What can be a time more befitting to recapitulate the glorious rise of our armed forces than December, the month of victory -- more so, the 50th anniversary of our independence?
On the auspicious occasion of the Armed Forces Day on November 21, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina paid rich tributes to our armed forces, alluding to its role to uphold the glory of the country, by contributing to the development activities alongside protecting its sovereignty.
The Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman once mentioned the term “People’s Army” as he was referring to the Bangladesh Army in its infancy. He desired that our army should become a People’s Army. The PM also recently used this particular term.
She, very rightly, highlighted our army’s role in some superb construction projects; the Navy’s building housing and infrastructures for displaced Rohingya refugees in Bhashan Char, and the Air force’s recent seed-ball throwing activities in the country’s coastal areas under an afforestation program.
The role of our armed forces in the United Nations’ peace missions are already highly acclaimed in the world arena, bringing the glory of the highest peacekeeper contributing country in the establishment of world peace.
Now the question is, is our army a people’s army? What makes an army a people’s army, and is there any model of this?
There are many countries in the world who call their army a people’s army. Starting from Albania to former Yugoslavia, a Google search will fetch many of them in alphabetical order. There are, of course, wide ranging variations, as far as their role and integration in the society is concerned. The Chinese call their armed forces PLA (People’s Liberation Army).
If we take the case of the Chinese military, back in 1937 to 1945, when China was fighting Japanese imperialists, their leaders believed that they had an army for fighting, as well as an army for labour. Their leaders always held the PLA as a fighting force.
Our army or armed forces are also born through our War of Liberation. In fact, people from the military formed the nucleus, around which our freedom fighters, drawn out from all walks of life, were organized.
Now, if we mean simply that the Bangladesh Army is pro-people in its stance, then probably it is alright to say that the Bangladesh Army is for the people. In a democratic society, first and foremost, it must be subservient to the civilian government. Then it must be involved in works which help the people and the country.
Our army was composed of heterogeneous elements from the very beginning. There were officers and soldiers trained in Pakistan, officers and soldiers who participated in the War of Liberation. Those who were stranded in Pakistan, later members of Jatio Rokkhi Bahini, were also integrated.
There had been differences in thinking and ideological orientation. For instance, some military minds were deeply occupied with the utopia of a class-less army, and a society at large. The freedom fighters, with all heroism and dedication, were imbibed with the spirit to establish nothing less than an ideal, exploitation-free society.
This definitely brought in some political ideologies within the military. Such developments impacted the army’s performance, its organization, and operation. This resulted in some turmoil in the initial days -- coups, counter coups, and bloodletting.
It is unfortunate that we lost a large number of our brave souls in the process. It is also of satisfaction that we are through with the initial teething problem of nation building. Our initial woes are hopefully over, and our armed forces, by now, are established. Whatever political implications and connotations are affiliated with the concept of a people’s army, without delving into those, we can simply intend that our army or armed forces should be a pro-people one.
In fact, ours is a people’s republic. Hence, by default, all institutions are subservient to the people, whether we spell it out, name it as such, or not. We certainly deserve to take pride in all that is good in our armed forces, and ultimately for the people.
However, we must look for new areas where armed forces can render useful service to the people. Environment and climate change are prime areas, where trained and specialized armed forces’ units may play a very significant role in adaptation and mitigation efforts. Why not equip and train them for protecting coastal areas, by making dikes and embankments, for instance?
It is up to our authorities to decide the role and employment of the armed forces. They are the ones who are supposed to translate the hopes and aspirations of the people. Instead of using “people’s army” as a mere rhetoric, a jargon or an exhortation, we need to focus on its spirit. Instead of copying any model, we can set our own model suited to our specific requirements.
Brig Gen Qazi Abidus Samad, ndc, psc (Retd) is a freelance contributor and a retired army officer who served for 32 years. Email: showkat1959@gmail.com