Rokan's Journal

-By Brig Gen (Retd) HRM Rokan Uddin, psc. phd

Introduction

The murmurings around the appointment of a National Security Advisor (NSA) to the Chief Advisor (CA) of the Government of Bangladesh have sparked debate, confusion, and concern in policy circles. Given the absence of a structured National Security Council (NSC) in Bangladesh, such an appointment raises questions of legality, relevance, and administrative propriety.

To evaluate this issue holistically, one must understand the global norms and functions of the NSC and NSA, their alignment with executive structures, and their interaction with the military and foreign affairs apparatus.

What is a National Security Council (NSC)?

The National Security Council is a high-level decision-making body, typically chaired by the head of government that deliberates on issues of national security, defense, and foreign policy. The nature and power of the NSC vary by political system:

1. United States (Presidential System): Created by the National Security Act of 1947. Headed by President (also Commander-in-Chief). Members are Vice President, Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and others. The NSA is a statutory member. Functions are Executive in nature. Sets military policy and national security doctrine. Directs military and intelligence operations.

2. India (Parliamentary System): Formed in 1998 under the National Security Council Secretariat. Headed by Prime Minister. Members are Ministers of Defence, Home, External Affairs, and Finance. Functioned by Advisory body. Key Components are the Strategic Policy Group (SPG), NSAB (Advisory Board), and the NSA. No direct military command authority. Final decisions rest with the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

3. United Kingdom:  Informal NSC model under the Cabinet Office. Headed by Prime Minister. National Security Adviser reports directly to the PM. Functions are Advisory and strategic planning; implements national security strategy.

Role and Authority of a National Security Advisor (NSA)

The NSA serves as the principal advisor to the head of government on national security affairs. Their role may include Coordinating between different arms of government (defense, foreign affairs, intelligence). Preparing briefings and policy options on strategic matters. Organizing responses during crises. Overseeing intelligence assessments and threat analysis. Limitations are No command authority (except in the US context as part of NSC functioning).Not a cabinet minister, unless formally designated.

In India, for example, the NSA advises the PM but does not override decisions of the Cabinet or military command. The 2019 Balakot airstrike decision was a political/military one, not initiated by the NSA but coordinated in its aftermath.

The Bangladesh Context: A Misplaced Appointment?

Bangladesh does not have a formal NSC or legal framework for an NSA position. The current setup is guided by the Rules of Business under the Prime Minister’s Office or, in the case of a caretaker setup, the Chief Advisor and the Council of Advisors.

Problems with the Current Appointment: It has no Legal Basis. The NSA position has not been created through a statutory act or executive ordinance. The appointee is not part of the Council of Advisors, thus does not hold any constitutional authority. Reports suggest the NSA is involved in foreign policy articulation, military affairs, and strategic operations without institutional legitimacy. This creates overlap and potential friction with the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, and the armed forces command structure.

Lack of Accountability: Not being a sworn advisor, the NSA does not owe allegiance under official secrets or legal confidentiality. Possibility of sensitive information being handled without checks and balances.

Chain of Command Disruption: In Bangladesh, Service Chiefs report to the Defence Minister, who is currently the Chief Advisor himself. The NSA’s interference disturbs this chain.

Relationship with Foreign Ministry and Armed Forces

In a functioning state system: The Foreign Ministry manages external diplomatic relations and treaties. The Military is subject to civilian command through the Defence Ministry. The NSA, if present, coordinates policy, not command or diplomacy.

In Bangladesh: The absence of institutional clarity has led to confusion, with the NSA allegedly influencing areas outside his scope. This raises serious questions about policy coherence, national integrity, and bureaucratic harmony.

Recommendations for Bangladesh

The creation of sensitive security positions such as a National Security Advisor (NSA) must not be done on an ad-hoc basis. Any such move requires a well-defined institutional framework, backed by law and parliamentary oversight. Establishing power centers outside the existing constitutional setup risks undermining both accountability and the functional harmony of the state apparatus. The government must avoid parallel chains of authority, especially in the security and intelligence sectors.

To ensure coherence in national security management, Bangladesh may consider formalizing a National Security Council (NSC). This council should have a clear legal mandate and defined jurisdiction. Its core members may include the Chief Advisor or Prime Minister as Chair, along with the Foreign and Home Affairs Advisors or Ministers, chiefs of the three defense services, and the heads of major intelligence agencies. If an NSA is deemed necessary, the role must be advisory in nature and included within the council as a non-executive member with strictly defined legal parameters.

The NSA’s responsibilities should be explicitly codified by law to avoid functional overreach. The advisor must be appointed through an official gazette notification, take an oath of secrecy, and remain accountable to the highest executive authority—namely, the Prime Minister or Chief Advisor. Under no circumstances should the NSA have independent command authority or engage directly with service chiefs unless specifically delegated by the head of government. The chain of military command must remain intact and free from political manipulation.

Maintaining civil-military balance is vital. The military should continue to operate under professional command structures, while political leadership exercises oversight through proper institutional channels. Any attempt to circumvent or politicize this balance risks long-term damage to both national security and democratic governance.

Equally important is preserving the primacy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in all matters of external policy. The MoFA should remain the principal body for diplomatic coordination. An NSA must not overshadow, bypass, or contradict the nation’s established diplomatic channels. Any engagement with foreign governments or intelligence coordination must be done in partnership with, or under the guidance of, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure clarity, coherence, and credibility in international relations.

In sum, national security must be managed through strong institutions—not personalities. A legal, accountable, and coordinated framework is essential to safeguard both the sovereignty and democratic integrity of Bangladesh.

Conclusion

Bangladesh is at a critical juncture in its democratic and institutional development. The introduction of a National Security Advisor without legal grounding or strategic necessity risks creating instability, confusion, and parallel governance. While national security policy coordination is essential, it must come through institutional legitimacy, transparency, and functional harmony between civil, military, and diplomatic organs. Any deviation may lead to a weakening of statecraft, and worse, erosion of public trust in governance.

A well-balanced, legally grounded security framework is essential for Bangladesh to face emerging challenges without compromising democratic institutions. The creation of roles like NSA, if necessary, must not be rushed or done informally. Instead, Bangladesh should prioritize: Rule of law, Institutional integrity, Democratic oversight, Civil-military harmony, Respect for established ministries. This approach ensures national security is strengthened, not politicized or fragmented. Would you like this structured into a policy brief or PowerPoint slides for presentation purposes?