Bangladesh’s political identity has long been intertwined with powerful individuals who have shaped the course of the nation's history. Among them, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, often revered as the Father of the Nation, stands as the most towering figure. His contributions to Bangladesh’s independence are undisputed, yet the cult of personality that surrounds him has also been the subject of growing debate. Recently, prominent figures in the interim government have suggested a reevaluation of his legacy, with some even challenging his title as the Father of the Nation. This raises an important question: Can Bangladesh move forward without the influence of such cults of personality, and in doing so, chart a new, more inclusive path?
A National Identity Defined by One Man
The reverence for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh is deeply rooted in his leadership during the struggle for independence in 1971. His iconic speech on March 7, calling for resistance against Pakistani oppression, is often considered the defining moment of the liberation movement. For decades, this single act of defiance has cemented Mujib as the nation’s symbol of courage and patriotism.
Yet, while his contributions to Bangladesh’s freedom are undeniable, his post-war governance is far more controversial. In the years following independence, Mujib’s government faced significant challenges, and the decisions he made during that period have been the subject of much scrutiny.
The establishment of BAKSAL, a one-party political system in 1975, and his endorsement of crony capitalism are just a few examples of the ways in which his leadership deviated from the democratic ideals that had fueled the independence struggle.
Despite these issues, Mujib’s legacy has largely been shielded from criticism. His image as the Father of the Nation has allowed many of his shortcomings to be overlooked, creating a political culture in which dissenting voices are often suppressed. This hero worship, while contributing to national unity in some ways, has also stifled democratic debate and accountability.
The Interim Government’s Challenge to Hero Worship
In a striking departure from the traditional narrative, figures in the current interim government have openly questioned Mujib’s place in history. Nahid Islam, an adviser to the Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications, and Information Technology, stated that the interim government does not recognize Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the Father of the Nation. He criticized the Awami League for turning Mujib into a political tool, using his legacy to justify their own authoritarian practices.
Similarly, Youth and Sports Adviser Asif Mahmud took to social media to express his views, stating, “The people of a country will determine who the Father of the Nation is, not any fascist political party.” He further claimed that the destruction of Mujib’s statue on August 5 reflected the people’s rejection of his legacy. These statements represent a significant shift in the way Mujib’s role in history is being perceived, with the interim government aiming to move away from the cult of personality that has defined Bangladesh’s political landscape for so long.
This challenge to hero worship has not come without controversy. The cancellation of national days associated with Mujib, including March 7 and National Mourning Day, has sparked heated debates on social media and among political commentators.
Critics argue that these moves are an attempt to erase history, while the government maintains that they are simply re-evaluating the political significance of these events in the context of a “new Bangladesh.”
Glossing Over the Flaws: Mujib’s Post-War Leadership
While the liberation struggle remains central to Sheikh Mujib’s legacy, his governance in the years following independence is often glossed over in the national discourse. However, a closer examination of his post-war leadership reveals a number of problematic aspects, particularly his endorsement of crony capitalism and his move toward authoritarianism with the establishment of BAKSAL.
After the country’s hard-fought victory in 1971, Mujib was faced with the monumental task of rebuilding a war-torn nation. Unfortunately, his response to this challenge was marred by economic mismanagement and the concentration of power in the hands of a few. By relying on political loyalists to control key sectors of the economy, Mujib fostered an environment of cronyism that stifled competition and led to widespread corruption.
The benefits of economic growth were funneled to a small elite, while the majority of the population continued to suffer from poverty and scarcity.
In 1975, Mujib took a dramatic step towards consolidating power by establishing the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL), a one-party political system that effectively dismantled democracy in the country. This move marked a significant departure from the democratic ideals that had guided the liberation movement and set the stage for authoritarian rule. Political dissent was crushed, and the government’s grip on power became increasingly repressive. For many, this period represents a betrayal of the hopes and dreams of those who had fought for a free and democratic Bangladesh.
Despite these serious failings, Mujib’s cult of personality has shielded his post-war governance from critical scrutiny. The reverence for him as the Father of the Nation has allowed the Awami League to portray his leadership in a largely positive light, glossing over the more troubling aspects of his rule.
This selective memory has not only distorted the historical narrative but also contributed to a political culture in which accountability and transparency are often lacking.
Can Bangladesh Move Beyond Personality Politics?
As the interim government seeks to dismantle the cult of personality surrounding Sheikh Mujib, it faces a daunting task. For many, Mujib is not just a political figure—he is a symbol of national pride and identity. Challenging this deeply ingrained narrative risks alienating significant portions of the population, particularly those who have been raised to view him as the nation’s savior.
However, the statements made by Nahid Islam and Asif Mahmud reflect a growing sentiment that Bangladesh must move beyond the hero worship of individual leaders and embrace a more inclusive and democratic political culture.
By recognizing the contributions of all those who fought for the country’s independence, rather than elevating one individual above the rest, Bangladesh has the opportunity to foster a political system that values collective struggle and shared responsibility.
One way to achieve this is by broadening the historical narrative to include the many figures who played crucial roles in the country’s liberation and subsequent democratic movements. As Nahid Islam pointed out, Bangladesh’s history did not begin with Sheikh Mujib—it includes the anti-British struggle, the language movement of 1952, and more recent uprisings, such as those in 1990 and 2024. By acknowledging the contributions of these diverse movements and individuals, the country can begin to move towards a more pluralistic understanding of its past and present.
The Path Forward: Honoring the Past, Embracing the Future
Dismantling the cult of personality surrounding Sheikh Mujib is not about erasing his contributions to the nation’s independence. Rather, it is about creating space for a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of Bangladesh’s history—one that recognizes the flaws and shortcomings of its leaders as well as their achievements. This process will require a delicate balancing act, as the country seeks to honor Mujib’s role in the liberation movement while also critically examining his post-war governance.
One potential path forward is to strike a balance between celebrating Mujib’s contributions and acknowledging the problematic aspects of his rule. This could involve commemorating key moments in the liberation struggle, such as the March 7 speech, without elevating Mujib to an untouchable status. By doing so, Bangladesh can create a political culture that values the contributions of all its citizens and leaders, rather than relying on the legacy of one man.
As Bangladesh moves into a new phase of its political development, the question of whether it can craft a future free from the grip of cults of personality remains open. What is clear, however, is that such a transformation is necessary if the country is to achieve the democratic ideals it has long aspired to. The interim government’s bold stance against hero worship represents a step in the right direction, but it will take time and effort to change the deeply entrenched political culture that has defined Bangladesh for so long.
Conclusion: A New Bangladesh on the Horizon?
The future of Bangladesh hinges on its ability to reconcile its past with the demands of the present. Sheikh Mujib’s legacy is undoubtedly a central part of the country’s history, but the time has come to move beyond the hero worship that has long dominated its political discourse. By embracing a more inclusive and democratic vision, Bangladesh can create a political culture that values collective struggle over individual leadership.
The path forward will not be easy. Dismantling the cult of personality surrounding Sheikh Mujib will require a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about his post-war governance and to critically examine the ways in which his legacy has been used to justify authoritarian practices. However, this process is necessary if Bangladesh is to truly achieve the democratic ideals it fought for in 1971.
In the end, the question of whether Bangladesh can craft a future free from personality-driven politics is not just about Sheikh Mujib—it is about the country’s ability to create a political culture that values the contributions of all its citizens and leaders. By moving away from the hero worship of the past, Bangladesh has the opportunity to build a more inclusive and democratic future for all.
