'Refined' Awami League was not proposed, Sarjis says disagreeing with Hasnat
“The way Hasnat observed and received the army chief's statement that day and wrote about it on Facebook differs somewhat from my perspective,” Sarjis wrote in a post on his verified Facebook page published at 12:12pm today (23 March).
Highlights:
- Sarjis Alam said the conversation with army chief wasn't that extreme
- He said the conversation was straightforward
- Sarjis said they weren't summoned to the cantonment rather were there for discussion
Saying the matter of a "Refined Awami League" was an opinion and not a proposal, National Citizen Party (NCP) Chief Organiser (North) Sarjis Alam has expressed "some disagreements" with the statements made by NCP Chief Organiser (South) Hasnat Abdullah regarding their 11 March meeting with Bangladesh Army chief General Waker-uz-Zaman.
"The way Hasnat observed and received the army chief's statement that day and wrote about it on Facebook differs somewhat from my perspective," Sarjis wrote in a post on his verified Facebook page published at 12:12pm today (23 March).
His post came several hours after Netra News in a report said the Bangladesh Army denied the allegations made by Hasnat, where he claimed senior military officials pressured him and two others to accept a so-called "refined" faction of the Awami League.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
In a statement shared with Netra News, the Army Headquarters acknowledged that General Waker met Hasnat and Sarjis on 11 March in Dhaka Cantonment. However, the army described Hasnat's assertions as "hilarious and an immature array of stories."
It also called Hasnat's post as "nothing but a complete political stunt," reports Netra News.
Meanwhile, Sarjis in his post said, "The way Hasnat's Facebook post portrayed the tone, I personally feel that the conversation was not that extreme. Of course, compared to any other day, the conversation was definitely more straightforward and confident."
"There was a clear and direct opinion expressed that, for the sake of the country's stability, the participation of a refined Awami League in the election was necessary," he added.
"That day [11 March], Hasnat and I went to speak with the army chief. Another key party member was supposed to join us but was unable to attend due to personal reasons," Sarjis said at the beginning of his Facebook post.
He continued, "Let me make it clear from the beginning — we were not summoned to the cantonment that day. Rather, we used to exchange messages with the army chief's military adviser whenever necessary for any queries or clarifications.
"The day [on 26 February] the army chief gave a rather stern speech on the anniversary of the Pilkhana massacre and said, 'Enough is enough,' I asked his military adviser if they were sensing anything unusual or concerning from their perspective. I mentioned that the army chief's speech seemed relatively straightforward and harsh."
Sarjis further wrote, "In response, he [military adviser] asked me, 'Do you want to discuss this directly?' I said, 'we could'. Following that, we met the army chief that very day. Inside the designated room at the Sena Bhaban, there were just three of us — the army chief, Hasnat, and myself.
"As human beings, different individuals observe and interpret a person's opinions in different ways. From my viewpoint, I do not see the statement made that day as a direct 'proposal' but rather as a 'straightforward expression of opinion'," wrote Sarjis.
He further said, "There is a distinction between 'expressing an opinion' and 'making a proposal'. However, compared to previous instances, the army chief spoke in a more straightforward manner that day.
"Regarding the idea of 'pressure' for a refined Awami League, I did not perceive it as pressure being exerted. Rather, he was confidently stating that if a refined Awami League does not emerge, long-term issues will arise in the country's situation and among political parties," he added.
Sarjis stated that other topics mentioned in Hasnat Abdullah's statement—such as the roles of Saber Hossain, Shirin Sharmin Chowdhury, and Sohel Taj—were indeed discussed during the meeting.
He said they talked about whether the Awami League would return, what would happen if it participated in the election, and what would happen if it did not. Discussions also covered when the party might return if it skipped the election and whether it would return at all.
"What impact these equations could have on the country, what level of stability or instability could arise—these were discussed," Sarjis wrote.
Regarding a specific exchange that Hasnat mentioned, Sarjis confirmed that the conversation took place but clarified that this exchange did not occur inside the meeting room but rather outside after the conversation had formally ended.
"Before we were about to get in the car, while standing to say goodbye, this exchange took place," he added.
Sarjis further rejected the framing of the situation as a personal conflict. "I do not expect the narrative and slogan of 'Hasnat vs Wakar.' Hasnat's position is different, and the position of Chief of Army Staff Waker-uz-Zaman is also different.
"It is never relevant to put the Bangladesh Army face to face with the National Citizen Party, other political parties, or the people."
He also distanced his party from certain demands being circulated. "The talk of the army chief's resignation, which is coming up in a couple of places, is not our statement."
Sarjis then shared a broader reflection on political interactions with the army, saying that during the interim government, it was common for representatives from different political parties to maintain contact with the Bangladesh Army regarding the overall situation of the country—and they did so privately.
He believed that even if there were disagreements over what was discussed with the army chief, the issue could have been handled internally.
"We could have discussed them in detail in our party forum, made decisions, and implemented programmes accordingly," he said.
Alternatively, they could have consulted other political parties to form a unified stance before taking to the streets—just as they are now, against any version of the Awami League. Even if other parties had not agreed, they could have pursued this demand independently as a party.
However, Sarjis criticised the way Hasnat made these discussions public. "The way these words came through a Facebook status, I did not find this process appropriate. Rather, it may lead to a crisis of trust in our important discussions with any stakeholder in the future."
Acknowledging his differences with Hasnat, Sarjis wrote, "In my statement, there have been disagreements with my comrade Hasnat's statements in several areas. Many may criticise me for this, but I believe that our personality was never one to go with the flow. That is why we stood in front of the guns of the Hasina regime."
He affirmed his commitment to his compatriots, saying, "Even today, if someone points a gun at Hasnat, we have the commitment to stand in front of him. But when I feel the need to correct any issue of a comrade from my perspective, I will do that too."
He also reflected on their history, recalling their role in the early days of the anti-quota movement.
"It was because of that conscience that we were on the front line on 6 June, the first day when a few people stood against the quota system at Shaheed Minar."
Sarjis concluded by expressing his belief in self-criticism and ideological steadfastness. "I believe that this conscience of ours will keep us on the right path. This mentality of self-criticism will take us to our desired destination."
He reiterated their unwavering stance, stating, "Our fight against the 'any version of Awami League' that carried out the July genocide, the BDR massacre, and the Shapla Chattar massacre will continue."
