Bangladesh has introduced new textbooks for the 2025 academic session, triggering a political storm that has reignited old wounds. The revised history books now attribute the country’s declaration of independence in 1971 to Ziaur Rahman, rather than Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s founding father.
This redefinition of historical facts marks a dramatic departure from the official narrative under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s daughter, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has long been in power. The change, however, is more than just a shift in educational content—it is a deliberate and politically charged act that signals the ongoing battle for control over the country’s historical identity.
Historical Context and Political Power Struggles
The roots of this controversy lie deep in Bangladesh’s political landscape. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, known as ‘Bangabandhu’ (Friend of Bengal), is revered as the leader who fought for and led Bangladesh to independence from Pakistan in 1971. For decades, under Hasina’s leadership, his legacy has been enshrined in official history, with textbooks crediting him as the one who declared Bangladesh’s independence via a wireless message, just before being arrested by the Pakistani military. His legacy, however, has faced opposition from political rivals, particularly from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Khaleda Zia, the widow of Ziaur Rahman.
Ziaur Rahman, a former military officer and President of Bangladesh, is now credited by the new textbooks with declaring independence on March 26, 1971, and later reaffirming this declaration on March 27 on behalf of Sheikh Mujib, who was already imprisoned by Pakistani forces. The shift in historical portrayal is not just a neutral academic revision, but a politically charged statement that reflects the ongoing tussle between the two most influential political families in the country—the Hasina and Zia families.
Mujib vs. Ziaur Rahman
The revision of the textbooks is not the first time Bangladesh has seen a contest over the legacy of its liberation struggle. From the time of Mujib’s assassination in 1975, the question of who truly declared the country’s independence has been a contentious issue. The early narrative under Mujib’s leadership, and later his daughter’s, firmly positioned him as the sole declarant of Bangladesh’s independence, a stance that was reaffirmed through government-controlled education and national commemorations.
However, the BNP, under Ziaur Rahman’s legacy, has always contended that it was Ziaur who made the declaration. Zia, a former military officer, played a crucial role during the Liberation War as a sector commander, and his supporters argue that he was the one who first formally declared independence on March 26, 1971. The BNP has long sought to elevate Ziaur Rahman’s legacy, positioning him as a national hero in his own right, separate from Mujib’s shadow.
The political ramifications of this debate are profound. Under Ziaur Rahman’s rule (1975-1981), the country shifted toward a more Islamic identity, with significant political and social changes that countered the secular vision championed by Mujib. This ideological divide continues to define the political battle between the Awami League (AL) and BNP, even decades after both leaders’ deaths.
Political Symbolism and Historical Accuracy
The introduction of the 2025 textbooks marks a significant shift in the way Bangladesh will teach its history to the next generation. Prof. AKM Reazul Hassan, chairman of the National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB), explained that the new textbooks would officially state that Ziaur Rahman, not Mujib, declared Bangladesh’s independence. The declaration on March 26, 1971, made by Zia from the military barracks, is now presented as the defining moment of Bangladesh’s liberation. This revision is part of a broader effort to revise the national curriculum, which critics claim has been overly focused on glorifying Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his daughter’s political reign.
One of the key figures involved in the revision process, writer and activist Rakhal Raha, expressed the goal of “freeing textbooks from exaggerated, imposed history.” The revisions aim to strip away what Raha described as the “exaggerated” glorification of certain individuals and replace it with what the interim government deems as historically accurate information. This revisionist stance is highly contentious and political, particularly since it comes after the ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who fled Bangladesh amid widespread protests in August 2024.
Impact of the Revisions: A National Identity in Flux
The changes to the textbooks are not just academic revisions—they reflect the ideological underpinnings of the current political climate in Bangladesh. In August 2024, when Hasina’s government fell, widespread protests led by BNP supporters targeted symbols of her father’s legacy, including the desecration of Mujib’s statues and murals. This act of defiance against Mujib’s iconography symbolized the rising discontent with Hasina’s prolonged rule and the attempt to reshape the national narrative.
In response to these protests, the interim government, dominated by anti-Awami League forces, has taken bold steps to erase the glorified image of Mujib from national symbols, including currency notes and public memorials. This erasure is part of a broader ideological shift, one that favors Ziaur Rahman’s legacy over that of Mujib. The 2025 textbooks now serve as a key battleground for the nation’s future identity, as young Bangladeshis will be taught a history that reflects the prevailing political views of the day.
Read More: Apple Settles $95 Million Lawsuit Over Siri Privacy Breach
The decision to de-emphasize Mujib’s role and elevate Ziaur Rahman’s contributions is likely to deepen the existing political rift. The Awami League, which has dominated Bangladesh’s politics for most of the past two decades, views the move as an affront to the legacy of the country’s founder. They argue that Ziaur Rahman, despite his role in the Liberation War, was never the key figure behind the independence declaration, and that the revision is an attempt to rewrite history to favor one political family over another.
Uncertain Historical Foundations
International observers, particularly those who closely followed the events of 1971, have cast doubt on the accuracy of the revised textbooks. A US Defense Intelligence Agency report from March 26, 1971, stated that Mujibur Rahman had indeed declared Bangladesh’s independence, just before his arrest. The subsequent radio broadcast by Ziaur Rahman on March 27 reaffirmed the declaration but was not the first. Similarly, other contemporary sources and international reports from the time corroborate the claim that Mujib was the first to declare independence.
While Ziaur Rahman’s role in the war is indisputable, the claim that he was the sole declarant of Bangladesh’s independence remains highly contested. Yet, the political forces currently in power are determined to reshape the historical narrative in their favor, leveraging the national curriculum as a tool to solidify their vision for Bangladesh’s future.
A Nation Divided by Its Past
As Bangladesh embarks on this new chapter in its educational history, it is clear that the battle for control over its past is far from over. The revised textbooks are more than just a reflection of historical events—they are a reflection of the political battles that continue to shape the nation’s future. As Bangladesh moves forward, it will have to grapple with its contested past, and the question remains: will history be rewritten to serve political expediency, or will a more nuanced understanding of the nation’s liberation struggle emerge?
The debate over who declared Bangladesh’s independence is, at its core, a debate over the future direction of the country. As the political factions of Hasina and Khaleda Zia continue to wield influence over the national narrative, the young generation of Bangladeshis will be forced to navigate a history that has been distorted to reflect the values and priorities of those in power. Whether this new chapter will foster unity or division remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Bangladesh’s history is still being written, and the ink is not yet dry.