Collaged by One-man Newsroom

Sharif Khiam Ahmed

In Bangladesh, August 15, the National Day of Mourning has shifted from a time for national reflection to a platform for political symbolism. Now, the day serves as a tool for control or rebuilding narratives.

This new landscape has transformed this day from a unifying ceremony into a mirror of Bangladesh’s divides. Dhanmondi-32 in Dhaka, once a site of reverence, now faces confrontation.

Under the Awami League (AL) government, the day was marked by state-led ceremonies and designated as a public holiday. Once a choreographed day of grief, it now unfolds under police cordons and political bans.

After the 2024 mass uprising, commemorations became contested, marked by restricted public access to key memorials and suppression of observance by the Interim Government (IG) led by a student-selected Chief Adviser (CA) Professor Muhammad Yunus.

Bangladesh marked 50 years since the assassination of its founding leader, with the absence of state recognition revealing its own story.

What’s Behind the Memory Wars?

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, known as Bangabandhu [Friend of Bengal], remains the central figure in the story of Bangladesh, the architect of independence, still the Father of the Nation, according to the existing constitution.

On August 15, 2025, National Citizen Party (NCP) Convenor Md Nahid Islam rejects the “Father of the Nation” Title for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, labeling ‘Mujibism’ a Fascist Ideology.

Nahid played a significant role in the 2024 anti-discrimination student movement, which led to the ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of Bangabandhu. And this day, the 50th anniversary of Sheikh Mujib and his family’s assassination was marked without state honors for the second year, reflecting the country’s changing political landscape.

In a Facebook post, Nahid Islam wrote, “Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is not the Father of the Nation. We acknowledge his role and sacrifices in winning independence. Still, we also remember the national tragedy that unfolded under his rule.”

Under his leadership, Bangladesh became a tributary state of India, with the 1972 Constitution paving the way for looting, political killings, and the BAKSAL dictatorship, the NCP leader noted.

“The ‘Father of the Nation’ title is not history; it is a fascist tool manufactured by the Awami League (AL) to silence dissent and monopolize the state,” he criticized.

“At the core of the AL’s fascist politics lies Mujib worship and Liberation War worship, a political idolatry used to oppress the people, plunder the nation, and divide citizens into first-class and second-class,” Nahid said.

For decades, the AL has treated Bangladesh as its ancestral property, ruling without accountability and using Mujib’s name to justify every act of corruption and repression, he mentioned.

NCP leader wrote, “Mujibism is a fascist ideology in the name of Sheikh Mujib and the Liberation War. Our struggle is not against any individual, but against a fascist ideology.”

This statement, made on a day honoring Bangabandhu’s legacy, inverts tradition by recasting national unity as political critique and labeling Mujibism as fascist.

This stance polarizes discussions on historical legacy, memory politics, and the AL’s narrative of liberation in Bangladesh.

On the same day, Shafiqul Alam, Press Secretary of Chief Adviser (CA), wrote, “There is no doubt that Sheikh Mujib was a towering figure in our struggle for independence.”

“His assassination, along with most members of his family, on August 15, was one of the most tragic chapters in our history. Yet those who worship him and elevate him to a cult figure often ignore his monumental failures as a leader,” he added.

Shafiqul said, “Our inept hagiographers created the Mujib cult. The revolutionaries of 1990 left him untouched, and the AL staged a swift comeback—with Jahanara Imam and her young admirers acting as its moral shield,”

“The BNP government of 1991–96 was too naïve to foresee the revival of Mujibism, and the BNP of 2001–2006 proved equally inept,” he said.

“One can only hope that the revolutionaries of 2024 will not repeat the same mistake. They should acknowledge Mujib’s immense role in inspiring our independence struggle, but they must also confront the reality of the leader he became between 1972 and 1975,” Shafiqul mentioned.

He wrote, “A new Bangladesh demands a new, honest history of our leaders and heroes. Writing it would be an act of redemption. Generation Z of 2024 owes this to the generations yet to come.”

