The face of Bangladesh’s founding father, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, will soon be erased from the country’s currency. Credit: Kumkum Chadha/IPS

By Kumkum Chadha
DELHI, Jan 7 2025 (IPS)

History seems to be chasing Bangladesh even while the interim government is grappling with real issues of administering a country thrown into chaos.

In July last year, this south Asian country faced an upheaval when a students’ movement drove out Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from office.

Protestors took to the streets over a quota system for government jobs. Their angst—disproportionate benefits to descendants of freedom fighters.

Once political parties and fundamentalists jumped in, the focus shifted, with protestors demanding Hasina’s resignation.

Hasina was forced to leave the country she had ruled for 15 years. She landed in India for what was then flagged as a temporary refuge: “For the moment only,” as India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had then told the Indian Parliament.

Back home in Bangladesh, an interim government headed by Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus took charge of governing a country clearly at a crossroads—in other words, a toss-up between Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s legacy or charting a new course without the baggage of history.

It is against this backdrop that one must examine the new narrative of the interim government to reprint Bangladesh’s currency notes.

Initiated by the Central Bank of Bangladesh, the new notes will no longer carry the customary picture of Bangabandhu as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, as the former leader who led the country to independence is known. In common parlance, Bangabandhu means Friend of Bangla people.

“Phasing out” is how officials from Bangladesh Bank explained the move, while 70-year-old Alamgir, a witness to the War of Liberation, called it “an altered history,” in other words, pressing a delete button on Bangabandhu’s legacy.

To say that the sins of a daughter have adversely impacted her father’s legacy may be a bit of a stretch because even on his own, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was a controversial figure.

A folk hero turned dictator, he failed to address the real issues of Bangladesh. Instead, he became authoritarian and suspended rights. As Prime Minister, his daughter Hasina followed in her father’s footsteps.

Hence the anger of the people that spilled to the streets last year took a toll both on Sheikh Hasina and the legacy.

For starters, the current generation, many in the forefront of the students’ protest in Bangladesh, resent the undue space accorded to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman through the years, particularly when Hasina ruled. Not only do they want to erase his imprint, but they also intend to rewrite and, if possible, clean up the bloody chapters of history.

In this context, is the currency note redesign the first substantive step taken by the interim government headed by Yunus?

Fazal Kamal, former editor of The Independent and Bangladesh Times, does not think so.
“It is not the government that has taken the initiative. It is an intense reaction from among the people of Bangladesh to Hasina’s insistence on ensuring Mujib’s seal on everything. It is this overkill that Bangladeshis want to end. The interim government is only going along,” he told IPS.

Given the hullabaloo, it must be pointed out that this is not the first time that Mujibur Rahman’s mugshot, if one may be allowed to use the term, has been taken off currency notes.

In 1976, a year after Bangabandhu and some of his family members were assassinated, the series of notes that were introduced did not have his image. It was only in 1998 that he made a comeback on the taka and has remained since. A taka is a basic monetary unit in Bangladesh.

Therefore, when Farid Hossain, who has served as Minister at the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi, calls the currency issue “much ado about nothing,” he is not off the mark.

“On ground, people want governance—they want law and order and currency, which can buy more rather than which image it carries,” Hossain said, adding that the move is indicative of the interim government “giving in to pressure” from the radicals.

To many, Hasina’s ouster is nothing short of a “second independence.” Yet there is a large segment that is against what Hossain has termed “wholesale erosion” of history and legacy: “Today Bangladesh faces an ideological divide and the narrative that was buried years ago seems to have resurfaced.”

In other words, today’s generation in Bangladesh wants to resurrect the real face of Mujibur Rahman and strip him of the legacy draped in grandeur. And in this, the interim government has been an active player.

“The intention of the interim administration is to take the country away from its historical legacy. The current regime has pandered to its unruly student followers who have been crushing every symbol of history,” says political analyst Syed Badrul Ahsan.

As for succumbing to pressure, the interim government is in the eye of a storm on another issue—the tricky and sensitive issue of Hasina’s extradition.

Bangladesh has sent a note verbale to the Indian government saying that it wants Hasina back for a judicial process. A note verbale is a diplomatic communication from one government to another.

There has been a persistent demand, as Kamal points out, for leaders of the previous regime to be brought back and tried. Call it vendetta politics if you will but the popular sentiment seems to be that Hasina should be sent to the gallows.

Though India and Bangladesh have an extradition treaty in place, it exempts political vendetta.

Article 6 of the treaty states that extradition may be denied if the alleged offence is of a political nature. That Hasina is being tried for her political offences is a given: “A note verbale is not enough. The interim government does not have a mandate. It is there to administer and steer reforms and not indulge in politicking. But it seems to be taking up the side issue of radicals and seems to be giving in,” Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, former Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh, told IPS.

Dismissing the extradition request as “mere rhetoric resulting from domestic pulls and pressures,” the former ambassador says India is unlikely to accommodate its neighbor on this issue.

He also did not rule out Yunus using this as a “pressure tactic” to tell India to restrain Sheikh Hasina from making political statements from Indian soil.

For record, in a virtual address last month, Hasina stated that Yunus was running a “fascist regime” that encouraged terrorists and fundamentalists. Interestingly, the extradition request had followed soon after.

Both issues seem to be hanging in the air—the new currency notes are yet to be printed and on Hasina’s extradition, the Indian government is silent.

As for Mujib’s legacy, his statue can be vandalized, his images defaced and his daughter’s sins denigrate his legacy, but Bangabandhu’s footprint from history, however controversial, cannot be erased.

IPS UN Bureau Report