Strategically Speaking
This should never have happened
It must cause all right thinking persons to ask why a fracas between some army persons and university students turned into violent protests that witnessed wide-scale vandalism and destruction, which could only be controlled through imposition of curfew.
One could ask why the students' anger did not subside once very high-ranking officers of the army visited the spot and assured the students of appropriate actions against the errant soldiers, and that the army billet located at the gym would be withdrawn. In fact, all the logical demands of the students were accepted. Why then the events of August 21 and 22?
I ask this not as an ex-soldier nor as an ex-student of Dhaka University nor as a journalist, but as an ordinary citizen of the country whose son or daughter was not there suffering the baton of the police, or waiting despondently to rush home when the curfew was imposed, but could well have been; whose vehicle was not one of the several hundred destroyed by the frenzied mob whom I hesitate to call students, but could well have been; who was not among the journalists picked up from the streets on their way home from office on the first night of curfew and beaten up by the law enforcers who couldn't care any less even after being given the journalists' identity, but could well have been.
It was deeply distressing to see the acts of destruction and the people in uniform being set upon, as well as the rough treatment of the students by the law enforcing agencies. This should never have happened.
One could also ask why the army had to camp in an area inside the university precincts, and that too near a facility frequented by the students? Even during the best of peaceful times it was not considered as even the remotest of options. It was not good judgment, but I am loathe to hold the army authorities solely responsible for it.
I wonder whether the army post could be placed there without the assent of the university authorities. But the VC and pro-VC and all those relevant personalities amongst the teachers, should have considered the possible demerits of having the post located where it was. Gaining familiarity may have been an objective, but what the decision makers forgot was that too much of it breeds contempt. Regrettably, plenty of it has been generated by the recent events. This must not be allowed to continue.
One could well ask why the police forgot the cardinal principal of crowd control, which is that it is not taking precipitate actions but withholding from doing so that most often helps in quelling a brewing situation. They also forgot the most important dictum of application of force, which is that it must never be disproportionate to the threat being faced.
What was the need to chase the students inside their dorms and to throw innumberable tear shells inside student dormitories? These are all a matter of application of the mind of the commander on the spot, and appreciation of the situation is but a subjective exercise. But caution and restraint rather than reckless and uninhibited action pay dividends in the long run. The latter causes everybody distress and some of us are left to rue. This propensity, of the law enforcers to resort to disproportionate force, must not be allowed to prevail over their faculty of thought.
One could well ask why the teachers had to add their demands to those of the students' at that particular time and in that situation. Teachers are the conscience of the society and the university teachers, although split up in groups representing almost all the colours of the rainbow, are respectable and revered citizens too. They are not alone in their conviction that the country must go back to democratic governance and like the rest of us want the emergency to end as soon as possible.
But I ask why is it that they did not come out with their demands earlier, instead of waiting for an inflammable situation such as this, to ventilate their opinion? Did it not add fuel to the burning cinder? One would have expected saner action, under the circumstances, to assuage the situation. The teachers' demand did not help to do so.
But one could also ask whether nocturnal raids to arrest the university teachers could have been avoided? This has created panic amongst the teachers and reportedly many of them prefer these days to spend the nights elsewhere. This is reminiscent of the dark days under the Pakistan army. This should be avoided at all costs.
While one cannot take issue with the government for its decision to impose curfew as an immediate control measure, one could well question the rationale of advising the media, through what many see as a veiled threat, of the merit of imposing self-censorship under the present circumstances. In fact, two private TV channels were conveyed directly to refrain telecasting any "provocative news, documentaries, talk shows and discussions against the government."
Reports designed to deliberately provoke must not be encouraged but why should the government consider itself above criticism? The media project public opinion, and good governance depends largely on taking into account what the common person feels about government policies and actions. Particularly, under the currently unique dispensation, one would have thought that the media's role would be taken in the right perspective, the criticisms more objectively.
The report of a move to destabilise the government by fomenting student unrest, or exploiting it, is deeply alarming too. The detractors and the mischief-mongers will always look for opportunities to direct any unrest to suit their interests. What the government cannot afford to do is to provide them the chance to implement their designs.
The art is to never allow such situations to occur in the first place; preemption is better than damage control. The view that the incident had been designed to pit the public against the army may not be ill-founded. That is a situation that must never be allowed to happen. The truth must be unearthed and made public.
However, we must look objectively at the recent incident. It would be wrong to dismiss it as only an engineered act to bring down the government or to compel army takeover. As for those who see it as only an outburst of pent up resentment against the government look at it only partially. I feel that there is bit of both in what we saw on the August 20, and the day after. The causative factors should be addressed to prevent this being repeated.
There is no short cut to democracy, and we would like to go back to the democratic ways and let the politicians run the show. But if democratic governance is the people's desire, it is also their wish neither to go back to the politics of the past nor to have the country's politics entrusted to those who have failed the people. Therefore, it is imperative that the move to reform politics and political parties is not sidetracked or derailed.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments