[🇧🇩] National Security of Bangladesh

[Saif]

Source : https://www.PKDefense.com

Challenges and Options for national security of Bangladesh.

 

[Saif]

THE MISSING COMMISSION: Why avoid national security reform?

BANGLADESH, a country born out of war and bloodshed, now finds itself at another critical juncture. Once, in the 1980s and 1990s, the military and foreign service attracted the sharpest minds — men and women who saw these institutions not merely as jobs, but as the last line of defence for a...

www.newagebd.net

THE MISSING COMMISSION: Why avoid national security reform?
Abdul Monaiem Kudrot Ullah 14 March, 2025, 00:00

BANGLADESH, a country born out of war and bloodshed, now finds itself at another critical juncture. Once, in the 1980s and 1990s, the military and foreign service attracted the sharpest minds — men and women who saw these institutions not merely as jobs, but as the last line of defence for a fragile state. But time has not been kind to these pillars of national security. The military, once an institution of prestige, is now entangled in a web of political machinations, its independence steadily eroded.

The whispers have grown louder. Figures like General Iqbal Karim Bhuiyan have spoken of how the military’s professional ethos has been suffocated under the weight of political interference — an interference spearheaded by Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League. The allegations go further: that India’s intelligence agency, RAW, has played an invisible yet decisive role in military leadership appointments. If true, this is not just meddling — it is a profound compromise of Bangladesh’s sovereignty.

Yet, beneath these claims lies a deeper question: Was the military truly a helpless victim, an institution shaped by external forces? Or did it, in some way, acquiesce to its fate? There is scant evidence of organised resistance within its ranks to fend off these encroachments. Instead, the military seems to have chosen silence, retreating into a posture of passive compliance, settling for accommodation rather than defiance.

This internal decay, however, mirrors the worsening external environment surrounding Bangladesh. The nation sits at the heart of a volatile neighbourhood. To the west, India’s strategic designs view Dhaka more as a pliant partner than a sovereign equal. To the east, Myanmar’s instability casts a long shadow, presenting a steady, though low-grade, security threat. Further north, the geopolitical rivalry between China and the United States looms, threatening to spill into South Asia at any moment. In such a climate, Bangladesh can ill afford a weakened security apparatus, politically compromised and fractured. Yet, inexplicably, no national security reform commission exists — no serious initiative to assess the vulnerabilities that have plagued the country for decades.

Anu Anwar, in the Diplomat, reminds us that these issues are not new. They have been swept aside or buried under layers of political expediency, left to fester and corrode. Thus, the cycle persists — political interference, military acquiescence, and a security framework that is woefully inadequate for the demands of the modern world.

The sting of salt cuts deep and the ghost of the sea haunts me. As a former naval officer, I carry the weight of complicity, the heavy burden of watching as my own institution withered. Did we — the so-called guardians of the nation — stand by as the pillars of our defence were dismantled? Did we, in our polished boots and crisp uniforms, become silent spectators in the destruction of our own house?

They speak of political interference now, using it as a convenient excuse to mask their own cowardice. Yes, from Ershad’s time, the rot began to take hold, creeping like mould. But it was never so all-encompassing, so insidious, and so soul-crushing. Then, there were still whispers of resistance, faint glimmers of resolve. Now, we have been reduced to puppets — tin soldiers, dancing to the whims of political masters.

We have been declawed, reduced to nothing more than a spectacle, a fleeting show in a grand political theatre. The roar of engines, the gleam of steel — once symbols of national strength — now ring hollow, empty echoes of promises never fulfilled. We are no longer defenders of the nation; we have become tools, pawns in a political game.

And what of the sea, that vast, indifferent witness? Does it remember when we sailed with purpose, when duty called us beyond the petty confines of politics? Or does it mock our impotence now, our silent submission? The sea, like the nation, carries the scars of our betrayal.

They have stolen our dignity, our sense of purpose, leaving us with nothing but the bitter taste of regret. As the storms gather on the horizon, as geopolitical forces shift, we are left to ask: what have we become? A nation where the guardians have become the guarded, where the protectors have become the protected, where the military is reduced to a mere political prop. A nation where the very sea we once sailed on now threatens to swallow us whole in our shame.

And what of the Awami League? For decades, it had styled itself as the guardian of secularism and democracy, drawing comparisons to India’s Congress Party. But their political survival was a brutal game, one that often demands subjugation rather than sovereignty. The price of longevity, in this case, had been submission — to regional hegemony, to patronage networks that demand loyalty over competence, and to a political structure that thrives on obedience rather than strategic foresight.

