A Daughter’s Devotion to Her Father or a Nation Held Hostage?

After our birth, it is impossible to express in words how significant a father’s role is in shaping us into human beings. The presence of our birth-giver father occupies a vast space in our hearts. That is why we try our best to do whatever we can for our fathers every day.

This deep emotional bond arises from the core of every child’s heart. As children, we all strive to uphold our father's honor, cherish his memory, and express our gratitude through love and good deeds. A father is not merely a biological contributor; he is a moral guide, a guardian, and a protector during life's toughest moments. Naturally, a child wishes to safeguard his father's legacy with affection and meaningful actions.

But what the former illegitimate Prime Minister Hasina has done for her father cannot be dismissed as mere excess. Nor can it simply be labeled as blind devotion. It took on a ferocious form through which she presented her father to the nation.

There needs to be a clear boundary between personal emotions and national reality. When a child’s attachment begins to dominate state decisions and school curriculum design, it inevitably raises concerns. In Sheikh Hasina’s case, honoring her father seemed less about respect and more about forcibly embedding his image into the national psyche. This overshadowed the collective identity and disrupted the nation’s organic historical journey.

How Sheikh Hasina Used Her Father’s Legacy to Shape National Identity

There is nothing she didn’t do for her father. She tried everything possible to firmly implant her father's existence into the minds of every citizen of the country. The knowledge provided to tender-hearted school children about Sheikh Mujib was all fabricated stories.

These efforts often reached such an extent that they appeared to distort the natural flow of our nation’s history. Injecting manipulated narratives into the minds of innocent children undermines the development of an independent and critical perspective. Instead of fostering informed, rational individuals, the system began to produce a generation that viewed Sheikh Mujib with unquestioning reverence—an approach more fitting for religious figures than political leaders.

The view presented before them about Sheikh Mujib can’t be called anything but intellectual terrorism. Not only were stories about him included in the textbooks; Hasina didn’t stop there. Hasina didn’t even spare innocent children. Those clueless kids would go to school in the morning and unknowingly chant hymns in praise of Sheikh Mujib in the name of oath-taking.

The Truth Behind Mujib-Centered Oaths in Bangladeshi Schools

When national narratives are shaped by authoritarian imposition instead of truth and evidence, it results in a form of intellectual tyranny. Forcing children—who lack the capacity to critically evaluate such content—to engage in ritualistic praise strips them of intellectual freedom. It promotes one-sided glorification and eliminates space for alternative or balanced interpretations of history.

A nation’s oath could look like this:

“Under the leadership of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh achieved independence through a bloody struggle against the exploitation and deprivation by Pakistani rulers. The Bengali nation established its distinct national identity on the world stage. I solemnly pledge that I will not let the blood of the martyrs go in vain. I will love the country and dedicate all my efforts to the welfare of its people. Following the ideals of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib, I will build a prosperous, developed, and secular Golden Bengal. May the Almighty Creator give me strength.”

This oath raises a legitimate question about whether such wording is appropriate for a truly independent country. An oath should be to the nation, not to any individual. When citizens of a free country are compelled to swear allegiance to a single leader’s ideology, it violates the neutrality that democracy demands. This kind of pledge embeds Sheikh Mujib as an inseparable part of the state itself, which contradicts the very principles of pluralism and invites intolerance toward differing opinions.

Here it is clearly understood that Hasina viewed the country as her father’s property. But the country has now evolved from being her father’s personal estate into belonging to all its citizens.

Forced Patriotism or Father Worship? How Hasina Turned Mujib into a National Obsession

When the President’s office, national days, awards, public stages—even children's education—reflect the dominance of one family, the state’s interests gradually get replaced with familial interests. Fortunately, over time, the people began to realize that this country is not the inheritance of any one person or family; it belongs to all of us. The state is owned by its people—not by its rulers. That growing awareness is what ultimately led to the abandonment of the former oath and its replacement with one that is more balanced and appropriate for a modern democracy.

Now the oath of this country is:

“I do solemnly swear that I will always devote myself to serving humanity. I will remain loyal to my country. I will always strive to uphold the unity and solidarity of the nation. O Almighty Allah, the Creator of all, grant me the strength to serve Bangladesh and to help build it into a strong and exemplary state. Ameen.”

This oath contains no names, no political affiliations, and no partisan undertones. Instead, it emphasizes service to humanity, loyalty to the country, and a humble prayer for divine assistance. It upholds the duties and ideals of a responsible citizen, reflecting a modern, inclusive, and egalitarian spirit. Such a pledge unites a nation, inspires sincerity, and encourages devotion—rather than binding the people to the legacy of any one family or ideology.