NCP leaders clash over Hasnat’s allegations on army’s political role

Sarjis Alam, the chief organiser of the National Citizen Party (NCP) in the northern region, has said he does not find Hasnat Abdullah’s recent Facebook post "appropriate", as it accused the army of conspiring to rehabilitate the Awami League.

Sarjis said, "It is never relevant to position the army against the NCP, other political parties, or the public."

He also clarified that the officer Hasnat referred to in his post was indeed Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman.

Meanwhile, Abdul Hannan Masud, the senior joint chief coordinator of NCP, expressed his frustration over the public disagreement between the two leaders.

He believes that their conflicting positions are causing unnecessary controversy for the party.

On Thursday, Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus told International Crisis Group President and CEO Comfort Ero at the state guesthouse Jamuna that the interim government had no plans to ban the Awami League.

However, he affirmed that party leaders accused of “murder and crimes against humanity” would face trial in Bangladeshi courts.

Following this statement, Hasnat, the chief organiser of NCP in the southern region, made a Facebook post at 2am on Saturday, alleging that the army was pressuring political leaders to reintegrate a “refined Awami League” into politics.

The former coordinator of the Anti-discrimination Student Movement, which led the July Uprising, claimed that on Mar 11 at 2:30pm, he and two others had received a proposal from the cantonment to politically rehabilitate the Awami League.

Sarjis has said he does not find Hasnat’s Facebook post “appropriate”, as it revealed details of an alleged army effort to rehabilitate the Awami League.

Hasnat, in his post, mentioned a disagreement and heated exchange with a senior army officer, who has been in service for over 40 years, during a meeting on Mar 11.

He claimed that he and his team had to leave the meeting before it concluded.

Sarjis, in his own Facebook post on Sunday afternoon, criticised Hasnat’s decision to make such discussions public.

“The way these matters have been shared through a Facebook status does not seem appropriate to me. This could lead to a trust deficit in any important discussions with stakeholders in the future,” he wrote.

He acknowledged that his views differed from Hasnat’s and expected criticism for his stance.

However, he defended his position, saying: “Our principles were never about going with the flow. That is why we stood against the Hasina regime’s guns.”

Sarjis also affirmed his commitment to Hasnat, writing: “Even today, if a gun is pointed at Hasnat, I will stand in front of him.”

However, he maintained that it was necessary to correct certain positions when needed.

He cited his role in the initial anti-quota movement on Jun 6, where he and others took a stand at the Shaheed Minar.

In a post titled “Corrections, Additions, and Omissions Regarding My Meeting with the Army Chief on Mar 11,” Sarjis elaborated on the events of that day.

He clarified that he and Hasnat had met the army chief, and another key party member was supposed to join but could not due to personal reasons.

Sarjis also said they were not summoned to the cantonment.

Instead, their interactions with the military advisor to the army chief were usually conducted via messages whenever necessary.

Referring to the army chief’s speech on the Pilkhana massacre anniversary, where he strongly said “enough is enough”, Sarjis wrote: “I asked his military advisor if they saw anything undesirable. The army chief’s speech seemed comparatively straightforward and harsh. The advisor then asked if we wanted to discuss it directly, to which I responded that it could be discussed. That is how our meeting with the army chief took place. The three of us in that room were the army chief, Hasnat, and me.”

Sarjis acknowledges that different people interpret statements differently.

“Hasnat observed and received the army chief’s comments in a certain way and wrote about it on Facebook, but I see it differently.”

He argued that he did not interpret the discussion as a direct “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 straightforward than before, I did not feel there was pressure for a refined Awami League.

“Instead, he was confidently explaining the long-term political and national issues that might arise if such a party did not emerge,” said Sarjis.

He addressed Hasnat’s remarks in a Facebook post, saying: “The topics raised by Hasnat included the refined Awami League, Saber Hossain, Shirin Sharmin Chowdhury, and Sohel Taj. Discussions were held on whether Awami League would return, the impact of its participation or absence in this election, and if the party could make a comeback later—or whether it would at all. The possible consequences for the country, including stability and instability, were also discussed.”

However, Sarjis pointed out: “The tone in which Hasnat presented the conversation on Facebook made it seem more extreme than it was. While the discussion was certainly more straightforward and confident compared with other occasions, it wasn’t as extreme. The direct opinion expressed was that the refined Awami League’s participation in the election was necessary for the country’s stability.”

Referring to Hasnat’s claim about a heated exchange, Sarjis wrote: “Hasnat mentioned that at one point in the discussion, he asked, ‘how can you forgive a party that hasn’t apologised or admitted its crimes?’ To which the other side angrily responded, ‘you people know nothing. You lack wisdom and experience. We have been in this service for at least 40 years—longer than your lifetime’.”

Sarjis acknowledged that this conversation did take place but clarified its context: “This exchange didn’t happen during our sit-down discussion in the room. Rather, after the army chief stood up to leave, as we were about to depart and say ‘our’ goodbyes.

“I didn’t sense anger in the army chief’s tone. Instead, it felt like a senior addressing juniors, highlighting the weight of experience.”

Dismissing the “Hasnat vs Waker” narrative and calls for slogans, Sarjis wrote: “Hasnat and Army Chief Waker-uz-Zaman hold different positions. It is neither relevant nor appropriate to pit the Bangladesh Army against the National Citizen Party, other political parties, or the public. The reports suggesting the army chief’s resignation are also not our position.”

Expressing his personal view, Sarjis added: “I could be wrong, but this is how I see it at this moment. During the interim government’s tenure, different political parties maintain communication with the army, and that privacy is respected. Even if we strongly disagreed with the army chief’s views, we could have discussed them within ‘our’ party forum, formulated decisions, and taken action accordingly. We could have coordinated with other political parties to make a collective decision against any version of Awami League and launched street movements. Alternatively, if other parties did not align with us, we could have pursued our demands solely as a party and taken to the streets as we are doing now.”

Expressing his firm stance against Awami League’s return to politics, Sarjis wrote: “I believe it is our sense of conscience that will keep us on the right path. This mindset of self-criticism will lead us to our desired destination.

“‘Our’ fight will continue against the return of ‘any version of Awami League’ to Bangladesh’s political scene—the Awami League responsible for the July ‘genocide’, the BDR massacre, and the Shapla Chattar killings. Truth shall prevail.”

‘ONE OF THEM IS LYING’: ABDUL HANNAN MASUD

Meanwhile, Abdul Hannan Masud, the senior joint chief coordinator of NCP, expressed frustration over Sarjis’ Facebook post on Sunday afternoon.

Commenting from his verified Facebook account, he wrote: “What is this, brother! I’m saying this publicly—one of the two is lying. This cannot continue. Holding important party positions while acting individually like this, and making it public, is only bringing unnecessary controversy to NCP.

When people are dreaming about the NCP's future, whose agenda is it to create such controversy around the party?”

He added, “Sorry, but I couldn’t stay silent any longer.”