The state of civil-military relations (CMR) in Bangladesh is not what it should be. And there are many reasons for it. But what is more irksome than having to bear such a condition is a situation where the two are not very forthcoming in either acknowledging the shortcomings or in engaging in free and frank discussions on the issue. Many would disagree that there is much wrong in the realm of CMR in Bangladesh, and cite areas where the military has been operating, whenever called upon to do so, to the satisfaction of both the parties, particularly in areas of disaster and post-disaster management. While one cannot take issue with that point of view one must point out that, the aspect of cooperation referred to above, involves but only one facet of the civilian component in the CMR matrix. In doing so we overlook the very important constituent of the "civil" in the equation, which is the civil society. Fractured as it is, recognition by the civil society of the military's role, as a partner in achieving the development goals and thwarting threats from within and without, determines the state of CMR in any country, more so in Bangladesh. It is an inescapable fact that historical antecedents which led to the birth of the country, and the experience of not only the nine month War of Liberation but also of the stormy, albeit short, struggle against another form of colonialism between 1947 and '71, where the majority was dominated by the minority, shaped the psyche of the civil society as well as the military. That is what makes the issue of CMR in our context not only an interesting exercise but a very challenging one too if one were to honestly indulge in identifying the shortcomings and taking measures to remove them. And we must look at the issue dispassionately and objectively to determine the future course of CMR in Bangladesh. In that context, the four-day long workshop on CMR and its relevance to the security of Bangladesh, organised jointly BIISS and BEI, the two leading think tanks in Bangladesh along with the APCSS, Hawaii, is not only timely, the significance of CMR is accentuated by the fact that the country has just emerged from the cusp of a unique political dispensation that had lasted for two years, the making of which the military had a direct role in. This is perhaps the first of its kind of exercise that is being participated by the all the elements of the security sector -- the security forces that wield the power on behalf, and by the expressed orders, of the state -- and by the elected representatives of the people whose job it is to exercise not only scrutiny but also ensure accountability -- and members of the civil society whose job it is to ensure not only accountability but also demand on behalf of the society it represents, transparency in the working of all the elements whose smooth and harmonious interaction translates into an affordable and workable security policy. Although traditionally it inherited the legacy of colonial force in its psychological makeup, where the army was the major coercive power employed by the British to subdue local aspirations, it was the Bangali elements of the Pakistan army that willfully, not under any duress or any ulterior motive, as some incurable critics of the Bangladesh military so cynically misrepresent, broke ranks with the Pakistan army and joined the Liberation War alongside the people. Perhaps no other military in recent times had had to undergo so much upheaval internally, and suffer so many traumas infused by political turmoil since 1971, than the Bangladesh Armed Forces. It does not help to overlook the very nature of the birth of the military in Bangladesh. Neither does it help for insensitive quarters to conduct an intellectual offensive which goes beyond the description of constructive criticism. And as regard the civil society, much of its circumspection stems from the way the Bangladesh military usurped state power, which saw a quasi-military and quasi- democracy for a good part of the seventies and eighties, not to speak of two presidents killed by some wayward elements of the army. But while the military, wittingly or otherwise, intervened in state affairs, it must be said that every time that happened some elements of the civil society tried to ingratiate themselves to the military by extolling the virtues of intervention and making it appear that it is the military that is the saviour of democracy in Bangladesh. It was patently clear, ever more so, after 1/11. The reality is that the military must subjugate itself to lawful political control, not because they are necessarily wiser but because they are the elected representatives of the people and through them remain accountable to the people. And it is "only those who are elected by the people have the authority and the responsibility to decide the fate of a nation."