“No Bloody Corridor”: A Defiant Military Rebuff to Yunus’s Interim Calculus
By Mohammad Shariful Alam Chowdhury : In Bangladesh’s rapidly shifting political landscape, one phrase has erupted into national consciousness with unmistakable force: “No Bloody Corridor.” Far from mere rhetoric, it is a pointed and unyielding rebuke—issued by Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman—to a controversial initiative spearheaded by Nobel laureate-turned-caretaker, Mohammad Yunus. The proposal sought to establish a “humanitarian corridor” through Bangladesh into Myanmar’s conflict-ridden Rakhine State. But for the armed forces—and much of the public—it symbolized something far more dangerous: foreign manipulation, a threat to sovereignty, and regional instability.
While the corridor’s stated aim—delivering aid to war-affected Rohingya communities—appears humanitarian on its surface, the military views it as a geopolitical Trojan horse. General Waker's rejection was unequivocal: no such policy should be initiated by an unelected interim regime, particularly one acting without parliamentary mandate or military consultation.
This rebuke goes beyond institutional friction. It reveals deepening discord between Bangladesh’s security establishment and the Yunus-led interim authority, installed under murky and contested circumstances in August 2024. Since taking power, the caretaker regime has operated without electoral legitimacy, bypassing political consensus, centralizing decision-making, and engaging in quiet coordination with international stakeholders. These moves have triggered growing fears of administrative overreach and eroded public trust.
Crucially, General Waker linked his stance to a broader political demand: the holding of national elections no later than December 2025. His message was unmistakable—to both interim rulers and international allies: stability cannot be engineered through diplomatic theatrics or technocratic experiments. It must emerge from popular legitimacy.
Now, “No Bloody Corridor” has moved beyond the barracks and into the streets. It has become a rallying cry for a nation sidelined from its own governance, where decisions are made behind closed doors while citizens endure emergency decrees, media blackouts, and mounting repression.
Paradoxically, the military’s position—troubling in any democratic context—has emerged as the last institutional bulwark against an increasingly autocratic interim setup. This reality underscores a deeper democratic deficit: when generals speak the language of sovereignty and democratic accountability more convincingly than appointed civilian caretakers, something is profoundly broken.
International actors must take heed. Any effort to instrumentalize Bangladesh’s internal crisis—under humanitarian pretexts or geopolitical interests—will only intensify the regime’s legitimacy vacuum. The Yunus government must listen: without elections, accountability, or consent, no corridor, no reform, no initiative will carry public or moral legitimacy.
In that light, “No Bloody Corridor” is more than a military slogan. It is a line in the sand—an assertion that Bangladesh’s sovereignty cannot be subcontracted. The age of elite experiments in governance must end. The people of Bangladesh deserve their rightful voice—and their vote.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন