Sarjis disagrees with Hasnat‍‍`s statement regarding the army chief

Sarjis Alam, the chief organizer of the Northern region of the National Citizen Party, has disagreed with the Facebook status of Hasnat Abdullah, regarding pressure from the military base on the political rehabilitation of the Awami League.

Sarjis took to Facebook on Sunday, March 23, to offer his perspective on the meeting with the Army Chief on March 11. 

The post, titled "Some Clarifications and Additions Regarding the Meeting with the Army Chief on March 11," presented a detailed account of the event and his views, contrasting with Hasnat‍‍`s interpretation of the encounter.

The following is the full text of his post for the readers of The Report.live:

"On that day, Hasnat and I went to meet the army chief. Another important member of our party was supposed to join us, but due to personal reasons, he could not attend at the last moment. Let me make it clear from the beginning that we were not invited to the army headquarters that day. Instead, when needed, we had exchanged messages with the army chief‍‍`s military advisor for inquiries and responses.

On the day when the army chief made a rather stern speech on the anniversary of the Pilkhana killings, and said ‍‍`Enough is Enough,‍‍` I asked the army chief’s military advisor if they saw anything undesirable. The army chief‍‍`s statement seemed relatively straight-forward and harsh. He asked me if we wanted to speak directly about the matter, to which I replied that we could. Later, we met with the army chief, and the three of us were in that room: the army chief, Hasnat, and I.

Every individual observes and interprets things differently. I disagree with the way Hasnat received and observed the army chief‍‍`s statement and then wrote about it on Facebook. From my perspective, I did not see the statement as a ‍‍`proposal‍‍` but more as an ‍‍`opinion expressed directly.‍‍` There is a difference between ‍‍`expressing an opinion‍‍` and ‍‍`making a proposal.‍‍` While the army chief’s tone was definitely more straight-forward than before, the issue of ‍‍`pressuring‍‍` the refined Awami League didn’t seem like pressure to me. Instead, he was speaking with confidence, stating that if the refined Awami League did not participate, the country’s situation and the political parties would face problems in the long run.

Regarding the topics raised in Hasnat’s statement, such as "refined Awami League, Saber Hossain, Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, Sohel Taj," we did discuss whether the Awami League would return or not, the implications if they participated in the elections, and what would happen if they didn’t. We also discussed how such factors could affect the country’s stability, whether it would lead to stability or instability.

However, I think the tone in which Hasnat presented his Facebook post did not fully reflect the nature of the conversation, which wasn’t as extreme as it seemed. While the conversation was definitely more straight-forward and confident than on other days, the army chief’s statement about the necessity of the refined Awami League‍‍`s participation in the elections for the country‍‍`s stability was clearly an opinion.

Hasnat also mentioned another part of the conversation, where he said, ‍‍`At one point in the discussion, I said—how will you forgive a party that has not yet apologized or admitted its mistakes? The reply from the other side was, ‍‍`You people know nothing. You lack wisdom and experience. We’ve been in this service for at least forty years, longer than your age.‍‍` This conversation indeed took place, but the way it is presented, it seems like it was abruptly concluded. The army chief stood up and, as we were leaving, said these words in a tone that I did not interpret as angry. Instead, he expressed his thoughts in a way that senior members often speak to juniors, sharing their experience.

I do not expect narratives like ‘Hasnat vs. Waker.’ Hasnat’s position is different from that of the army chief, Wakeruzzaman. It is never appropriate to pit the Bangladesh Army against any political party or the people of the country. Regarding the matter of the army chief‍‍`s resignation, which has been discussed in some places, this is not our stance.

Additionally, from my personal viewpoint, which I believe could be wrong, but I currently feel is accurate, I want to state that during the interim government, political parties, including the Bangladesh Army, maintain certain private communications. We could have discussed the issues we raised with the army chief in our party forum, made decisions, and carried out actions accordingly. Or, through discussions with other political parties, we could have taken unified decisions to protest any version of the Awami League. If other parties did not agree with us, we could have taken to the streets with our own demands.

However, the way these matters were presented on Facebook, I feel that this process was not appropriate, as it could lead to a loss of trust in future important discussions with stakeholders.

I have expressed my differing views from my comrade Hasnat’s statements. Some may criticize me for this, but I believe we have never followed the tide or the crowd. We stood in front of Hasina’s regime‍‍`s guns. Even today, if someone points a gun at Hasnat, we will stand in front of it. But when there is a need to correct something from my position, I will do so. That sense of conscience is what led us to stand at the forefront when a few of us protested against the quota system in Shahid Minar on June 6.

I believe this conscience will keep us on the right path. It is this mentality of self-criticism that will lead us to our desired destination. Our struggle against any version of the Awami League’s return to Bangladesh‍‍`s politics will continue."