Sheikh Hasina did not keep her promise to BNP-Jamaat - Former Army Chief's explosive claim

Former Army Chief General Iqbal Karim Bhuiyan recently revealed some unknown information behind the controversial 2014 elections in a Facebook status. He claimed that after that election, a secret agreement was reached between the Awami League, BNP and Jamaat to hold a free and fair election within six months. However, in the end, the Sheikh Hasina-led government did not keep that promise.

He said that many have questioned the neutral role of the army in the 2014 national parliamentary elections. However, according to him, as a professional army officer at that time, his and his forces' duty was only to obey the constitution. He clearly said that loyalty to a political party or leader, rather than the constitution, should be the highest directive of the army.

General Bhuiyan also highlighted the past political context in his status. He mentioned that the BNP, when it was in power from 2001 to 2006, had adopted various strategies to install a person of its choice as the head of the caretaker government. On the other hand, the Awami League started a 'logi-baithar movement' in opposition to them. President Iazuddin Ahmed himself took over the caretaker head after Justice KM Hasan was not accepted, which failed politically. Then, under pressure from Army Chief Moin U Ahmed, a state of emergency was declared and the elections were postponed. Later, elections were held at the end of 2008, where the Awami League won and formed the government in 2009.

General Bhuiyan claimed that a similar crisis arose in the 2014 elections, where the BNP boycotted the elections and the Awami League won 154 seats unopposed. At that time, a secret agreement was reached through the mediation of some Western embassies that another acceptable election would be held within six months. But that promise was not implemented. He said that by breaking this promise, Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League lost their credibility in the political arena.

Responding to a BNP allegation, he said that BNP had accused the army of supporting the 2014 elections, but they could never provide evidence. He stressed that he never believed in military rule or military intervention like Moin U Ahmed. He proudly said that the army was not used in any political conspiracy during his time as army chief.

In the last part of the status, he quoted a statement by US Army Chief General Mark Milley and said, “The loyalty of the army chief is not to any political leader or party, but to the constitution.” He called the constitution a sacred contract between the people and the state and said that the solution to political problems is the responsibility of the political party, not the army.

Finally, he mentioned that he felt relieved that he was able to keep the army away from the post-election chaos. According to him, the army should not be involved in any internal political problem.

This explosive statement has given rise to new discussions in the political arena. Experts believe that new questions may arise about the compromises and divisions behind the 2014 elections, and such statements could have a profound impact on future politics.