History is riddled with evidence of these concessions: the Farakka Barrage agreement, the 25-year bilateral treaty, the more recent transit and transshipment deals — all inked under the shadow of Delhi’s influence. Each agreement has further eroded Bangladesh’s autonomy, driving a wedge between the Awami League and the military. This distrust is no recent phenomenon; it dates back to 1971, when India’s indispensable role in Bangladesh’s liberation gave way to a post-war reality where the military increasingly viewed the ruling party as an extension of Indian strategic interests. The formation of the paramilitary Rakkhi Bahini, allegedly at India’s behest, was perceived as a deliberate effort to sideline the military’s authority. Suspicion festered, and it has never truly healed.

The Awami League’s unwavering tilt towards India had, for years, placed the military in an agonizing vice of contradiction. It stood, as it always had, as the supposed guardian of national security, yet found itself overshadowed by a civilian government that critics argued was all too eager to align itself with India’s strategic designs. The rift was palpable — an open wound between the forces of governance and the armed might, leaving the country’s security apparatus in a state of fractured uncertainty. As Bangladesh neared another political crossroads, the question remained suspended in the air: Would the military assert its traditional power, reclaiming its role as the defender of national sovereignty? Or would it continue to play second fiddle to political patronage, a pliant and submissive force in a game that no longer belonged to it?

The political parties, those chattering monkeys in their gilded cages — BNP, Jamaat, the newly minted NCP, a chorus of hollow echoes — they have abandoned the very notion of national security, tossed it aside like a soiled rag. Instead, they offer us a cacophony of anti-India screeches, a thin, brittle noise, devoid of substance, a mere pantomime of patriotism.

And so, the interim government, left to its own devices, drifts in this vacuum of silence, unchallenged, unquestioned, as it refuses to birth a national security reform commission. What else could they offer, these political entities, but their tired, divisive narratives? The silence, you see, is not just deafening; it is a weapon.

The world is shifting, a tectonic dance of power, and Bangladesh, a pawn on this grand chessboard, stands precariously, its fate hanging in the balance. ‘Friendship to all, malice towards none,’ they chant, a mantra as hollow as their promises. Diplomacy today is a viper pit, a game of calculated moves, but Dhaka’s leadership, it seems, prefers to drift, rudderless, without a compass, without a spine.

The military, once a symbol of national strength, now finds itself adrift, no longer tethered to the authority it once respected. The relationship, once strained under Sheikh Hasina’s rule, has fractured entirely, a rupture made undeniable on August 5. They may have tolerated her, but trust was never there — her closeness to India always an unsettling undercurrent. And now, with her no longer in power, that schism remains, a festering wound, bleeding into a region where tensions still simmer and the air remains thick with unspoken threats.

The ghosts of past regimes haunt the security apparatus, a spectral army of corruption and servility. Those who dared to speak truth, to push back against the rot, were cast aside, exiled, their careers buried beneath the weight of political patronage. The survivors? They perfected the art of submission, of bending the knee, of becoming nothing more than puppets on a string.

Hasina’s tenure, a masterpiece of manipulation, saw the militarisation of the police, the commercialisation of the military. Commanders turned into corporate executives, police into enforcers of political will. The armed forces, once the guardians of sovereignty, now stand as hollow shells, their capabilities atrophied, their spirit broken.

And the silence on national security reforms, the absence of a National Security Council, an indictment, a damning indictment of those who claim to lead. Countless commissions, yes, on education, on governance, on economics, but none for the very survival of the nation. The closest attempt, a mere whisper in 1996, faded into irrelevance, like a forgotten dream.

Is national security truly a priority? Or is its neglect a deliberate strategy, a way to keep the armed forces neutered, powerless? A strong National Security Council would be a bulwark against external threats, a shield against internal chaos, but they refuse, they refuse, revealing a complacency that may prove fatal.

Bangladesh, moving past the Hasina era, stands at a precipice. The storm is not coming; it is here. A military stripped of its independence, a security apparatus designed for obedience, a nation caught in the crossfire of regional power struggles.

Establishing a national security council, crafting a strategic diplomatic framework, these are not options; they are imperatives. Without them, we are adrift, at the mercy of external forces, doomed to internal instability. Good people follow rules; righteous people transform systems, wise men say. But where are the righteous? Where are the ones who will dismantle the rot, who will reclaim the soul of the nation?

The tragedy is not just the decline, but the deliberate, systematic dismantling, the slow, insidious erosion of integrity, the way those who should have resisted barely noticed until it was too late. ‘Chira unnata mama shir’, their motto, a hollow echo now, a call to arms for a ghost army.