“The past is gone for sure. Now we will build up in a new way,” Professor Muhammad Yunus declared last year, as Voice of America (VOA) asked about the Interim Government’s (IG) opinion on the riots at Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s property and the cancellation of the National Day of Mourning.

In early August 2024, mass protests resulted in the ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of Bangabandhu. Within moments, mobs attacked the Bangabandhu Memorial Museum (his Dhanmondi-32 residence). One witness noted that protesters torched the museum hours after Hasina’s fall. 

CA of the IG said in the VOA interview published on October 3, 2024, that the student-led uprising had essentially “pushed a reset button.” One-man Newsroom is presenting the relevant questions and answers here for the reader.

VOA: After August 5, Bangabandhu Memorial Museum, once home to Hasina’s Father but turned into a museum after his assasination there, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was destroyed. Your government subsequently canceled the National Day of Mourning. Some look on Rahman, in their words, as a fascist icon. But Rahman has long been recognized as the Father of the Nation. What’s the viewpoint of your interim government?

Yunus: You’re talking about the past. You don’t remember that a mass uprising has since taken place. You’re speaking as if it never happened. You need to see what’s happening in this new situation. You do not seem to have any questions about how many students have sacrificed their lives, or why they sacrificed their lives. First, we must admit that the students said we have pushed a reset button. The past is gone for sure. Now we will build up in a new way. People also want that. And this new approach necessitates reforms.

August 5, 2024, just after Sheikh Hasina’s resignation, Yunus was asked by The Print, ‍an Indian outlet, about vandalism by young protesters on a Mujibur statue during anti-Hasina protests. He attributed the attacks to the anger over Hasina’s legacy, not to the youths themselves.

The Print wrote, asking about vandalism by protesters who tried to damage a statue of Mujibur Rehman in Dhaka and stormed the parliament building. Yunus said that it’s an expression of the “damage she (Hasina) has done.”

“It says what they feel about Hasina, what she did to herself and her father… It’s not the fault of the young people who are doing this,” he said.

In other words, he suggested the new era required moving beyond old loyalties. Yunus reminded listeners that many students sacrificed their lives in the recent uprising, implying that Bangladesh’s political course had fundamentally changed.

Yunus described the street violence as an expression of outrage at Hasina, not a new grievance against Sheikh Mujib.

After Hasina’s fall, student-led crowds assaulted symbols of the old regime. The Economic Times noted Bangabandhu’s legacy “became a prime target.”

Protesters wielding sticks and hammers pulled down Bangabandhu’s statue on Dhaka’s Bijoy Sarani, defaced campus murals, and set fire to the Dhanmondi museum.

In all, roughly 1,500 public statues and murals, mostly honoring Sheikh Mujib or the Liberation War, were reported destroyed, burned, or toppled in the first week of August 2024.

How Mourning Became a Battle?

A year after a popular uprising toppled the previous government, Nobel laureate Yunus now leads an interim administration tasked with stabilising the country and steering it toward new elections.

Yunus’s rise from microfinance pioneer to head of an IG marks a dramatic political shift, one that frames the Day of Mourning as a moment to reflect on Bangladesh’s uncertain political future.

On August 13, 2024, the newly installed IG scrapped the August 15 holiday. Yunus’ advisory council backed the decision to cancel National Mourning Day.  

Hasina, speaking from exile, condemned the vandalism and urged the public to mourn. Her public statement (relayed by her son) called the coup a “grave insult to her father” and demanded justice.

She condemned the attack on the museum, saying “the Father of the Nation…has been grossly insulted” and “the memory that was the basis of our survival has been burnt to ashes”.  

Hasina appealed to Bangladeshis to observe August 15 “with due dignity and solemnity,” laying wreaths at Bangabandhu’s house (the museum) and praying for the departed souls.

On the night of August 14, 2024, anti-Hasina protesters occupied Dhanmondi-32 to block AL supporters from paying tribute.

August 15, 2024, according to AP News, hundreds of student activists physically blocked and assaulted AL supporters who tried to reach the Bangabandhu Museum.  

Protesters “manhandled many” visitors, checked identity cards, and threatened journalists who attempted to film the scene.  

One NYT journalist described it as “complete mob rule,” with attackers (many identifying with BNP and Jamaat) thrashing and chasing away “anyone they suspect of being Awami League“.  

Observers note that under Hasina, August 15 featured state-sponsored events. Still, under Yunus’s interim regime, the day is either ignored or seen as risky.

In response to a journalist’s question at the Foreign Service Academy on August 10, 2025, Shafiqul Alam stated that although the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was a tragic event, August 15 is otherwise “just another day in August.”

He added that the AL’s activities are still banned. If anyone organizes any event—whether in Dhanmondi or elsewhere—”legal action will be taken (by the IG).” The warning underscores a political climate with restricted Mourning Day observance.

August 15, 2025, police again sealed off the Dhanmondi site, now empty rubble, and banned public gatherings like lantern releases.  

Later, Shafiqul, Press Secretary to the CA, was asked whether the police were acting on his instructions. “Police take instructions from their chiefs. We do not give any instructions,” he said.

But, sporadic violent incidents occurred at the site of Bangabandhu’s former residence, now in ruins, as BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami-affiliated activists and student groups controlled the Dhanmondi-32 area from the previous evening.

A Chhatra Shibir leader from Dhaka College was assaulted by BNP members that night. The conflict was later termed a “misunderstanding” and resolved by both sides. They aggressively blocked pedestrians and motorists suspected of supporting the AL from entering the area.

Azizur Rahman, a rickshaw puller, was sadly attacked while attempting to pay his heartfelt respects. He insisted, “I am an ordinary person of the country, not linked to any political party.”

“I came here to pay tribute because I love Bangabandhu.” Activists tore up his bouquet labeled “National Mourning Day, August 15,” Azizur said. Later, he was sent to jail in connection with an attempted murder case from the July Uprising.

Security forces now act to prevent gatherings, and protesters aligned with the 2024 uprising preemptively block mourners affiliated with AL, turning a memorial date into a staging ground for political control and narrative shift.

This year, left-leaning politicians and intellectuals in Bangladesh held commemorations, emphasizing justice for the 1975 killings and their independence from Hasina’s government.

Feb 5–6, 2025, tensions erupted anew when Hasina scheduled an online address. Student leaders organized a “Bulldozer March” on the Bangabandhu Bhaban (Dhanmondi-32). 

Reuters reports that many protesters gathered at the site with cranes and excavators. By February 6, they had wrecked the building’s front and looted the interior.

Hasina denounced the attack in her speech: “They can demolish a building, but not the history. History takes its revenge,” she said, urging citizens to defy the interim regime.

CAO described the destruction as a (misguided) “response to Hasina’s violent behaviour.” It warned that she had “insulted and humiliated” the protesters who had sacrificed in the July uprising.  

Professor Yunus publicly acknowledged the context of the attacks on Bangabandhu’s properties, framing them as outrage against the former regime, even while calling for law and order.

The Times of India reported on February 8, 2025, responding to the mobs’ arson and demolition of Bangabandhu’s ancestral home in Dhaka’s Dhanmondi area, Yunus said the activists’ anger was “understandable” given their suffering under the previous regime.

He told reporters that “anger of activists” behind the ghastly vandalism was “understandable” because “they and their relatives and friends lived through years of tyranny under the Sheikh Hasina-led… regime of Awami League.”

Dhaka Tribune reported on June 11, 2025, a Chatham House event in London, after giving a speech, Yunus was asked why his administration did not stop the bulldozers at Dhanmondi 32. He explained that “at that time, the government had effectively become paralyzed. The police were too afraid to go out on the streets. We didn’t know how to handle the situation.”

Yunus said the police lost public legitimacy after the July unrest, implying they feared attacks. He added that “many issues and crises emerged at once” and that gradually, “over time, things… returned to normal. Restoring order in the country was our top priority.”

India’s Foreign Ministry called the bulldozing “regrettable,” describing the museum as “a symbol of the heroic resistance of the people of Bangladesh.” The incidents reflect a continuing political battle over control of public memory and ceremonial spaces.

Reports over the years document that during the AL era, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) visits to Ziaur Rahman’s grave at Chandrima Udyan, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka were often politically tense.

In some instances, senior BNP figures claimed police or government orders restricted access. At the same time, AL officials publicly denied imposing bans, insisting the party was free to pay respects.

On August 17, 2021, clashes occurred between BNP activists and police at Chandrima Udyan in Dhaka, with both sides blaming each other.

On August 26, during a National Mourning Day meeting, the ex-PM referenced the incident, saying, “Doesn’t the BNP know that there is no grave or body of Zia? They know it very well! If so, why do they stage the drama? Khaleda Zia is also aware of it.”

Hasina said that whether Khaleda Zia or Tarique Rahman could claim that they saw Zia’s body in the coffin. “No one saw there was a body (of Zia) in the box,” she added. 

On the same day, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam said that the witness who found Zia’s body in Chandrima was the late President HM Ershad.

Earlier, on September 8, 2016, Liberation War Affairs Minister AKM Mozammel Haque threw a challenge to prove whether the tomb of Ziaur Rahman contains the remains of the former president.

The veteran Awami League leader said all unplanned installations, including Zia’s tomb in the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban (National Parliament Building) area, should be removed.

Then, Mirza Fakhrul said, “Relocating Ziaur Rahman’s grave from the parliament area will belittle only the government of AL, not the leader.”

Bangabandhu at the Crossroads

The once-sacrosanct status of Bangabandhu’s image has become contested; protesters who once revered him now see his cult as tied to an ousted regime.

On November 3, 2024, the IG’s decisions to replace institution names and revise public memorials began to surface, including an initial round of hospital name changes that removed “Sheikh” family names from 14 state hospitals.

From January to March 2025, interim authorities renamed several universities and buildings, such as changing Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University to “Bangladesh Medical University” and removing honorifics from various public universities and hostels.

By May–June 2025, reports indicated hundreds of sites, including 977 state-funded infrastructures like bases, bridges, and hospitals, were flagged for renaming.

In mid-2025, new banknotes replaced Bangabandhu’s portrait with cultural and landscape motifs, marking a significant shift from decades of currency design that highlighted the founding Father.

These moves were not isolated acts of rebranding but a fast, broad campaign to de-emphasize the centrality of “Bangabandhu” in state iconography and official history.

Almost simultaneously, the IG has also dropped the words “Father of the Nation” and “Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman” from a key statute, the Jatiya Muktijoddha Council (JAMUKA) Act [National Freedom Fighters Council Act].

Bangabandhu’s name is no longer part of the new definition of the Liberation War. The previous definition stated that the war began in response to his call for independence.

The new ordinance amends the 2022 Act by removing the reference to “Mujib Bahini,” the armed group of the AL that fought with the Mukti Bahini and the Indian Army during the 1971 War.

In a post on social media platform, Muhammad Yunus said, “The news published in several media outlets, including Samakal, Jugantar, Ittefaq, and Kalerkantha, states that the freedom fighter recognition of more than a hundred leaders, including President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Acting President Syed Nazrul Islam, Prime Minister Tajuddin Ahmed, and two ministers, Md. Mansur Ali and AHM Kamruzzaman, of the Mujibnagar government, have been revoked; their revocation is completely baseless, false, and misleading.”

“Adviser to the Ministry of Liberation War Affairs, Faruk-e-Azam, said that those who were in the Mujibnagar government were also freedom fighters. Those who fought the liberation war with arms and those who led it were freedom fighters. However, the officials and employees of that government were associated with freedom fighters,” Yunus added.

