Questions over removal of Bangabandhu's portrait from Bangabhaban

After the people's uprising on August 5, criticism of the previous 15-year rule of the Awami League government has been accompanied by attempts to question the liberation war and Bangabandhu, which is undesirable. Many who hold respect for the liberation war believe that the liberation war and Bangabandhu are intrinsically connected, and while criticizing the past 15 years of the Awami League government, one cannot criticize Bangabandhu. By criticizing Bangabandhu, many are inadvertently casting doubt on the entire liberation war, which is an unexpected turn for the country.

After the people's uprising, the advisory council took the oath from the President at Bangabhaban, following the constitution. While there have been discussions about whether the constitution will be amended or rewritten, in practice, Bangladesh's constitution remains intact. In the first part of Bangladesh's Constitution, Article 4, Section (Ka) clearly states: "The portrait of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, shall be preserved and displayed in the offices of the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker, and the Chief Justice, as well as in all government and semi-government offices, autonomous institutions, constitutionally established public authorities, their branches and offices, government and private educational institutions, and in the embassies and missions of Bangladesh abroad."

While the state is still being governed in accordance with the constitution, how can newly appointed advisors remove the portrait of Bangabandhu from Bangabhaban and their offices? Perhaps they will have to overthrow the constitution and form a revolutionary government, or else they will have to take up the responsibility of governing in accordance with the constitution. This has sparked widespread criticism. Many are now seeing this not as a political issue but as a manifestation of personal animosity.

According to news reports published on Tuesday (November 12), many prominent figures consider the removal of the portrait of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, from the Darbar Hall of Bangabhaban to be a clear violation of the constitution. They argue that the very constitution under which the advisory council took the oath recognizes Bangabandhu as the Father of the Nation. Furthermore, the constitution gives specific directives regarding the preservation and display of his portrait. In this context, removing his picture from Bangabhaban constitutes a violation of the constitution.

On the other hand, politicians have described the removal of the portrait as "illogical" and "excessive," stating that this incident exposes the interim government's incompetence. They argue that the position of Bangabandhu in the Liberation War and in history can never be taken away. Through this act, it is not Bangabandhu who is diminished, but rather, we ourselves have become mean. Senior Supreme Court lawyer ZI Khan Panna told the media that the removal of Bangabandhu's portrait is a clear violation of the constitution. By doing this, the government has betrayed the nation, and the responsibility for this lies with the interim government and the state.

Last Sunday, when the new three advisors took the oath, Bangabandhu's portrait was visible behind them in the Darbar Hall of Bangabhaban. In protest, Hasnat Abdullah, the convener of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, wrote on Facebook, "We will chase the League away all day and shout 'Mujibbad, Murdabad'. Yet, they take the oath with Mujib's portrait behind them." Following this, on Monday, Advisor Mahfuz Alam posted a picture on Facebook, announcing the removal of the portrait from the Darbar Hall. In the photo, he was seen standing in front of the oath-taking stage, but the portrait of Bangabandhu was no longer visible in the background.

There have already been numerous questions regarding the actions of the interim government. What exactly do they want? What do they plan to do? It's a positive development that the fascist Awami League government has been ousted, which has pleased the people. However, the advisors of the interim government have yet to provide any clear answers regarding the Liberation War. Furthermore, there are many questions about the appointments of some advisors made by the interim government. On social media, some have even criticized that the country is being steered towards political neutralization.

We agree with the people's uprising of July, but the debates and controversies that have arisen over the subsequent actions must be resolved by the interim government. If they fail to do so, they will face tough and serious questions from the nation.