Sarjis disagrees with Hasnat Abdullah’s facebook post on military, deems process was 'inappropriate'

In response to a post by National Citizens Party (NCP) leader Hasnat Abdullah, which involved the military, another prominent NCP organiser, Sarjis Alam, posted a Facebook status on Sunday, expressing his "slight disagreement" and offering a correction regarding the events of March 11. Sarjis said that he and Hasnat had been invited to meet the Chief of Army Staff General Waker-Uz-Zaman but were not ‘called to the military base’, as Hasnat had implied.

Sarjis added, "The way these matters were presented through Facebook status, I did not find the process appropriate. It could create a trust deficit in future important discussions with any stakeholder."

According to a report from Sweden-based news outlet Netra News, quoting Army Headquarters, Hasnat Abdullah's post was described as "purely a political stunt and nothing more." The report, published on Saturday, further clarified that Hasnat's allegations had sparked considerable discussion.

Earlier, on Friday, Hasnat Abdullah posted on social media about an alleged conspiracy, stating, “On March 11, at 2:30 pm, I informed you about a new conspiracy called the 'Refined Awami League,' which is entirely India's plan. Figures like Saber Hossain Chowdhury, Shirin Sharmin, and Taposh are being positioned to execute this plan.”

Hasnat's post stirred significant controversy, leading to Sarjis Alam's response on Sunday. Below is the translated text of Sarjis Alam's post:

“Corrections, Additions, and Clarification Regarding My March 11 Meeting with the Army Chief:

On March 11, I, along with Hasnat, met with the Army Chief.. A key member of our party was also supposed to join us, but could not due to personal issues. First and foremost, I want to clarify that we were not invited to the military base that day. Instead, whenever necessary, we exchanged messages with the Army Chief's military adviser, who would ask us questions and provide answers.

On the day the Army Chief made a strong statement on the Pilkhana massacre anniversary, saying ‘Enough is enough,’ I asked the military advisor if they saw anything undesirable in the situation. The Army Chief’s remarks seemed relatively straightforward and harsh, and the adviser asked if we wanted to discuss this directly. I agreed, and later, we met with the Army Chief. The three of us—Army Chief, Hasnat, and I—were in that room.

As a person, everyone interprets statements differently. I disagree with how Hasnat observed and received the Army Chief’s comments and later posted them on Facebook. From my perspective, I did not see the Army Chief's statement as a ‘proposal’ but rather as an ‘expression of opinion.’ There is a difference between expressing an opinion and making a proposal. Although the Army Chief was more direct compared to previous occasions, I did not feel that any 'pressure' was applied regarding the 'Refined Awami League' issue. Rather, he spoke confidently about the long-term political consequences if such a group did not emerge.

Regarding the topics Hasnat mentioned—like the 'Refined Awami League,' Saber Hossain, Shirin Sharmin, Sohel Taj, and whether the Awami League would return to power—these issues were indeed discussed. We also discussed the potential impacts on the country’s stability and the political landscape depending on whether Awami League participated in the upcoming elections. However, I believe the way Hasnat presented these conversations on Facebook overstated the extremity of the discussion. While it was undoubtedly more direct and confident, it was not as dramatic as portrayed.

Hasnat also mentioned another part of the conversation where he questioned how the Army Chief could forgive a party that had not yet apologised or admitted its crimes. This exchange did happen, but it took place after the meeting ended, just as we were leaving the Army Headquarters. I did not perceive the Army Chief’s remarks as made in anger. Rather, he spoke as a senior person imparting his experience to us juniors.

The narrative around ‘Hasnat vs Waker’ is not something I anticipate, as Hasnat’s position and the Army Chief’s are fundamentally different. It is never relevant to pit the Bangladesh Army against political parties or the people. Furthermore, the call for the Army Chief’s resignation that has surfaced in some quarters is not our stance.

On a personal note, I want to express an opinion. I may be wrong, but at this moment, I feel this is right: During the interim government period, political parties have maintained communication with the Bangladesh Army regarding the country’s situation. They have kept this communication private. While we may disagree with some of the discussions we had with the Army Chief, we could have discussed these matters further within our party and reached a decision. We could have then implemented strategies, either alone or in cooperation with other parties, to take action against any version of the Awami League.

However, I did not find the process of disclosing these matters on Facebook appropriate. It could lead to a trust issue in future critical discussions with any stakeholders.

I am sure some people will criticise me for disagreeing with my comrade, Hasnat. But I believe we have never gone along with the current trend or just followed the crowd. We stood against the regime when it was targeting us, and we are still committed to standing by Hasnat if anyone points a weapon at him.

However, when I feel the need to correct a comrade's point, I will do so, because it is this sense of integrity that has always guided us. It was this integrity that led us to be in the front row during the 6th June protest against the quota system.

I believe that this sense of integrity will keep us on the right path and that this spirit of self-criticism will lead us to our desired destination. Our struggle against the ‘Awami League version’ responsible for the July genocide, the BDR killings, and the Shapla Square massacre will continue.”