NN Online:
Two days after NCP’s Chief Organiser (South) Hasnat Abdullah stirred controversy with a Facebook post about a meeting at the Cantonment, the party’s Chief Organiser (North) Sarjis Alam dismissed concerns, saying he felt no pressure regarding the “Refined Awami League (AL).”
“Although the Army chief’s language was more straightforward compared to previous occasions, I did not feel that he was ‘pressuring the Refined Awami League.’ Rather, he spoke with great confidence and explained that if the ‘Refined Awami League’ doesn’t not participate, the long-term political instability and problems in the country would likely intensify,” he wrote.
He does not think the way these issues were shared on Facebook was appropriate and in the long run, this could create trust issues with any stakeholder in future important discussions, he said in a Facebook post with “few corrections, additions and deletions from his perspective” regarding the meeting with the Army chief.
Sarjis Alam said he does not see the Army chief’s statement as a direct “proposal” but rather as a “direct expression of opinion.” There is a difference between “expressing an opinion” and “making a proposal,” he wrote in the post.
He said he disagrees with some parts of Hasnat’s remarks.
There were discussions on topics like “refined Awami League, Saber Hossain, Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, Sohel Taj,” which came in Hasnat’s points, he said.
He acknowledged that they discussed whether the Awami League would return, what would happen if they were or weren’t part of the elections, when they might return, or whether they would return at all and how these equations could affect the country’s stability or instability.
“However, the tone in which Hasnat presented in the Facebook post makes me think that the conversation wasn’t as extreme as he portrayed. It was definitely more straightforward and confident than on other days, but it wasn’t overly extreme. The Army chief’s opinion on the necessity of the refined Awami League’s participation for the country’s stability was clearly stated.”
He also explained that they were not invited to the Army headquarters that day.
When necessary, they communicated with the Army chief’s military adviser via messages, where they exchanged some questions and answers. “As a human being, every individual or group interprets opinions in their own way. On that day, Hasnat observed and received the Army chief’s statement from his perspective and shared it on Facebook. I have some disagreement with his take on it.”
Hasnat also mentioned another part of the conversation, “At one point, I said, ‘the party that has not apologised yet, has not admitted its crimes, how can you forgive them?’ The other party angrily replied, ‘You people know nothing. You lack wisdom and experience. We’ve been in this service for at least forty years, longer than your age.'”
“The narrative about “Hasnat vs Waker” is not something I expect. Hasnat’s position is different, and so is the Army Chief Waker-Uz-Zaman’s. It is never appropriate to position the Bangladesh Army against other political parties or the people. Moreover, the mention of the Army chief’s resignation in some places is not our stance.”
“In addition to all of this, I would like to express my personal opinion. I could be wrong, but I feel that this is the right view at the moment. During the interim government period, someone from the Bangladesh Army maintains contact with other political parties regarding the country’s overall situation. They maintain their privacy. Even though we might have some direct disagreements with the topics discussed with the Army chief, we could have discussed them in detail in our party forums, made decisions, and implemented programs accordingly.”
“Alternatively, through dialogue with other political parties, we could have taken a united stand and taken to the streets against any version of the Awami League, just as we are doing now. Or, if other political parties didn’t agree with us, we could have taken to the streets alone, representing only our party’s demands.
Even today, if anyone points a gun at Hasnat, we are committed to standing in front of him. But when I feel there’s a need to correct a fellow comrade’s perspective, I will do so. It was this conscience that led us to the front row when a few individuals stood against the quota system on June 6 at the Shaheed Minar.
He wrote that their movement will continue against the entry of any version of the Awami League, responsible for the July genocide, the BDR killings and the killings at Shapla Chattar.
