Srategically Speaking
Defence and the two parties
THE two major political parties have announced their election manifestos. Other political parties have made theirs' known too, but perhaps, except for the Jamaat-e-Islami's others' have been glossed over at best.
I have not had the chance to read any of their previous manifestos, but the two documents this time provide some very deep insights into the AL's and BNP's attitudes towards various national issues, although I must add that many see nothing new in them. It is all sound and fury signifying very little, if at all, they feel.
There are also some very specific agendas that have been spelt outperhaps too specificfor example, when the BNP says what it would like to do with the shooting club if it were voted to form the next government.
While the observers are still busy in dissecting the two documents, we have been given a fairly good idea as to the various probables and improbables, and the other imponderable factors that might help or hinder the "Charter for Change" or "Save the Country." I shall, however, focus only on the aspect of Defence insofar as it finds mention in the AL and the BNP manifestos, and see how the two parties plan to deal with the very important issueone that forms a vital adjunct of national security.
It is surprising to see that neither party has addressed the overarching issue of national security as such, while one understands that all the programs vouched for in the manifesto are designed to provide overall security to the state by ensuring the security of the people by providing them with the basic human needs, no cut and thrust pronouncements regarding national security are evident in either of the documents. Little time, perhaps, for the planners to reflect on this?
While the BNP has allotted one paragraph to Defence, the AL has dedicated three and has, on the face of it, covered more issues, the major issues that both have mentioned they would address are common.
The first and perhaps most interesting point is that both have asserted their resolve to keep the armed forces, in their words, "above all controversies." That is indeed a pious hope and a virtuous position to take as regards the country's military, but one wonders why the parties felt compelled to articulate a self-evident truth, restate an established premise on which the very functioning and command and control of the armed forces is posited.
While both the parties have affirmed that merit, competence and character should be the criteria for promotions and postings and advancement in the profession, it is only the AL that feels the need to formulate a defence policy and give "autonomy" in as much as the constitution provides for, to the defence services in respect of internal discipline, administration and management.
Although these are matters that are stipulated in the constitution, it is good to see the parties affirm their respective positions on these. However, what we need to be assured about is that these commitments will actually be followed through.
On the issue of keeping the services above controversy, I suggest the two major political parties spend some time in introspection. Apparently, while in the statement there is an acknowledgement of the fact that the institution has been at times made controversial, one wonders whether they will acknowledge that during the fifteen years of democratic rule, although the armed forces had risen above all political controversies, attempts to exert ruling party influence in nuanced ways had created embarrassment for the services.
Neither party can refute the fact that there was an attempt at times to superimpose indirect command of a selected coterie from either the "Bhaban" or "Sadan," depending on which party was in power.
While, with the exception of a very few in the ranks of the officers, all had remained steadfastly professional and true to their oath of affirmation.
Unfortunately, many of them had to face the axe, prematurely retired due to decisions taken out of brazenly partisan consideration, depriving the country of the services of these officers. This has been repeated every time after election with the assumption of office of a new government.
The government in power must let the service chiefs command their respective services. The service headquarters cannot be made party appendages, as had been attempted at time in the past, happily without success.
Let the armed forces be tasked as per the defence policy, tell them what is to be done and leave them to determine how best to do it. Let the services be free to apply the procurement cycle in totality and save the embarrassments caused by the frigate or MIG episodes. Let the development of the armed forces be in conformity with the requirements emerging out of a rationale defence policy.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments