Key Highlights
- The interim regime formally removed Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s honorific title of "Father of the Nation" from the 2025 update of the Liberation War Act.
- New banknotes issued in 2025 no longer portray Mujib’s portrait, marking a symbolic policy shift.
- Former Mujib‑Bahini members are now excluded from the list of officially recognised freedom fighters, ending their entitlement to state pensions.
- The legislature introduced a fresh category, "Associates of the Liberation War", to celebrate those who supported independence through non‑violent means.
Detailed Insights
On 3 June 2025, the government, headed by Professor Mohammed Yunus, promulgated an amended text of the Liberation War Act that omitted any reference to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s distinctive epithet. This legislative change coincided with the release of a new series of Bangladeshi rupee notes, a move that struck many observers as a deliberate attempt to recalibrate the nation’s public memory. The former 2022 act had foregrounded Mujib’s strategic role and the guerrilla unit “Mujib Bahini” as central pillars of independence. The revised statute, however, deliberately excludes both references, signalling a shift from a single‑leader narrative to a broader, pluralistic recounting of 1971. By recognising a new class of supporters—activists, journalists, and political sympathisers who aided the fight from outside or within the country—the interim administration is ostensibly trying to weave a more inclusive story of liberation. Nonetheless, the decision has sparked intense debate about historical identity and the legitimacy of official honours.
Politically, these reforms arrived shortly after Sheikh Hasina was deposed in August 2024, bringing an end to a 15‑year tenure of the Awami League, the party co‑founded by Mujib. The interim leadership has actively curtailed symbols associated with the former ruling party, suspending its organisational activities and, on occasions, demolishing heritage sites linked to Mujib. The 2025 legal amendments are thus perceived as part of a broader agenda to redefine the country’s collective memory and to diminish the symbolic dominance of one founding figure.