Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has remained a popular and revered leader through much of Bangladesh’s history. Fondly referred to as “Bangabandhu” (friend of Bengal) he has been celebrated for years as the leader who spearheaded the country’s liberation struggle and helped it to emerge as an independent nation in 1971 from Pakistan.

However, a serious attempt is now on in Bangladesh to change that narrative and firmly put the “fascist” tag on him. This concerted move by detractors of the Awami League has gained ground in recent weeks since Sheikh Hasina’s forced dismissal from power and from the country on August 5.

Although the initiative to rechristen Mujibur as a fascist leader has been taken by the Jamaat-e-Islami, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and other Islamist organisations, mainstream political parties like the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) appear to be amenable to the efforts to belittle the Awami League icon. In fact, the attempt to marginalise Mujibur’s role and describe him and the Awami League party as “fascist” has also been undertaken by key members of the new administration in Bangladesh, raising serious concerns in sections within the country and outside.

Independent observers point out that there were several anti-people policies adopted and pursued by Mujibur as he became exceedingly autocratic before he, and most of his family, was brutally killed in an army coup in August 1975. However, he remained steadfast in championing Bangladesh’s Bengali and secular identity rather than the Islamic one. Now, questions are being raised about whether the world’s fourth-largest Muslim country is embarking on a more pronounced Islamic identity.

Many Islamist groups are already calling for establishing an Islamic state that will be governed under Sharia laws by diluting the secular image that Mujibur and Hasina tried to promote, a possibility that alarms many in the region. Observers are attributing the rise in attacks on Hindus and other religious minorities in Bangladesh to these significant changes taking place in the corridors of power in the country, even though many in the administration argue that these concerns are being blown out of proportion by those with vested interests.

Also Read | Can Bangladesh’s ‘second liberation’ heal old wounds?

Under Hasina’s rule, the Jamaat-e-Islami and other militant Islamist outfits were kept under strict check. Several Jamaat leaders were tried and executed on charges of war crimes for the role they played in unleashing atrocities on nationalist leaders and their families during the liberation struggle. Hasina banned many of these organisations for spreading religious extremism in the country.

However, in the run-up to the parliamentary election, the former Prime Minister was under relentless pressure from the US to stem the increasing democratic backsliding in her nation. To make the election more participatory, the ban on Jamaat was lifted and it was allowed to carry out political activities.

But when the anti-government protests just before the election turned violent, Hasina came down heavily on her opponents and put many leaders behind bars and reimposed the ban on Jamaat. Soon after her exit and after Muhammad Yunus was invited to take charge of the caretaker administration, he lifted the ban and chose many pro-Islamist student leaders as his advisors.

Yunus’ entry

Yunus, the noted economist who transformed the lives of a large number of poor people in Bangladesh with his microcredit policy and Grameen Bank, was asked to head the interim arrangement in Dhaka. His main task was to restore the economy, restart growth and development, and restore confidence in Bangladesh—both in the country and abroad.

Yunus has not succeeded in the task so far. He began by embarking on a major reform programme in an attempt to strengthen the different institutions and pillars of Bangladesh that were destroyed by Hasina. He said he wanted to turn Bangladesh into a truly democratic country before announcing an election. This delay has caused serious worries among the various political parties, who want Yunus to announce an election quickly so that an elected government can deal with the challenges of the country.

However, Yunus is relying on some of the student leaders who played a crucial role in turning the protest about an “unfair” recruitment policy into a people’s insurrection against Hasina. They are now part of his team of advisors and they back his reform programme. Among them is Mahfuz Alam, Yunus’ special assistant, who was introduced by Yunus as “the brain behind the movement” against Hasina when he attended a function at the Clinton Foundation in the US in September. Alam is believed to have close links with the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an Islamist organisation banned by Hasina’s government for anti-national activities and for spreading extreme religious ideology.

