the 100 million eligible voters, according to the National Electoral Institute. With more than 880 positions to fill, many voters struggled to choose from the plethora of largely unknown candidates. "We are not very prepared," said Lucia Calderon, a 63-year-old university teacher. "I think we need more information." In the western state of Jalisco, 63-year-old housewife Maria Estrada said she used her "intuition" as she did not know the candidates. Experts were concerned that the elections would politicize the justice system and make it easier for criminals to influence the courts with threats and bribery. While corruption already exists, "there is reason to believe that elections may be more easily infiltrated by organized crime than other methods of judicial selection," Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told AFP. Hundreds of opponents of the reforms marched through Mexico City waving flags and banners with slogans including: "Hands off our democracy" and "No to electoral fraud." The elections send the judiciary "to its grave," said Ismael Novela, a 58-year-old company worker. "It was the last counterweight we had against the totalitarianism of the executive branch." - 'Regime of corruption' - President Claudia Sheinbaum has defended the need for the judicial reform, insisting on the eve of the vote that only those who "want the regime of corruption and privileges" to continue were against it. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Just after polls closed, she called the vote a "complete success." "For the first time in history, almost 13 million Mexican women and men exercised their right to decide the new ministers, magistrates and judges," Sheinbaum said in a video message posted to social media. The run-up to the vote was not accompanied by the kind of violence that often targets politicians in Mexico. But "it is logical that organized criminal groups would have approached judges and candidates who are important to them," said consultant Luis Carlos Ugalde, a former head of Mexico's electoral commission. Rights group Defensorxs has identified around 20 candidates it considers "high risk," including Silvia Delgado, a former lawyer for Sinaloa Cartel co-founder Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. Another aspiring judge, in Durango state, spent almost six years in prison in the United States for drug crimes. - 'Good reputation' - Voters were tasked with choosing around 880 federal judges -- including Supreme Court justices -- as well as hundreds of local judges and magistrates. Another election for the remainder will be held in 2027. Candidates were supposed to have a law degree, experience in legal affairs and what is termed "a good reputation," as well as no criminal record. To do a good job, voters "would have to spend hours and hours researching the track record and the profiles of each of the hundreds of candidates," said David Shirk, a professor at the University of San Diego. He believes that most of the corruption in Mexico's judicial system is in law enforcement agencies and public prosecutor offices. "If you can avoid being prosecuted, you don't have to worry about the judge," said Shirk, who heads the Justice in Mexico research project. The judicial reforms were championed by Sheinbaum's predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who frequently clashed with the courts before stepping down last year. The main reason for the elections seems to be "because Lopez Obrador had a grudge against the judges," Shirk said.
