Thus, fifty days into Sheikh Hasina's democratic reign (no doubt as spurious in its democratic credentials as the others), the revolting events at Pilkhana occurred. It seems transparently evident that politicians and certain military personnel were the architects of the episode. Was the motive revenge? Or was it a deterrent strike by the politicians-cum-military against any future takeover of the government by the armed forces?
The powers unleashed when military loyalty becomes split has been observed at least as far back as the dual generalships of Marius and Sulla, Caesar and Pompey, Octavian and Antony. But that tragedy had a happy denouement in the culmination in the Empire, with military and government at one, as one. Muslim history furnishes us with similarly happy endings. But there seems none of that beatific marriage of military and majesty in prospect for the people of Bangladesh.
As an aside, it should be observed that technological progress rendered transparent a cloak of conspiracy: selected sections of dialogue between the army and the prime minister, when she was grilled for three hours, were posted by some noble soul on Facebook [5].
When, on the night of the 26th February, Mrs. Moeen, the army chief's wife, came to Mirpur Cantonment to visit the female victims, she got an icy reception. Usually, the docile and respectful wives of the officers would rise, greet her and go towards her – not on this occasion. She left the premises silently.
What was it that prevented General Moeen U. Ahmed from sending tanks to the rescue of his officers posthaste? After the incident, the American ambassador, James Moriarty, has again and again lauded him for supporting the recently democratically elected government of Sheikh Hasina.
For these were the General's alternatives, his choices: (a) either to back the civilian government of Sheikh Hasina and abandon the officers to their fate or (b) to bypass the civilian government (that is, take over state power) and help his officers. He chose the former because he knew that the international community, especially America, would not tolerate such a move – remember those coveted peacekeeping operations?
Over the last sixteen years of two-party politics, every institution has been politicized: the bureaucracy was the first to go to the dogs, then the judiciary and the army. The most egregious example of the latter was when Sheikh Hasina took General Mustafiz out – yes, out – of retirement (he was on LPR – leave preparatory to retirement) and made him army chief again for his loyalty to the dynasty (he was, in fact, related to Hasina, and the whole family are rabid supporters of the League, Mustafiz's brother being well-known to the author). Apparently, the General was only 'slightly retired', as in 'slightly dead' or 'slightly pregnant'. The other leader – Khaleda Zia of the BNP – did exactly the same in office, as we saw.
So, when democracy was restored after a two-year military interregnum spearheaded by General Moeen and backed by the western donor governments, the army was more or less evenly divided between those loyal to Hasina and those loyal to Khaleda.
Now, Hasina has a greater following: she is regarded as a continuation of her father, Sheikh Mujib, the demagogue who inadvertently created Bangladesh. That is why the media have been obsequiously worshipful of her 'successful' handling of the crisis. Her followers regard her incarceration under military rule as an unpardonable act of lese-majeste. They were baying for blood.
And, it seems, they got it.
But the unholy alliance between the army and the two politicians has been forged under the watchful eyes of the western donors. They saw it happening: true, they tried to get rid of the two 'begums' (banshees, rather) in a minus-two formula (exile or jail), but such was the tenacious loyalty of the followers (especially of Hasina's), that it proved impossible. Where, prior to 1991, we had one dictator, now we were destined to be blessed with two. Instead of drawing the ineluctable conclusion, as the late Samuel Huntington would have done, that democracy here is a no-go, the west insists on elections.
In the process, they have ruined every institution that stands between civilisation and barbarism.
[1] The Economist, February 24 2007, p 82
[2] http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23393.shtml
[3] The Economist, January 29th 2007, p 39
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