Bangladesh stands at a crucial juncture, its future hanging in the balance. The call for a security sector that serves the people — not the whims of political factions or foreign powers — has never been more urgent. And at the heart of it all lies a stark truth: the very essence of democracy is rooted in institutions that stand on accountability, not blind obedience. But what does democracy mean when the institutions meant to protect it are fractured beyond repair?

Yet, there are those who cling to the old guard, warning that any attempt at change will usher in chaos, preferring stagnation over the uncertainty of progress. But Bangladesh, once again, finds itself at this crossroads, where the demand for a security apparatus rooted in national interests — free from external manipulation or internal partisanship — is deafening.

The real tragedy lies not in the inevitable decline, but in the way it unfolded — so methodically, so quietly — that those who should have resisted were lulled into complacency until it was far too late. As the nation wrestles with its past, one unshakable truth remains: only institutions built on accountability can uphold the fragile promise of democracy.

Abdul Monaiem Kudrot Ullah is a retired captain of the Bangladesh navy.​

 

[Saif]

Rethinking defence reforms

IN AN era marked by shifting geopolitical fault lines, rising hybrid threats and increasing strategic competition in South Asia, Bangladesh must re-evaluate the structure, role and modernisation of its armed forces. Defence reforms are no longer...

www.newagebd.net

Rethinking defence reforms
by HRM Rokan Uddin 10 May, 2025, 00:00

Defence reform is not simply about acquiring new weapons or restructuring command. It is about safeguarding sovereignty, enhancing operational efficiency and ensuring that the armed forces remain a pillar of national unity and stability, writes HRM Rokan Uddin

IN AN era marked by shifting geopolitical fault lines, rising hybrid threats and increasing strategic competition in South Asia, Bangladesh must re-evaluate the structure, role and modernisation of its armed forces. Defence reforms are no longer a matter of convenience. They are a strategic necessity. However, reforming the defence establishment of a sovereign nation such as Bangladesh must be approached with foresight, sensitivity and utmost caution, ensuring that national security is preserved, military professionalism is upheld and foreign or political interference is strictly resisted.

Clear strategic vision

AT THE heart of any meaningful defence reform lies a long-term, cohesive and adaptive national defence strategy. For Bangladesh, the need for such a vision is now more urgent than ever as the nation faces a rapidly evolving security environment shaped by internal challenges and external dynamics. The strategic vision must look beyond traditional threats and incorporate non-conventional dangers such as cyber warfare, information operation, asymmetric tactics, border skirmishes and maritime disputes in the Bay of Bengal. The defence strategy should be regionally-aware and globally-conscious, recognising India’s assertive posturing, China’s growing regional influence and the emerging Indo-Pacific strategic architecture.

Reforms under this vision must not be undertaken merely in response to crises or under foreign advice. Instead, they must be anchored in Bangladesh’s sovereign interests, historical context and constitutional values. A sound doctrine, aligned with this vision, should guide the force modernisation, procurement priorities, research and development and human capital investments. This will ensure readiness for joint operations, peacekeeping and national emergencies. Strategic foresight must also anticipate wars of cognition and disruption and, therefore, invest in space, artificial intelligence, cyber-defence, electronic warfare, and robust intelligence networks. A vision 2041 defence road map — similar to the country’s economic ambitions — can be conceived to outline clear stages of doctrinal, structural, and technological transformation of the armed forces.

Civil-military balance

MAINTAINING a healthy civil-military relationship is a pillar of stable democracies. In Bangladesh, this equilibrium is vital for both military effectiveness and democratic continuity. Civilian oversight must be institutional, and not arbitrary. It should operate through competent and impartial bodies such as the parliamentary standing committee on the defence ministry, an empowered ministry of defence and constitutionally defined executive authorities.

This oversight, however, must be exercised with restraint and respect for military autonomy. Civilian leaders should set policy, not micromanage operations or interfere in professional military matters. The politicisation of the military — whether through selective promotions, intelligence manipulation or the use of forces in domestic political matters — poses a grave threat to military unity and morale. Once the officer corps is divided along ideological or political lines, the chain of command collapses and the institution risks long-term dysfunction.

The military must foster internal mechanisms to remain apolitical, including clear codes of conduct, non-engagement in political discourse and career progression based solely on merit and service records. Defence reforms should ensure that the armed forces remain loyal to the state, not to any government, leader or ideology. Preserving this balance will allow the military to perform its constitutional role with honour while reinforcing civilian supremacy and democratic accountability.

Institutional integrity, transparency

FOR any defence system to remain credible and effective, integrity and transparency must be embedded within its structure. Bangladesh must initiate systemic reforms to counter corruption, favouritism and inefficiency in defence administration. Large procurement projects, land allocation and officer appointments must all follow rigorous vetting, open competition and multilayered scrutiny. A centralised defence audit authority, reporting independently to the president or a parliamentary body, could be established to monitor financial and procedural compliance across all branches of the armed forces.

