Reviewing injustices in the military

ANYONE who would like to see the armed forces run professionally would welcome the prime minister's order to reexamine all cases of premature retirement and irregular supersessions in the armed forces made on political grounds in the last seven years, as also the other cases of alleged irregularities.
The decision is an acknowledgement of the reality that political consideration had indeed been influencing promotions and retirements in the armed forces. While unjust deprivation is bad, out of turn favour is equally harmful, which in a way damage rather than help one's career.
This practice has been in vogue in varying degrees in the military for a long time. It was prevalent during the military regimes, but one hardly expects democratically elected governments to carry on in the same vein. It is regrettable but true that such a practice of promotions and postings, in many cases, was followed by political government on political grounds.
Political parties, without exception, had been indulging in this practice when in power, sometimes rather blatantly, so much so that at one time some former chiefs were made persona non grata in the cantonments, preventing them use of certain post retirement facilities that the state confers on retired officers, and which no government should curtail.
Officers who join the armed forces are volunteers. They go through a very strenuous and strict selection procedure and are put through severe training process during their career; and a professional soldier expects that merit and professional qualities alone should be the criteria for career advancement.
Huge sums of money and effort are spent on training the officers to hold ranks of unit and formation commanders. It is, therefore, undesirable that prospective officers should find themselves deprived of their due rank, or out of job, purely on subjective considerations. Apart from being unjust it incurs undue losses to the state and corrupts the system.
It must be understood by the political masters that officers take oath to serve the flag and uphold the constitution. They are not, nor should they be expected to be, beholden to any political party or individual. At the same time, it is also true that military personnel are not apolitical, after all they also exercise their right to vote for the political party of their choice. But I have not known that predilection to come in the way of an officer's conduct.
However, there are exceptions and some do try to ingratiate themselves to the political party in power. But this practice is an aberration and not the rule, resorted to only by those that are of poor merit and find this a convenient way to advance their career. Regrettably, the government of the day seemed to have been oblivious of the damage done to the state and to the institution as a result.
Perhaps Bangladesh military is the only one of its kind where an officer (and other ranks too) can be asked to go home without being assigned any reason, and has no scope to take recourse to law. In spite of this uncertainty, officers and soldiers have implicit faith in their commanders that they would ensure justice and fair play at all times.
It is this trust and confidence in their leaders that motivates soldiers to rush in the face of bullets and jump to their deaths on merely one word of command. The practice of political patronisation has severely blunted this very edge of the military.
Can a military really countenance a situation where an officer loses his job or is deprived of promotion because of his so-called political connection? Can there be a greater travesty of justice than to see the son of our acting president during the Liberation War sent home, ostensibly because of that connection. He was an extremely professional officer who rose in his career on his own merit.
Why and how does his father become a demerit for him? We witness the same tradition, father becoming a demerit for a son, when the son of an erstwhile chief of Jamaat is sent home, ostensibly because of kindred connection. And he too was an extremely meritorious and professional soldier. Alas, when should we realise that sons cannot chose their fathers, and whatever they have achieved is by dint of their caliber and nobody's charity.
Apart from normal retirement there are two other ways that an officer's service can be terminated. One is to be sent on premature retirement under the relevant rule, and the other is dismissal. No officer should have his job terminated except on specific charges and without being given the opportunity to defend his case.
The armed forces have been deprived of the service of many good officers because of this detestable practice. We feel that the review should not be restricted to the last seven years only but should take into account all alleged past malpractices in this regard. And we hope that by this step alone the very odious practice of tampering with promotions and postings would cease forthwith.

Brig.Gen. Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd) is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.