¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

THE concept of national security has undergone a profound transformation in the 21st century. Once largely defined by military capabilities and external defence, national security now encompasses a vast spectrum of interconnected domains, including cyber resilience, economic integrity, public health and climate sustainability. In the light of these shifting dynamics, Khalilur Rahman’s appointment as Bangladesh’s national security adviser represents a significant evolution in the country’s strategic approach. While some may question the suitability of a civilian in a role traditionally associated with military leadership, this move reflects a necessary evolution in understanding the multifaceted nature of modern threats. It is imperative to explore how contemporary national security demands integrated civilian oversight, draws on global precedents and examines the implications of Khalilur Rahman’s appointment for Bangladesh’s internal and external security strategies.

National security refers to the protection of a nation’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and the well-being of its citizens from internal and external threats. In today’s interconnected world, the concept of national security has evolved beyond traditional military threats to encompass non-traditional security such as economic stability, cyber security, environmental sustainability, food security and public health. As states face increasingly complex and transnational challenges, the strategies for ensuring national security must also adapt to reflect these shifting realities.

National security has been predominantly concerned with military threats and defence strategies. Realist theorists, such as Hans Morgenthau, emphasised the role of power politics and the state in maintaining security through military strength. This perspective was dominant during the cold-war era when the threat of nuclear war and global ideological confrontation framed national security discourses. Defence budgets, intelligence gathering and military alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact were central to national security strategies.

With the end of the cold war and the rise of globalisation, the nature of threats to national security began to change. Issues such as terrorism, cyber attacks, pandemics, climate change and economic instability became central concerns. The 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States marked a significant turning point, bringing the issue of non-state actors and asymmetric warfare to the forefront. This led to the development of doctrines like the US National security strategy which advocated for pre-emptive action and comprehensive counter-terrorism measures.

Cyber security has emerged as a significant pillar of national security in the digital age. Nation-states and non-state actors are increasingly using cyber tools to conduct espionage, disrupt critical infrastructure and influence democratic processes. The 2016 US election interference and various ransomware attacks targeting hospitals and financial institutions globally illustrate the growing cyber threat landscape.

In the case of Bangladesh, it is often regarded as a victim of the ‘tyranny of geography,’ given its strategic position between two powerful neighbours — India and China — which makes it inherently vulnerable to regional pressures and geopolitical rivalries. Surrounded on three sides by India and sharing a border with Myanmar while facing the Bay of Bengal to the south, Bangladesh must constantly navigate a delicate balance between powerful regional interests. This geographic reality, compounded by natural vulnerabilities like flooding and climate change, has often limited Bangladesh’s strategic autonomy. In this context, its national security resonates with a broader need for enhanced strategic deterrence — through advanced defence technology, cyber capabilities, satellite infrastructure and energy security — to assert national sovereignty. However, the most effective shield may lie in continued economic growth and diversification, building on the country’s impressive progress in the apparel industry, poverty reduction and human development. By investing in infrastructure, education and regional cooperation and maintaining balanced foreign relations, Bangladesh has the potential to transform its geographic constraints into strategic advantages, emerging not as a pawn but as a vital bridge in South Asia’s evolving geopolitical landscape.

As of 2025, Bangladesh is grappling with a complex array of national security challenges that threaten its political stability, economic resilience and social cohesion. The ousting of former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, followed by a period marked by deep-seated grievances, simmering resentment and widespread discontent, has placed significant strain on governance. The interim administration, led by Muhammad Yunus, has committed extensive efforts to restoring law and order. In a major step towards normalisation, the government recently launched ‘Operation Devil Hunt,’ which has helped to re-establish stability in various aspects of public life.

At the same time, the administration has had to struggle with the disruptive impact of hundreds of protests and demonstrations, a reflection of the nation’s democratic fervour. Concurrently, the rapid pace of digitalisation has exposed serious cyber security vulnerabilities, including a significant data breach that has raised alarm across institutions.

On the regional front, the protracted Rohingya refugee crisis continues to escalate security concerns and impose a heavy burden on the national economy. Additionally, strained relations with India over a range of unresolved issues have further complicated Bangladesh’s diplomatic and economic landscape. Environmental threats, particularly in coastal regions, persistently displace communities and strain national resources, intensifying internal pressures and presenting long-term risks to national security.

In this broader context, the national security adviser holds a central position in shaping and harmonising policies aimed at safeguarding national strategic interests. Serving as the principal adviser to the head of government on matters of national security, this individual oversees a broad spectrum of issues ranging from defence, intelligence and cyber security to economic stability, political risk and international diplomacy. The position requires a deep understanding of both domestic and global dynamics and the adviser often acts as a bridge between civilian and military institutions, ensuring a coherent and integrated approach to national security policy and crisis management.

The appointment of Khalilur Rahman as the national security adviser has sparked considerable discussion, particularly on social media. Many critics question how a civilian could be entrusted with such a critical position when the country has a roster of experienced generals, admirals and air marshals. This criticism, however, often stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between national defence and national security. In our collective psyche, national security is still predominantly viewed through the narrow lens of military operations and the role of a national security adviser is almost instinctively associated with the armed forces.

As a result, the appointment of a civilian without a military background may seem unconventional or even difficult for some to fully comprehend. Even in routine institutional practice, when selecting personnel for senior advisory roles related to security, there is often a clear preference for military officers over even police officials despite the latter’s potentially broader experience in dealing with internal security, law enforcement and legal frameworks. Yet in today’s rapidly evolving global landscape, where security threats are multifaceted, ranging from cyber attacks and terrorism to disinformation, climate risks, and transnational crimes, the notion of national security has expanded well beyond traditional defence.

