Sarjis Alam, the chief organizer (Northern Region) of the National Citizen Party (NCP), has posted on Facebook providing clarification about a recent post by Hasnat Abdullah, the party’s chief organizer for the southern region, regarding the military.
On Sunday, he shared this post from his verified Facebook account.
In his post, Sarjis wrote: “On March 11, Hasnat and I went to meet the army chief. Another key member of our team was also supposed to accompany us. However, due to personal reasons at the last moment, he could not join."
He clarified that they were not summoned to the cantonment but had been exchanging messages with the army chief’s military adviser whenever necessary.
Referring to the army chief’s speech on the anniversary of the Pilkhana massacre, Sarjis said: “The army chief gave a rather strong statement on the Pilkhana massacre anniversary and said, 'enough is enough.' I asked his military adviser whether they perceived anything undesirable. The army chief’s speech seemed relatively straightforward and harsh. He asked me, 'Do you want to talk about this directly?' I replied, 'It can be discussed.' After that, we had our meeting with the army chief.
"Inside the Sena Bhaban, in that room, there were only three of us—the army chief, Hasnat, and me," Sarjis added.
Regarding the army chief’s statement, Sarjis said: "As individuals, people observe and interpret someone’s opinions in different ways. Hasnat perceived and received the army chief’s remarks in a certain way and wrote about it on Facebook. However, I somewhat disagree with his interpretation. From my perspective, I do not see that day’s statement as a direct proposal but rather as a direct expression of opinion."
He noted a distinction between expressing an opinion and making a proposal, adding that, compared to previous interactions, the army chief was much more straightforward that day.
He further clarified that while Hasnat’s post suggested that pressure was being exerted to form a “refined Awami League,” he did not interpret it that way.
"Regarding the claim of pressure for a refined Awami League, I did not get the impression that there was actual pressure. Rather, the army chief said with great confidence that if a refined Awami League did not emerge, there would be long-term issues in the country’s political landscape," Sarjis said.
He acknowledged that their discussion covered topics such as a refined Awami League, Saber Hossain, Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, and Sohel Taj.
"There were discussions about whether Awami League would return, what would happen if they participated in this election or if they did not when they could return if they sat out, or whether they would return at all. The potential impact on the country, the levels of stability or instability—these issues were discussed," he said.
However, Sarjis believed that Hasnat’s Facebook post exaggerated the tone of the conversation, making it appear more extreme than it was.
"While it was undoubtedly more straightforward and self-confident than other discussions, it was not as extreme as the post suggested. The direct opinion was that the participation of a refined Awami League in the election was necessary for national stability," Sarjis added.
Regarding a particular exchange highlighted by Hasnat—where Hasnat questioned how a party that had neither apologized nor admitted its wrongdoings could be forgiven and received an angry response from the army chief—Sarjis acknowledged that the conversation did take place.
"However, it occurred not inside the room where we were seated, but rather when the army chief was leaving the room. As he walked out, we continued talking, and just before we left in our car, during the farewell moment, this exchange took place."
However, Sarjis said that the army chief’s response was not given in anger but rather in the tone of a senior addressing juniors with the weight of experience.
Sarjis emphasized that it was not appropriate to frame the situation as a confrontation between the army and the National Citizen Party or the general public.
He said: “I do not support the Hasnat vs Waker narrative or slogan. Hasnat has his own position, and General Waker-Uz-Zaman, has his own. It is neither relevant nor appropriate to pit the Bangladesh Army against the National Citizen Party, other political groups, or the public."
He also dismissed speculation about the army chief’s resignation, clarifying that their party had not raised such a demand.
Expressing his personal opinion, Sarjis remarked: “During the tenure of an interim government, various political parties maintain some level of communication with the Bangladesh Army, and this privacy is upheld. Even if we strongly disagreed with what the army chief said, we could have discussed it extensively in our party forum, made a decision, and executed our program accordingly. We could have engaged in joint discussions with other political parties to reach a consensus and then taken to the streets against any version of Awami League.
"But the way these matters were posted on Facebook did not seem appropriate to me. This could lead to a trust deficit in our future discussions with any stakeholder," he added.
Acknowledging his disagreement with Hasnat, Sarjis said: “In my statement, I have disagreed with Hasnat’s position in several areas. Some may criticize me for this. However, I firmly believe that our principles have never been about simply going with the flow. It is because of this principle that we stood in front of Hasina's regime’s guns.
"Even today, if someone points a gun at Hasnat, we remain committed to standing in front of him. But when I feel the need to critically examine a comrade's position, I will do so," Sarjis said.
Sarjis concluded: "It is this conscience that made us stand in the front row on June 6 at Shaheed Minar when a handful of people first protested against the quota system. I believe that this sense of conscience will keep us on the right path. It is this mentality of self-criticism that will lead us to our desired destination.
"Our struggle against the return of any version of Awami League—the perpetrators of the July genocide, the BDR massacre, and the Shapla Chattar killings—in Bangladesh’s politics will continue."
