Maj Gen HRM Rokan Uddin (Retd)
The appointment, continuation or replacement of Bangladesh’s Chief of Army Staff is a matter of national importance. It affects military readiness, institutional discipline, public confidence and the relationship between the armed forces and the civilian government. Such a decision must therefore be approached with seriousness, restraint and sound judgment. It should never become a contest between political camps, a reward for personal loyalty or an outcome dictated by pressure from interested groups. The government has the responsibility to determine its priorities and plan the country’s way forward. Within the applicable constitutional and legal framework, it must also exercise its authority over military leadership. That authority should be exercised independently and responsibly, guided by national security and professional considerations. No political faction, business network, foreign government or informal circle should be allowed to determine who remains Army Chief or who succeeds him.
Where demands arise for the immediate removal of a serving Chief of Army Staff, the first question should concern their factual basis. Is there credible evidence of serious misconduct, corruption, unlawful conduct, grave professional failure or an inability to discharge the responsibilities of command? Or does the demand arise from political dissatisfaction, personal rivalry, speculation or a more convenient desire to install someone? These are fundamentally different situations and must not be treated as though they are the same. Premature removal should require compelling, documented justification. An Army Chief should not be removed merely because some influential people dislike him, because he does not satisfy a particular political expectation or because a campaign has gathered momentum. Decisions taken under such pressure could encourage future groups to believe that military appointments can be manipulated through agitation, lobbying and public intimidation. That would weaken both the government’s authority and the Army’s professional standing.
At the same time, continuity must not become a shield against accountability. If credible evidence establishes serious wrongdoing, unlawful interference in civilian affairs, dangerous professional failure or a substantial inability to perform the duties of office, the government must act through the appropriate lawful process. Institutional stability cannot justify protecting an individual at the expense of the institution. The sound principle is continuity where justified and corrective action where necessary, with both determined by evidence. For context, the official appointment announcement in June 2024 stated that General Waker-Uz-Zaman was appointed Chief of Army Staff for three years, effective from 23 June 2024. That announced tenure provides an important reference point for discussing continuity, although the appointment announcement alone does not settle every legal question concerning early replacement. Any decision affecting such an appointment should therefore be grounded in the applicable rules, a careful assessment of performance and national interest.
A change of government should not, by itself, imply that every senior military appointment must change. Officers serve the state across successive administrations. If each administration treats military leadership as an extension of its political household, professional officers may feel pressure to cultivate partisan patrons. This would undermine the very qualities the country needs in its armed forces: discipline, impartiality, competence and loyalty to lawful authority. The government must nevertheless learn from the past. Bangladesh’s experience of military intervention, political confrontation and contested civil–military relations give ample reason for caution. One essential lesson is that using the armed forces to secure partisan advantage can damage both democratic governance and military professionalism. Another is that allowing military leaders to acquire an independent political role can undermine civilian authority. A healthy relationship requires clear responsibilities, lawful control, professional advice and mutual respect.
Civilian authority must be respected, but respect should never be confused with flattery or unquestioning personal obedience. A professional Army Chief must implement lawful government decisions while giving candid advice about military capabilities, operational risks and the consequences of proposed actions. The government needs an adviser who can respectfully explain why a course of action may be dangerous, impractical or beyond the Army’s proper role. A commander who merely tells political leaders what they wish to hear can expose the country to serious mistakes. The selection of the next Chief of Army Staff should begin with integrity. Honesty must be demonstrated through a sustained record of conduct, financial propriety, responsible administration and fair treatment of subordinates. A candidate’s reputation should rest on evidence from his career, rather than praise arranged by supporters. The government should examine how he has exercised authority, handled public resources, responded to wrongdoing and maintained professional standards under pressure.
Loyalty is equally essential, but its meaning must be clear. The required loyalty is to Bangladesh, its Constitution, its people and lawful civilian authority. It is not personal allegiance to a party leader, a family, a faction or an external patron. An officer capable of serving professionally under successive governments is an asset to the state. Political convenience is a poor substitute for dependable institutional loyalty. Patriotism must also be judged through conduct. It is reflected in readiness to defend sovereignty, protect citizens within the law, preserve military cohesion and place national interests above personal advancement. Speeches, ceremonial appearances and public displays of devotion cannot establish these qualities on their own. The strongest evidence lies in decisions made when duty is difficult and personal advantage points in another direction.
