Why the army feels the urge to return to the barracks

General Waker's Officers' Address on 25 March rightly reflected on the urgency of returning the soldiers to barracks and refocusing on their primary duties. His reminder to the soldiers to carry out their duty with professionalism, dedication and patience has also upheld the right military spirit. Moreover, the officers' urge to the Chief of Army Staff to act within his constitutional mandates also gives us some hope to regain an army that will serve its people's best interest, namely national sovereignty. 

Though executive magistracy power is not the only form of "aid to civil power," by giving executive magistracy power, the military forces are ascribed civil legislative power of coercion and domination that allows them to perform certain judicial functions. 

As an entity "in aid to the civil power" or the democratically elected government, the military can play a role in establishing peace as an enforcing force. However, prolonged military deployment might lead to unexpected and often demilitarising effects. 

Over the last decade, Bangladeshi military forces have often been exploited in civil and extra-legal engagement, making them subject to criticism and distrust, which is a big blow for a force that is responsible for upholding national sovereignty. Post July Uprising, public perception was shaped in a way that people started to believe that our military forces were in the process of reform and retaining their glorious role as the protector from external forces. 

The simplest and most logical interpretation of the deployment of the army in aid to the civil power is that the civil administration does not have enough skills and resources to contain civil disorder and maintain internal peace and order. Or, in other words, people fear the army and see them as the strict regulatory body that can uphold the rule of law. Both these implications have practical benefits to the overall discipline of the country, yet with institutional and democratic pitfalls. 

Even though the whole military armed forces are not deployed in civil aid, engagement of a significant section of the army in civil aid (especially in restoring law and order) can lead to a shift from their primary defence roles to a more civilian-oriented task, resulting in loss of combat readiness and dilution of military skills. Resolving issues in a fish market or acting as a traffic controller is not what our soldiers and officers are trained for. 

Soldiers may also feel demoralised and fatigued if they find their primary roles have been misused or they are constantly deployed in non-combat situations resulting in their decline in morale and sense of purpose. 

We can draw an example from Pakistan, where the military has been extensively involved in various civil roles, including disaster relief, infrastructure development and internal security operations, blurring the lines between military and civilian roles. While the military's role in maintaining internal security against terrorism and insurgency is crucial, it also strains resources (equipment and personnel) and affects moral readiness. This kind of civil involvement might even shape the public perception of the military as a tool for domestic control rather than national defence, which might erode trust and respect for the military institutions.

While understandably Bangladesh police has lost most of their trust due to their controversial role in political manipulations over the last decade of an authoritarian regime, seeing their primary line of duty replaced by military or paramilitary forces will further prolong their disengagement from maintaining civil law and order causing double damage - both military and police will lose their sense of purpose. This can be problematic as it will weaken the civil and democratic institutions of Bangladesh.

We cannot also ignore the psychological impact of overextension of military roles to humanitarian and domestic affairs that might lead to compassion fatigue, burnout and, in many serious cases, even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as we know it from the case of the US military during the Global War on Terror. 

Despite criticism, we cannot ignore the pro-people role of our military during the July Uprising of Bangladesh, and it is high time our army retained its rule and role in engagement. At this turbulent phase of geopolitical realignments, our army needs to be in its strongest form; we do not want to see them prone to political greed, as power mongers, an unwanted image of the military that General Waker already cautioned against.  

Talukder Maniruzzaman, a prominent Bangladeshi political scientist, argued that military involvement in civil aid might lead to their involvement in politics, which might affect the country's political development and stability. 

Just as the politicisation of the military has a serious damaging effect on democratic institutions and national sovereignty, the over-deployment of the army in aid to civil power also has similar dysfunctioning consequences, leading to corruption, human rights abuses and, worst of all, involvement in illegal alliances and group interests. We would like to see an army that will safeguard us from enemies, domestic and foreign, keeping up with its own jurisdictions. 

The author is an ex-army cadet, an Associate Professor of English at Jahangirnagar University and a doctoral researcher at UNSW Sydney's law school.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.