B'desh govt calls reports on cancellation of Mujibur Rahman's freedom fighter status 'baseless'
Dhaka (PTI): Bangladesh's interim government on Wednesday dismissed as "completely baseless" and "misleading" the media reports that claimed it has dropped the "Father of the Nation" title for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and revised the definition of freedom fighter.
The news published in several media outlets that the freedom fighter recognition of over 100 leaders, including President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Acting President Nazrul Islam and Prime Minister Tajuddin Ahmed of the Mujibnagar government has been revoked is "completely baseless, false and misleading," the Chief Adviser's office said in a post on X.
The provisional government constituted at Mujibnagar to conduct the Bangladesh Liberation War in April 1971 is popularly known as the Mujibnagar government.
Adviser to the Ministry of Liberation War Affairs Faruk-e-Azam clarified that those who were in the Mujibnagar government were also freedom fighters.
"Those who fought the liberation war with arms, those who led it, were freedom fighters. However, the officials and employees of that government were associate freedom fighters," he said.
According to the National Freedom Fighters Council (JAMUKA) Ordinance, diplomats including the Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra are associate freedom fighters, he said, adding that being associate does not mean that their honour has been tarnished.
He said that the definition of the freedom fighter that existed in 1972 has been implemented. It was changed in 2018 and 2022.
The "honour, status, and privileges" of both freedom fighters and their associates will remain the same, he added.
Citing a government statement, the state-run BSS news agency on Wednesday reported that the gazette of the “National Freedom Fighters Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025” published on Tuesday clearly states that all members of the Mujibnagar government will be recognised as "heroic freedom fighters".
A few days ago, the Muhammad Yunus-led government dropped the portrait of the country’s founding father and deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s father Mujibur Rahman from new currency notes.
Earlier, the Dhaka Tribune newspaper reported that the interim government has amended the National Freedom Fighters Council Act, "altering" the definition of freedom fighter. The amendment to the law also "modifies the term 'Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman'”, it added.
Bdnews24.com news portal reported that the "words 'Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman' and portions of the law that mentioned the name of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman have been deleted."
The Daily Star newspaper reported that the ordinance also makes slight changes to the definition of the Liberation War. "The new definition of Liberation War drops the name of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The previous one mentioned that the war was waged responding to Bangabandhu's call for independence," it said.
According to the revised ordinance, all MNAs (members of the national assembly) and MPAs (members of the provincial assembly) associated with the Mujibnagar Government, who were later considered members of the erstwhile constituent assembly, will now be categorised as “associates of the Liberation War”, the Dhaka Tribune said.
Until now, they were recognised as freedom fighters.
The ordinance redefines Liberation War as the armed struggle carried out between March 26 and December 16, 1971, by the people of Bangladesh aiming to establish a sovereign democratic state founded on equality, human dignity and social justice, against the occupying Pakistani armed forces and their collaborators, the Dhaka Tribune reported.
In January, the interim government introduced new textbooks for primary and secondary students for the 2025 academic year that state that Ziaur Rahman, who was an Army major and later a sector commander of the Liberation War, declared the country’s independence in 1971, replacing the previous ones crediting founding father Mujibur Rahman with the declaration.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
