A cheque was handed over to Chattogram City Mayor Shahadat Hossain by the CPA Chairman, Rear Admiral SM Muniruzzaman (second from right)
Honoring the veterans
The question of whether armed forces officers should receive preferred positions in the civilian sector at the expense of the civilian hierarchy is complex. It brings up a wide range of viewpoints. While there are arguments for giving veterans preferential treatment, it also raises concerns about meritocracy and potential cultural friction in civilian workplaces.
Many believe that offering veterans a job market advantage is a way to honor and recognize their service and sacrifice to the country. Veteran preference is intended to prevent those who served from being penalized economically for the time they spent in the military instead of building a civilian career. Military officers often bring highly valuable skills to the civilian workforce, such as leadership, strategic planning, teamwork, and accountability, which benefit civilian organizations. Veterans are praised for their discipline, organizational skills, and commitment to achieving goals.
Arguments against veteran preference
A central concern is that giving preferential treatment could undermine the principle of hiring the most qualified candidate based solely on merit, potentially leading to a less effective workforce. Not all military skills and leadership styles translate directly to the civilian sector. Some veterans, particularly those from combat roles, may struggle to articulate the relevance of their experience to civilian employers, who may not understand its value.
The hierarchical, command-based culture of the military can clash with the more collaborative or decentralized structures of many civilian workplaces. Veterans may be perceived as too rigid, direct, or impatient with the slower pace of civilian decision-making. Civilian employees may feel resentment if they perceive a veteran was hired or promoted over a more qualified, non-veteran candidate.
Some veterans face challenges adapting to civilian workplace culture, which can affect social integration and team dynamics. This can be particularly pronounced for former officers who are used to a high degree of authority and may struggle to adapt to being called by their first name.
The debate over veteran preference highlights a tension between two competing principles: honoring military service and ensuring a merit-based civilian workforce. In government hiring, where veteran preference is a legally mandated policy, safeguards are put in place to ensure that veterans still meet job qualifications. Ultimately, a balanced approach would focus on programs that effectively translate military skills and experience for civilian employers or state-owned enterprises, rather than a system of blanket preferences that could disrupt established hierarchies. This allows veterans to compete based on their proven skills while still honoring their service.
What happens in South Asia
In much of South Asia, the armed forces remain powerful political actors long after wars have ended and martial law has receded into memory. Their influence is not always exercised through tanks in the streets or coups in parliament. Increasingly, it is expressed through the quiet but pervasive takeover of lucrative civilian jobs—appointments in ports and shipping authorities, public hospitals, and even universities.
These positions, intended to be filled by civilian technocrats and academics, have become rewards for the top brass of the armed forces. From Bangladesh and Pakistan to Sri Lanka and Nepal, retired generals, admirals, and air marshals have been parachuted into positions that have little to do with their military expertise. A port chairman does not necessarily need battlefield command skills. A hospital director’s responsibilities are worlds apart from those of a regimental commander. Yet the trend persists, and it reveals much about the civil–military imbalance that continues to define governance in the region.
A system of patronage disguised as governance
At its core, these appointments function less as professional placements and more as political gifts. Governments under pressure—whether from fragile coalitions, public unrest, or international scrutiny—find it useful to appease the armed forces by offering them prized civilian jobs. In return, the military provides a measure of political stability, or at least refrains from overt interference.
The problem, however, is that this “gift economy” undermines the very purpose of these civilian posts. A shipping authority should be led by someone with expertise in maritime trade, global logistics, and supply chain management. A university vice-chancellor should be an academic of international repute. A hospital director should understand the intricacies of healthcare delivery and medical ethics. When these roles are filled on the basis of uniform rather than merit, institutions stagnate.
Blocking the civilian cadres
Perhaps the most damaging consequence of this practice is its impact on the civilian cadres. South Asian bureaucracies are full of talented individuals who spend decades working their way up ministries and professional ladders. Their career paths are built around examinations, merit-based promotions, and specialized training.
Yet at the top, they find themselves blocked by retired generals suddenly installed in coveted positions. This not only demoralizes them but also discourages younger recruits. Why dedicate years to building expertise if the most prestigious posts are reserved for someone else? The result is frustration, career stagnation, and, all too often, the outflow of talent abroad.
Militarization of the civil sphere
The creeping militarization of civilian jobs also reshapes institutional cultures. Universities run by ex-officers often adopt a command-and-control style of administration rather than nurturing academic freedom. Ports and shipping authorities become governed by rigid hierarchies rather than the flexibility required by global trade. Hospitals may become more concerned with discipline than with patient-centered care.
Over time, this blurring of roles erodes the distinction between military and civilian spheres—an essential foundation of democracy. The armed forces begin to appear as a parallel governing class, not confined to defense but involved in education, health, and commerce.