Against this backdrop, it may be time to revisit our assumptions about who is best suited to advise on national security. The role of a national security adviser is not merely to oversee military preparedness but to coordinate a wide array of policies that protect a nation’s strategic interests. In this broader and more nuanced context, the appointment of a civilian like Khalilur Rahman reflects a deliberate shift towards a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of national security.

National defence is a vital but narrow subset of the broader construct of national security. Defence primarily addresses military threats and wartime contingencies. National security, on the other hand, is an ever-present, multidimensional framework encompassing a wide range of issues — food and health security, economic resilience, political stability, cultural harmony, religious and communal coexistence, human rights and the freedom of expression. It permeates every hour of our daily lives and informs of every aspect of governance.

In this broader context, appointing a civilian with expertise in economics, law, international relations and diplomacy is not only appropriate, it is essential. National security today requires integrated, cross-sectoral thinking. Most modern conflicts, on a closer inspection, are rooted not in military might but in economic disparities and geopolitical competition. A deep understanding of global systems and domestic vulnerabilities is key to formulating a sustainable and inclusive security strategy.

Khalilur Rahman’s academic and professional background spans economics, law, international affairs and public administration. His appointment reflects a deliberate and forward-thinking shift, one that prioritises intellectual breadth and inter-ministerial coordination over a singular focus on military credentials. This is in line with global best practices where national security advisers are often drawn from interdisciplinary backgrounds and are tasked with synthesising input from a range of ministries, including but not limited to defence.

That said, clarity in administrative communication remains essential. The official circular suggesting that Khalilur Rahman will also oversee defence matters could create confusion. In well-structured governance systems, the portfolios of national security and defence are distinct yet collaborative. While a national security adviser must regularly consult the ministry of defence on relevant matters, the role should not subsume the specialised responsibilities of defence professionals. Maintaining this separation ensures both civilian oversight and technical rigour.

A comparative analysis of the national security advisors of India and the United States may offer valuable insights. The national security advisers of both India and the United States have played pivotal roles in shaping strategic and security policies of their countries. In India, the first national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra, an Indian foreign service officer, laid the foundation of the role by combining it with the position of the principal secretary to the prime minister. He was succeeded by JN Dixit, MK Narayanan and Shivshankar Menon, each bringing diplomatic or intelligence backgrounds to the position. Ajit Doval, the current national security adviser since 2014, is a retired Indian Police Service officer and former director of the Intelligence Bureau, known for his hands-on approach to national security, counterterrorism and strategic policymaking. These advisers have been central to managing India’s defence posture, intelligence reforms and complex regional challenges, particularly concerning Pakistan, China and internal security.

The role of the United States national security adviser has been held by a diverse group of individuals with backgrounds ranging from academia and diplomacy to high-ranking military service. Henry Kissinger, a political scientist and diplomat, was instrumental in shaping détente with the USSR and initiating relations with China, later serving as the secretary of state. His successor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, another political scientist, focused on cold war strategy and human rights, notably supporting Afghan resistance against Soviet forces. Colin Powell, a decorated army general, brought a military perspective, becoming the first African American national security adviser. Condoleezza Rice, a Soviet expert, played a pivotal role during 9/11 and the Iraq war before becoming the secretary of state. Stephen Hadley and Thomas Donilon, both lawyers with policy backgrounds, helped steer US defence and Asia-Pacific strategies respectively. Military leaders like James L Jones, HR McMaster and Michael Flynn emphasised defence readiness and global military alliances, though Flynn’s brief tenure ended in controversy. Susan Rice, both diplomat and academic, has prioritised multilateral diplomacy, alliances, human rights and technology. John Bolton, known for his hawkish stance, and Robert C O’Brien, with a focus on NATO and Indo-Pacific engagement, reflect the evolving strategic priorities of the US in a changing global landscape. The current national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, under president Biden, is known for integrating diplomacy with domestic policy concerns, cyber security and reinforcing alliances. These advisors reflect the changing nature of global threats and the strategic priorities of their respective administrations.

In this context, any civilian officer’s appointment should be viewed not as a departure from tradition but as a necessary evolution in how we conceptualise national security in the 21st century. As threats grow increasingly complex and interconnected, the security of a nation lies not solely in its military strength, but in its ability to safeguard the economic, political and social well-being of its citizens. Appointing a civilian with the requisite breadth of knowledge is not a liability, it is a strategic asset. However, this does not preclude the possibility of appointing military officers as security advisers who possess a proven track record in dealing with national and international security concerns relevant to Bangladesh. Their background and expertise in strategic defence, intelligence and crisis management may offer valuable insights and capabilities in addressing emerging security challenges.

The appointment of Khalilur Rahman as Bangladesh’s national security adviser signals a significant and forward-looking shift in the nation’s approach to safeguarding its strategic interests. By emphasising interdisciplinary expertise over traditional military credentials, the government recognises that national security today is rooted in economic foresight, social stability, technological preparedness and diplomatic acumen. Rather than weakening the defence apparatus, this broader vision enhances it, acknowledging that contemporary threats cannot be neutralised through force alone. As global challenges become increasingly hybrid and unpredictable, civilian-led, inclusive and well-coordinated security frameworks will be essential for long-term resilience. This appointment should, therefore, be embraced not as a break from convention but as an informed alignment with global best practices in security governance.

Ìý

Dr Md Motiar Rahman is a retired deputy inspector general.