For years, Bangladesh’s schoolchildren have learned a version of history that placed Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s face at the center of nearly every page. His contributions to the country’s independence are undeniable, but the narrative constructed under Sheikh Hasina’s rule often sidelined the many others who fought for Bangladesh’s freedom. The new interim government, in its bid to correct this imbalance, is making significant changes to textbooks. While some moderation is welcome, the regime must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past by replacing one form of historical distortion with another.
Hasina’s Overreach in Myth-Making
Under Sheikh Hasina, Mujibur Rahman’s image was everywhere—textbooks, government buildings, currency notes, and even traffic intersections. He was portrayed as the singular architect of Bangladesh’s liberation, overshadowing the roles of countless others, including Tajuddin Ahmad, General M.A.G. Osmani, and Ziaur Rahman, all of whom played critical roles in the 1971 Liberation War. Hasina’s government even took legal action against those who questioned this state-sponsored narrative, criminalizing dissent under draconian laws like the Digital Security Act.
This was not just about historical recognition—it was about political power. By monopolizing the legacy of 1971, Hasina sought to legitimize her own rule, painting herself as the rightful inheritor of Mujib’s unfinished work. In the process, alternative perspectives on history, even those backed by evidence, were dismissed as politically motivated distortions.
Moderation is a Step in the Right Direction
Given this background, the recent decision to tone down Mujib’s dominance in textbooks is not just reasonable—it is necessary. A balanced account of the Liberation War should include the diverse array of freedom fighters and leaders who contributed to Bangladesh’s independence. The overpromotion of one leader, no matter how influential, risks turning history into a political tool rather than a factual record of the past.
Mujib, like his daughter, had an authoritarian streak. His rule after independence was marked by one-party control, suppression of opposition, and economic mismanagement. His government was toppled in 1975, not by foreign forces, but by deep discontent within the country. Hasina’s long rule mirrored many of his tendencies—curbing press freedom, stifling opposition, and ruling with an iron grip. The interim regime’s move to scale back Mujib’s overwhelming presence in education is, in that sense, an acknowledgment that history should not serve a political dynasty.
Rewriting History is Dangerous
That said, the new government must not replace one distortion with another. There are already signs that the new textbooks favor Ziaur Rahman over Mujib, shifting the credit for Bangladesh’s independence declaration. Such revisions, if politically motivated, are no better than Hasina’s approach. The truth is that both Mujib and Zia had roles to play in the independence movement—just as many others did. A textbook that erases Mujib’s significance entirely would be just as misleading as one that ignores Zia or Tajuddin Ahmad.
The role of India in 1971 is another point of concern. While Bangladeshis rightly take pride in their own struggle, the contributions of India, particularly its military intervention, are an undeniable part of history. Downplaying that role in schoolbooks does not change what happened—it only creates gaps in understanding for future generations.
If the new government is serious about setting the record straight, it should focus on presenting history in its full complexity, free from partisan distortions. The lessons of the past should be learned, not manipulated for political gain. Otherwise, Bangladesh risks entering yet another cycle where history is written not by scholars, but by those in power.