In earlier political addresses, like Victory Day speeches in late 2024, Yunus notably omitted any mention of Bangabandhu, opting instead for critiques of previous leadership. In a statement, the Hasina-led AL accused the Yunus government of turning Bangladesh into another Pakistan.

“The people of Bangladesh have already realised that the illegitimate Yunus regime is never in favour of Bangladesh. They are representatives of anti-liberation forces deeply influenced by Pakistani ideology, working to implement anti-national agendas. Supported by extremist and militant factions based in Pakistan, they are conspiring to turn Bangladesh into another Pakistan,” the party said. 

“Since illegally seizing power, this regime has been attempting to erase the history of Bangladesh’s birth, the glorious Liberation War, and the legacy of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman,” it added.

On July 1, 2024, a leader of the Sunamganj Chhatra League filed a case in the Sylhet Cyber Tribunal against nine individuals for making derogatory remarks about Sheikh Mujib and Sheikh Hasina on social media.

On November 8, 2022, against 250 BNP leaders and activists, a case was filed by police for vandalizing photos of Sheikh Mujib and Sheikh Hasina during a protest in Sylhet over the killing of BNP leader AFM Kamal.

On June 6, 2022, a student of Jahangirnagar University, named Shamsul Alam Babu, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment under Section 57 of the ICT Act for allegedly defaming Sheikh Hasina and her Father.

On March 3, 2022, Shahnewaz Hasan, a Faridpur-based lawyer, was arrested for sharing a satirical video of Sheikh Mujib’s youngest daughter, Sheikh Rehana, and Mojibur Rahman Chowdhury Nixon, a relative of the Sheikh family.

On September 20, 2021, a cyber-tribunal in Rajshahi sentenced BNP leader Akhtar Hossain to seven years in prison for sharing distorted images of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on social media.

On March 20, 2021, authorities arrested a child for posting a video online “defaming” Sheikh Hasina and her foreign minister, as well as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

On June 23, 2020, Mostaq Ahmed from Atwari Upazila in Panchagarh was arrested for making derogatory remarks about Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, thereby tarnishing the image of the state on social media platforms.

On June 27, 2013, Hafizur Rahman Rana, a Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) lecturer, was sentenced to seven years in prison for threatening to kill Sheikh Hasina in a Facebook post, under the Information and Communication Technology Act.

Reports indicate that hundreds, including journalists, activists, and citizens, were arrested for online posts deemed offensive about Sheikh Mujib or his relatives. There are no official figures on how many were jailed or tortured for insulting the Sheikh Family during the AL years, but some sources provide partial estimates.

Rights groups such as Amnesty International and the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) have tracked thousands of Digital Security Act (DSA) cases since its enactment in 2018, with a significant share involving charges of defaming or “hurting the sentiments” of the Father of the Nation or his family.

A CGS research paper titled “The Ordeal: Five Years of the Digital Security Act” reveals 190 cases filed against individuals for allegedly defaming Sheikh Hasina from October 2018 to September 2023.

High-profile cases include the 2020–21 prosecutions of writer Mushtaq Ahmed, who died in detention, and cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore, who reported torture while imprisoned for online criticisms of the Sheikh family.

On August 22, 2016, India Today reported that the Bangladesh government had approved a stringent draft law, which could attract life imprisonment and a fine of BDT 10 million for criticizing its Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The 50th anniversary of Sheikh Mujib’s assassination brought forth significant discussions, reminding us of the importance of protecting our national symbols and their enduring legacy.

Bangabandhu’s image, once revered by many, has become controversial. Some protest groups see iconoclastic actions as a rejection of a personality cult linked to authoritarianism.

In contrast, older citizens and liberation-era families view attacks on his memorials as unforgivable desecration, severing a vital connection to the country’s founding principles.