Last month, Alam decided to remove Mujibur’s portrait from Banga Bhavan, the official residence of the President, which has now become the caretaker government head’s office. Alam said he regretted that the portrait of this “fascist” leader could not be removed earlier. The Yunus government has also gone along with the demands of the student leaders and cancelled the national holidays that marked Mujibur’s birth and death anniversaries and redesigned the country’s currency notes to remove his image.

Alam’s act of removing Mujibur’s portrait evoked strong criticism from sections in Bangladesh, including the BNP leader and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, but Yunus argued that it reflected the popular sentiment in the country.

Motives by the new leadership

These acts cannot be seen in isolation. They are part of a narrative that the new leadership is clearly keen to project. For instance, some weeks ago, the Adviser for Youth and Sports Asif Mahmud declared that Sheikh Mujibur was not the father of the nation but only a symbolic medium being used to establish Awami fascism. Mahmud said: “The people of a country will determine who the father of the nation is and not a fascist party like the Awami league.” He went on to make the circular argument that “if the people of the country considered Sheikh Mujibur Rahman the Father of the Nation, then the revolutionary students and people wouldn’t have destroyed his statue during the protest on August 5.”

The interim government has also cancelled eight national days, including the celebration of March 7, the day in 1971 when Mujibur Rahman made a historic speech in Ramna Maidan to launch a mass civil disobedience movement and when he gave the informal call for an independent Bangladesh.

Faced with strong protests over the decision to cancel March 7 as a national holiday, another student leader, Nahid Islam, currently the Information Advisor to Yunus, clarified that March 7 was not being erased from history nor was Mujibur’s significance. However, there was a need to objectively discuss Awami League’s contributions rather than simply celebrate national holidays and give it a political dimension. “A government born of a people’s uprising cannot let that politics continue,” Islam said. He claimed Mujibur was not the father of the nation as many people had fought for the country’s liberation.

The BNP, which had initially criticised the removal of Mujibur’s portrait from Banga Bhavan, subsequently realised the political advantage of the anti-Mujibur campaign launched by the Islamists and decided to join them. BNP general secretary Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir accused Mujibur of laying the foundation of fascism in the country at a recent gathering of party workers. “Awami League has never been a democratic party; they are a fascist party and Sheikh Mujibur is the father of fascism in Bangladesh,” Fakhrul said.

Also Read | Is India losing the goodwill of its neighbours?

Many segments in Bangladesh are not happy with what is being done to Mujibur’s memory, but they justify it as part of the current mood of anger and as an extension of the anti-Hasina wave blowing over Bangladesh. “The 15-year misrule of Hasina was resented by the people of Bangladesh as they were at its receiving end,” said M. Humayun Kabir, President of the Dhaka-based think tank Bangladesh Enterprise Institute. “Even if you want to challenge the current narrative now, it will not work. The best option is to let the wind blow over and then do a proper assessment of Mujibur.”

But the current narrative also reflects the rise and consolidation of the Jamaat and other Islamists in Bangladesh in a post-Hasina period that is likely to have wider ramifications not only for Bangladesh but for the region, parts of which are already facing instability and seeing violence, both communal and of other kinds.

Impact on India

For India, the implications are many. It is still trying to find the right peg to resume its engagement with the new administration in Dhaka. But things are getting complicated, with regular reports emerging of attacks on Hindus and Hindu places of worship, harassment of Hindus and other religious minorities in Bangladesh, and the recent detention of an Iskcon leader. Also, India’s demand that Bangladesh protect minority populations comes on the back of its own less than stellar record in this aspect.

Bangladesh has proposed December 10 as the date to restart the Foreign Office Consultation between the two countries to put ties back on track after Hasina’s departure. However, the dilution of Bangladesh’s secular image and the rising Islamist control of the administration is unlikely to sit easy with New Delhi.

Pranay Sharma is a commentator on political and foreign affairs-related developments. He has worked in senior editorial positions in leading media organisations.