Procurement processes — especially for arms, equipment and infrastructure — should be governed by a defence procurement policy aligned with global standards, ensuring value for money, operational suitability and long-term maintenance. Whistleblower protection and anonymous reporting channels must be institutionalised so that misconduct, the abuse of power or the misuse of resources could be addressed without fear of reprisal. The defence ministry and respective service headquarters should adopt a uniform code of ethics and conduct, updated regularly and enforced strictly.

Reforms must also address the culture of entitlement or impunity that sometimes grows in hierarchical institutions through regular leadership training in accountability, ethics and civilian-military interface. A defence institution that is ethically grounded and transparent commands respect not only within the country but also among regional and global partners. This becomes especially critical as Bangladesh seeks to elevate its role in UN peacekeeping, regional cooperation and defence diplomacy.

Legal, constitutional framework

DEFENCE reforms must be firmly anchored within the constitutional and legal framework of the state, ensuring that all actions taken are both lawful and democratically accountable. The constitution, especially Article 61–63, lays out the foundational role of the armed forces. Any deviation from the mandates — whether in domestic law enforcement, political crises or development roles — must be guided by explicit legal instruments, not verbal instructions or executive discretion. Reforms should aim at clarifying and codifying the division of responsibilities between the military, civil administration and law enforcement agencies. This includes rules for aid to civil power, defining when, how and under what conditions military forces can be deployed domestically.

The role of the armed forces in disaster response, infrastructure development and peacekeeping must be formally integrated into the law, with clear limitations, so that such engagements do not dilute the core war-fighting capabilities of the military. Special care must be taken to ensure that military courts, detention facilities and internal disciplinary measures are compliant with fundamental human rights and due process, especially in cases where civilians are indirectly affected by military operations. Oversight bodies, such as the parliamentary standing committee on the defence ministry, should be strengthened with legal authority to review defence policies, budget use and strategic deployments in coordination with the law ministry and the judiciary, if needed. In the long term, a comprehensive defence reforms act could be considered — similar to those in countries such as India, Indonesia or the United Kingdom — to institutionalise checks and balances and modernisation under a single, structured legal framework.

Capacity building

MODERN defence capability is not solely measured by weaponry or the troop number, but by the institutional depth, adaptability and strategic flexibility of the armed forces. Bangladesh must adopt a multi-dimensional modernisation strategy. This includes upgrading air and naval platforms, securing maritime domain awareness systems and expanding armoured and drone capabilities. Critical investment is required in cyber defence, space surveillance and electronic warfare units, especially as threats move from the physical to the digital and cognitive spheres.

Bangladesh should prioritise the development of a domestic defence industry in partnership with the private sector, universities and international collaborators. A defence industrial policy must encourage innovation, research and development and the indigenous production of logistics support items, ammunition, small arms and tactical communications systems. Equally vital is human capital development. The battlefield will be led by intellectually agile, technologically savvy and ethically grounded leaders. This demands a revamp of military education with enhanced exposure to global doctrines, joint operations planning, and strategic simulation.

Military academies should collaborate with foreign institutions to host exchange programmes, war games and joint training exercises, preparing officers not only for warfare but also for diplomatic missions, peacekeeping and inter-agency coordination. Investment in leadership training, language proficiency, staff college curriculams and professional ethics will ensure a modern officer corps capable of operating in complex, multi-domain environments. This capacity-building vision must be sustainable, not flashy — balancing operational readiness with fiscal responsibility.

Internal, external threat assessment

ANY meaningful reforms of the defence architecture must be threat-informed and scenario-based, rather than assumption-driven or politically motivated. Bangladesh must maintain a robust strategic intelligence framework capable of continuously analysing regional military developments, especially along the Myanmar border, in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and across maritime boundaries.

With growing external interference in domestic affairs — from fake news and funding networks to foreign intelligence operations — counter-intelligence and information warfare capabilities must be elevated to national priority status.

Internally, the rise of radical extremism, organised crimes and ethnic insurgency calls for better civil-military coordination, joint task forces, and intelligence-sharing mechanisms among security forces. Environment-related security threats — such as cyclones, floods and migration linked to climate change — should also be treated as core defence challenges. The armed forces must be equipped to handle large-scale humanitarian operations in increasingly frequent natural disasters. On the maritime front, Bangladesh must bolster its naval surveillance, deep-sea patrolling and base security to safeguard its exclusive economic zone, particularly given the discovery of offshore resources and regional maritime ambitions.