Professional competence must be central to the appointment. The Chief of Army Staff needs substantial command experience, sound operational judgment and a clear understanding of training, logistics, personnel management and military readiness. He must be able to identify weaknesses honestly and address them systematically. Modernization requires more than acquiring equipment; it requires the ability to integrate that equipment with doctrine, maintenance, communications, training and sustainable resources. Intelligence at this level must mean more than academic qualifications. A capable chief needs strategic understanding, analytical discipline and the ability to distinguish reliable information from assumptions. He must understand how military decisions interact with diplomacy, economic constraints, technology and domestic stability. He should be willing to learn, listen to informed disagreement and revise an assessment when the evidence changes. Confidence is valuable; inflexibility can be costly.
Physical fitness and medical suitability are also relevant to the demanding responsibilities of command. The office requires sustained concentration, extensive travel, field engagement and decision-making during prolonged crises. These qualities should be assessed professionally and fairly, according to the actual requirements of the position. Public speculation about health, appearance or age should not replace an appropriate medical and functional assessment. Temperament deserves equal attention. The Army needs a chief who remains composed under pressure, exercises restraint and avoids impulsive decisions. Moral courage is particularly important: the courage to report an uncomfortable fact, resist improper influence, correct a favored subordinate and accept responsibility for failure. A commander who encourages honest reporting is more likely to discover problems before they become disasters.
Fairness within the Army is another critical qualification. Promotions, postings, training opportunities and disciplinary decisions should follow professional standards. An Army Chief must resist favoritism based on political connections, personal relationships, regional identity or membership of an informal circle. Officers and soldiers should believe that competence and service matter. Confidence in fair treatment strengthens discipline and helps prevent factional divisions. The government should use a structured and confidential assessment process for succession. It should review eligible officers’ command records, integrity, professional education, judgment, medical suitability and ability to lead the institution. Seniority deserves proper weight, alongside demonstrated merit and the requirements of the office. Where adverse information exists, it should be verified and assessed fairly. Neither an untested allegation nor an influential recommendation should determine the outcome.
Independence from external influence must apply throughout this process. International military cooperation, training and diplomatic engagement can serve Bangladesh’s interests, but they confer no entitlement to influence its command appointments. Likewise, domestic political or commercial actors should have no private veto over a candidate. The next chief must be selected because he is suitable to lead Bangladesh’s Army, not because someone expects privileged access or favorable treatment. The public has a legitimate interest in military accountability, and responsible criticism should not be discouraged. However, discussion must distinguish evidence from rumor and institutional scrutiny from personal campaigning. Unsupported allegations, public promotion of preferred candidates and speculation about divisions within the command can damage confidence. Authorities should communicate verified decisions clearly while protecting information whose disclosure would compromise legitimate security or personnel interests.
The serving chief also has responsibilities during any debate over his future. He should maintain professional restraint, preserve the chain of command, avoid political positioning and prepare the institution for an orderly transition whenever it lawfully occurs. The dignity of military office is best protected through disciplined conduct, sound leadership and respect for institutional processes. Ultimately, the government should neither yield pressure for premature removal nor retain an officer merely to demonstrate defiance. It should decide on the merits. If serious grounds for action exist, they must be examined and addressed lawfully. If they do not, continuity deserves respect while succession is prepared with care. Bangladesh needs a Chief of Army Staff who is honest in character, patriotic in conduct, loyal to lawful authority, physically capable, professionally accomplished and intelligent in judgment. Above all, it needs a leader with the courage to serve the country without seeking political favor. The appointment must strengthen the Army as a national institution and reinforce the government’s responsible civilian authority. That requires learning from the past, resisting improper influence and placing Bangladesh’s long-term interests above the immediate demands of any group.
hrmrokan@hotmail.com