Case Studies
Bangladesh: Ports and Shipping as “Retirement Homes”
In Bangladesh, the most visible encroachment has been in the ports. Rear Admiral S. M. Moniruzzaman is the current Chairman of the Chattogram (or Chittagong) Port Authority (CPA). In contrast, Rear Admiral Shaheen Rahman is the current Chairman of the Mongla Port Authority (MPA). Military men have also led the Khulna Shipyard. As of September 2025, Commodore Mahmudul Malek is the Managing Director of the Bangladesh Shipping Corporation (BSC). He assumed the role on January 23, 2024. Commodore Md. Shafiul Bari is the newly appointed Director General of the Department of Shipping in Bangladesh. The department operates under the Ministry of Shipping and is responsible for maritime safety and regulations. Some of the government-owned Marine Academies and the Maritime University are operated by Naval Officers.
The pattern extends beyond maritime affairs. Maj. Gen. S. M. Salahuddin Islam became executive chairman of the Export Processing Zones Authority, while Maj. Gen. (Retd) Siddiqur Rahman Sarker was appointed chairman of RAJUK, the capital’s urban development authority. Meanwhile, retired officers have been installed as university Vice-Chancellors and hospital directors. Some military officers are also posted as Ambassadors in some countries, as are military attaches. For civilian cadres who clear the demanding Bangladesh Civil Service exams, the message is clear: the top positions are often out of reach.
Pakistan: An Institutionalized Military Economy
Pakistan provides the most entrenched example. The military not only occupies civilian posts but also runs one of the region’s largest corporate empires through its foundations. Air Marshal Arshad Malik was appointed CEO of Pakistan International Airlines in 2018. Lt Gen (Retd) Asim Saleem Bajwa chaired the powerful China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) Authority. Karachi Port Trust and other strategic enterprises routinely have retired brigadiers and admirals at their helm.
This revolving door ensures that military dominance persists across state institutions. Civilian cadres from the Pakistan Administrative Service often hit a ceiling, while critical enterprises such as airlines, ports, and mills suffer chronic inefficiency. The public sees state bodies run on a rigid hierarchy rather than technical expertise.
Sri Lanka: From Civil War to Civilian Capture
Sri Lanka’s thirty-year war entrenched the armed forces as political stakeholders. After 2009, governments rewarded generals and admirals with prestigious civilian jobs. Gen. Daya Ratnayake, former Army Commander, became chairman of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority in 2019. Adm. Jayanath Colombage, a former Navy chief, was made Foreign Secretary in 2020. Maj. Gen. G. A. Chandrasiri became Governor of the Northern Province, later chairing Airport & Aviation Services.
Even sectors such as tourism, urban development, and higher education saw ex-military appointees. Civil servants and academics argue that merit-based progression has been warped by the logic of patronage.
Nepal: Quiet Expansion into Education and Health
Nepal’s military has not historically dominated politics to the same degree. But the post-monarchy period has seen growing placements of ex-generals as ambassadors, chairs of development boards, and leaders in university administration. Universities already plagued by politicization now face further distortions, as retired officers assume vice-chancellor or board posts. Critics warn that this undermines academic independence, while the army insists it is simply continuing its service to the nation.
India: Subtle but Growing Presence
India has maintained a stronger tradition of civilian supremacy, with the IAS continuing to dominate administration. But recent decades show a drift. Admiral D. K. Joshi, a former Navy chief, was appointed Lieutenant Governor of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands in 2017. Gen. J. J. Singh, ex–army chief, became governor of Arunachal Pradesh, followed by Lt Gen Nirbhay Sharma.
Though exceptions, these appointments spark debate about precedent. Civilian cadres worry that, over time, governors, regulators, or even university leadership could become staging grounds for retired officers.
Maldives and Smaller States
In smaller South Asian states like the Maldives, the military’s role in civilian administration is less visible but still significant. Officers have been placed in airport management, shipping, and tourism security zones. In tiny bureaucracies, even a handful of such appointments can have an outsized influence, limiting opportunities for civil servants.
Long-term risks
The risks of militarizing civilian institutions are clear:
- Erosion of professionalism: Institutions fail to deliver world-class service when not led by specialists.
- Civil–military imbalance: Governance becomes skewed toward uniformed elites.
- Public disillusionment: Young professionals see closed doors, leading to brain drain.
- Institutional decay: Ports, universities, and hospitals fall behind global competitors.
The irony is that many retired officers are indeed capable leaders. But their skills would be better applied in defense policy, veterans’ welfare, or security think tanks—not in running ports, universities, or hospitals.
A way forward
If South Asia is serious about strengthening democracy and governance, it must:
- Protect meritocracy: Appointments must be competitive and transparent.
- Restrict postings: Retired officers should serve in defense-related or security fields.
- Invest in civilians: Build professional cadres through training and mentorship.
- Ensure oversight: Media, parliament, and civil society must scrutinize appointments.
Conclusion
The dominance of retired officers in lucrative civilian jobs may appear, at first, to be a harmless way to reward national service. But in practice, it is a short-term fix with long-term costs. It blocks talented civilians, weakens institutions, and entrenches a culture of patronage rather than professionalism.
South Asia cannot afford this erosion of meritocracy. If the region is to compete globally—in trade, education, healthcare, and innovation—it must empower its civilian cadres to rise to the top on the strength of their expertise. The armed forces deserve respect for their sacrifices. However, true respect is demonstrated not by handing out gifts, but by upholding the integrity of civilian institutions.