Cyber threats from state and non-state actors, including foreign intelligence services, are likely to increase. Hence, Bangladesh must invest in cyber hygiene, data sovereignty and offensive cyber deterrence. In summary, threat assessments must be living documents, updated regularly through multi-agency collaboration, strategic foresight tools, and scenario-building exercises.

Stakeholder engagement

DEFENCE reforms must be national in scope, inclusive in process and participatory in spirit. A top-down or secretive approach may produce short-term changes but will ultimately lack legitimacy and resilience. The defence ministry must establish a multi-stakeholder consultative mechanism, where regular dialogues occur among serving military officers, veterans, parliamentarians, academics, strategic analysts and civil society organisations. Veterans possess not only battlefield experience but also institutional memory — an invaluable asset in shaping reforms. Their voices can serve as a bridge between traditional practices and emerging needs.

Engaging policymakers ensures reforms are aligned with national interests, budget realities and constitutional mandates. The inclusion of technocrats and professionals from the finance ministry, the Planning Commission and the foreign affairs ministry is equally important. Bangladesh’s emerging defence industry partners and local manufacturing stakeholders should be brought into the reform dialogues to discuss indigenous production, supply chain management and technology transfer potential.

Civil society institutions and the media play a role in building public trust, enhancing transparency and disseminating accurate information. Their constructive involvement helps to counter disinformation and undue politicisation. Partnerships with credible think tanks, universities and defence research institutes can provide evidence-based analysis, scenario simulations, policy white papers and independent evaluations — essential for informed decision-making. An institutional advisory board on defence reforms composed of representatives from the sectors can act as a permanent structure to guide, review, and advise on implementation.

Avoidance of foreign manipulation

IN AN increasingly interconnected world, no country can reform its defence architecture in isolation. However, engagement must not become entanglement. Bangladesh must tread cautiously in its international military cooperation to preserve sovereignty and operational independence. While military diplomacy through training exchanges, joint exercises and technology acquisition is necessary for exposure and capability enhancement, it must be carefully regulated through government-to-government agreements and not left to foreign lobbying or private intermediaries. Foreign-funded projects or consultancies in strategic sectors must be vetted for national security implication, especially those that involve access to defence data, communications infrastructure or command protocols.

Intelligence sharing arrangements or interoperability protocols with other nations must be reciprocal, limited in scope and monitored by a national security council to avoid information leakage or embedded surveillance risks. Bangladesh must be particularly cautious about dual-use technologies, encrypted communications systems or military-grade software/hardware that could create vulnerabilities to cyber-espionage or remote control. Foreign powers, whether regional or global, must not be allowed to dictate force deployments, influence promotion systems or embed advisors within strategic military decision-making organs. Internal vigilance is also necessary. Attempts by foreign agents, non-governmental organisations or contracted entities to shape defence narratives, public opinion or policy outcomes should be treated as serious threats and addressed through a counter-influence strategy. The overarching principle must be: cooperation without compromise.

Phased and adaptive approach

DEFENCE institutions are inherently conservative — and rightly so — given their mandate to protect continuity and stability. As such, reforms must be designed with a realistic, phased and flexible timeline. A phased reform strategy enables the armed forces to absorb changes, test new systems and adapt operationally without risking readiness or morale. Bangladesh should adopt a model of pilot projects — testing new doctrines, technology integration or organisational changes in limited units or sectors before wider implementation.

A central defence reforms coordination cell can be established within the defence ministry to monitor timelines, identify bottlenecks and report progress. Strategic simulations and war gaming can be used to evaluate reforms proposals under various conflict scenarios — helping policy-makers and commanders foresee unintended consequences or mission failures. A formal mid-term review and post-implementation review mechanism must be embedded into each reforms phase, allowing lessons to be learnt and applied iteratively.

Adaptive planning must also account for political transitions, global shifts and economic downturns, ensuring that reforms can be paused, modified or redirected without destabilising the entire structure. Finally, the reforms must include a succession plan for leadership and institutional knowledge transfer so that progress is not reversed with personnel changes. In this adaptive model, defence reforms become a continuous journey, not a destination — a process that evolves with time, experience, and strategic necessity.

Defence reform is not simply about acquiring new weapons or restructuring command. It is about safeguarding sovereignty, enhancing operational efficiency and ensuring that the armed forces remain a pillar of national unity and stability. In an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific region, a strong, professional and strategically autonomous military is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

But reforms must be done wisely, not hastily. It must respect history, draw from global best practices and, above all, reflect the spirit of the nation it serves.

HRM Rokan Uddin is a retired brigadier general.​