On August 5, the heart of Dhaka throbbed with a tension that no one could ignore. Protestors from across Bangladesh converged on the capital, their anger boiling over against a regime that had silenced dissent so brutally for nearly sixteen years. Thousands prepared to storm Ganabhaban, ready to confront the oppressive power of Sheikh Hasina. It was expected to be a massacre; a final, devastating crackdown on a population fed up with corruption, repression and the wholesale destruction of democratic rights.
Yet just before noon, a curious twist changed everything. An announcement popped up in the television channels informing the nation that the army chief would address the nation. In the blink of a second, every army blockade in Dhaka opened to allow the crowds to pour in. Troops cheered along with protestors, guiding them towards Ganabhaban and the world watched as what had promised to be a bloodbath became something entirely different. Protestors stormed the then Hasina’s official residence and ransacked buildings associated with the regime. Meanwhile, Sheikh Hasina fled the country for India.
The result was a barrage of questions. Why didn’t the army act before? Why allow protestors to destroy national assets? Why let Hasina go without arrest? But in explanation lies the heart of the “Army Way”-a way different from conventional notions of “right” or “wrong”.
The “right way” might have been a thoughtful, civilian-led intervention to head off violence, followed by an orderly transfer of power and some national reconciliation. The “wrong way” would have included mass detentions, iron-fisted repression, and possible civil war. What the Army actually did, however, was neither of those two: it coolly, calculatingly, averted immediate bloodshed and delicately leveraged Hasina out of the equation without inducing turmoil.
It pursued narrowly defined, realistic objectives: minimizing civilian bloodshed, refraining from any direct confrontation liable to splinter the security forces and breaking Hasina’s grip without internal strife. Detaining Hasina could have incited loyalists in the security forces into counter operations. Allowing her to depart, however, destroyed the final expectation of those loyal to her and eliminated the possibility of immediate counter-moves. But in a move against criticism, the Army maintained peace and presided over a historic transition of power. Allowing protestors to vent their anger on symbolic assets may seem reckless to outsiders. But given the depth of Hasina’s abuses-her years of jailing, killing and terrorizing opposition; preventing the protestors from their symbolic victory could risk triggering uncontrollable violence nationwide. Instead, the army allowed the people to do whatever they want within that periphery and by day’s end, anger turned to celebration. This catharsis gave the military crucial time to mobilize its forces and contain the fallout, while protecting the unity of the movement.
In the following days, the army gave shelter to top Awami League leaders to save the nation from another potential bloodbath. Many termed this as favoritism, but this also was part of the bigger goal: to avoid mass revenge attacks, save as much blood as possible. Later, it handed over power silently to Dr. Yunus, assisted the interim government to get up on its feet, brought law and order without showing the control at all. Army’s every step was well-measured, quite clear.
The criticism hasn’t stopped. Some accuse the army of undermining Dr. Yunus by not exerting enough control over the streets, while others worry the military will eventually seize power. But the truth as of today is, the army listens only to its mission, not the noise. Gradual stability has been the focus, the army has never tried to answer every critic. Instead, on each visit to Dr. Yunus, the Army Chief has worked behind the scenes, leaving behind him tangible change and a hardening peace. Thus far, the Army, under the General Waker’s leadership, has kept to a disciplined and neutral role-one that has saved Bangladesh from the type of power struggles that so often beset countries emerging from revolution. The decision to refrain from overt political involvement also speaks about the Army’s commitment to the civilian government’s success. This alliance with Dr. Yunus and General Waker is balanced and quietly sustained; it has to be so. Anything more or less than that, risks creating a situation like Myanmar under Suu Kyi; however, that’s an analogy for some other day. The army’s approach isn’t about being “right” or “wrong”—it’s about doing what must be done to secure stability.
Like the Berlin Airlift after World War II, where the military sidestepped confrontation and upheld an ideal without firing a shot, the Bangladesh Army’s intervention on August 5 prevented a massacre and shattered Hasina’s grip without succumbing to impulsive moves. It’s the Army Way: block out the noise, stay on task, and explain little until results speak louder than words. But it’s not blind support for the military either.
One would want to know, if the Army is so rightful then how did Bangladesh get to where it was, especially when people in the same uniform were very much part of the killing machines that Hasina had created? And that’s exactly is the point, while credit is due to the Army’s role in protecting democracy, question such as how people like Ziaul Ahsan, Aziz Ahmed got into the army in the first place let alone becoming generals and chief! The reforms, the accountability and everything else that Bangladesh thrives for today should touch and impact not only Army but Armed Forces as whole. Bangladesh must remain vigilant, pushing for transparency and reform to prevent abuses in the future.
Critics who helped expose Hasina’s regime, who have been the eyes & ears of the revolution, are right to question any signs of overreach. Instead of misunderstanding or at all judging their ideology, we should be more focused on dissecting information the way we did during the revolution, to the advantage.
If we were careful before, we must now be doubly cautious. In a newly liberated Bangladesh, every citizen’s responsibility is to demand justice, guard unity and ensure this victory becomes a lasting triumph. In this vital chapter of Bangladesh’s history, the Army Way proved essential, but it must never replace the people’s path forward. This is the victory of all Bangladeshis-to the heroes, the wounded and the ones sacrificed their loved ones for the freedom.
