Revisiting 1/11

WE revisit 1/11 this week once again and will do so for several more weeks. This has been, and will continue to be, a much talked about issue. However, not surprisingly, the matter continues to be projected in a very subjective matter.
While there can be no two opinions about the need for 1/11 there should certainly be open, free and frank discussions as to whether everything that followed and the manner in which they came about should have been allowed at all. It is important to analyse the aftermath too. There is also need for serious introspection about what compelled 1/11 in the first place.
It is not surprising to hear politician belonging to both the major parties threaten to take certain important personalities associated with, or responsible for, bringing about 1//11 and for the aftermath, to court. A case has already been instituted against General Moeen U. Ahmed for quoting a wrong figure while trying to project the level of alleged corruption of a particular ministry.
While it is one's inalienable right to seek redress of law, what one finds disconcerting is the dig at the armed forces by some quarters. Change in tone of some of the think tanks is very noticeable too, which has changed to one of questioning the rationale of the army to focus on external threats, since, according to them, there is none. We will have more to say in this regard in future.
It was cautioned in these very columns little more than two years ago, following the imposition of emergency in January 2007, that the armed forces not be overjoyed at the public elation on their role in preventing the country going over the brink.
It is very important for the men in uniform to remember that, "Our God and soldiers we like to adore, Just at the brink of ruin and not before, The danger past, both are alike requited; God is forgotten and soldier slighted. "
And this is exactly what is happening. We had cautioned against any slip-up since those would be laid at the doors of the military, as it had played the catalytic role for 1/11. And some are going hammer and tongs against the DGFI, perhaps rightly so, for the sufferings they are alleged to have inflicted on some of those apprehended under the anti-corruption drive.
Some are holding the army responsible for all that happened on January 11, 2007, and everything since then up to the election. What is most disturbing is that its integrity is being questioned and direct accusation of corruption is being levelled against the military. To quote an eminent lawyer who, in an interview to a local English daily newspaper some time back, had said: "You can't imagine how much money people in the army have made in the name of anti-corruption." These are grave allegations that need to be taken very seriously.
One is not surprised that some are calling for the head of the former army chief for his role in 1/11. Perhaps the general's revelation in his second book has provided the fodder for the critics.
It was interesting to see a segment of the intellectuals, businessmen and media try to surpass one another by indulging in some rather brazen and quite unnecessary adulation of the CAS. Some of them have, predictably, either gone quiet or changed their stance.
There was a time in the two years of the erstwhile caretaker government when some intellectuals gave space to the CAS to propagate a "new brand of democracy" for Bangladesh; and this we had vehemently objected. And we were not surprised by the painstaking effort of certain scholars and journalists, given their particular psychological dispensation, to convince the public of the need to accord a role to the armed forces in the governance of the country. And that too was rejected out of hand in this very column
And, of course, not to be outdone, a section of the business community took it upon themselves to bestow special honour to the army chief for his role in enhancing the business opportunity in the country. What the army chief had to do with the country's commerce one cannot make out.
The former army chief is being held responsible for the two most important and critical matters that the caretaker government of Fakhruddin Ahmad promised but failed to deliver. We will address in detail the issues of anti-corruption and political reform in the following weeks, but suffice it to say that the ex-chief read too much into the public euphoria following the changes of January 11, 2007, and ill-advisedly assumed the role of the back seat driver of the Fakhruddin government. This should never have happened.
However, all that happened and did not happen must not dilute the fact that the country got a nearly foolproof voter list and NID card as a spin-off, and an election to whose transparency and fairness all the observers have vouched for.

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