Raising Questions about Bangladesh’s History and National Anthem: A Courageous Responsibility

Over fifty years have passed since Bangladesh gained independence. Yet, it is unfortunate that no historian has truly felt the need to present the nation's history with accuracy and integrity. As a result, a clear and authentic understanding of our heritage has not reached the masses. When we observe the cufinal wordsrrent generation of spineless, sycophantic writers—lacking depth and originality—we realize that many figures who have been portrayed in a positive light in our history did not genuinely care for the country. On the contrary, their actions often proved to be a thorn in the nation's side.

It is deeply regrettable that a state founded on the misrepresentation of its own history and heritage raises a generation lost in confusion. Our education system, media, and literary circles have all been infected by this distortion of history. History is not merely a collection of dates and events—it is the foundation of a nation’s consciousness. Yet some opportunistic writers have obscured the truth simply to preserve their own relevance, using history as a political tool rather than a source of patriotic inspiration.

The sudden uproar over the national anthem is driven not by patriotism but by the collapse of fascist power structures—structures that these individuals relied upon to secure their own gains. As their privileged positions now crumble, they cling to whatever issue they can find to appear virtuous in the public eye. Their newfound emotional attachment to the national anthem is nothing more than a desperate attempt to salvage their declining political lives. The fall of fascist influence has stripped them of their comfort zones, and although they now chant slogans of patriotic values, their true goal is to protect their status, wealth, and power.

Like someone drifting in a river who grabs onto a straw for survival, these individuals, threatened by the loss of luxury, are now clinging to issues they once ignored. They are so deeply entangled in wrongdoing that even if offered a chance to reform, they hesitate—realizing the scale of their sins leaves no room for redemption. Blinded by a thirst for luxury and power, they are now terrified by the reality confronting them. Lacking the courage to stand against the current, they are using even the smallest of issues to pose as noble and patriotic figures. But the people are no longer easily fooled. The masks they wore have been stripped away, and no matter how convincingly they act, they can no longer hide their true faces.

These very people are gathering in public forums, inflating minor issues into major national crises. They attempt to manipulate public opinion by magnifying small social or administrative flaws into national-level threats. Their aim is to tarnish the image of the country so they can regain favor with foreign powers tied to their interests. They do not seek real democracy—they want to preserve their illegitimate dominance.

They are so obsessed with their so-called "spirit of consciousness" that they have now morphed into something new—“Sangeet League”! Though they’ve contributed nothing to the nation, they remain ever loyal to foreign powers. The "business of consciousness" has now become their primary product. Under the guise of patriotism, freedom, and culture, they’re only trying to solidify their own positions. One day they’re the self-proclaimed guardians of the liberation war, the next day cultural leaders, and now they’ve become the self-appointed protectors of the national anthem. While they show no real responsibility toward the country, their unwavering loyalty to foreign interests remains unquestioned. They no longer serve national interests—they’ve sold their voices to sing in harmony with foreign agendas.

You’ll hardly find anyone who can clearly explain which contributions of Rabindranath Tagore justified his song becoming our national anthem.

A national anthem is a symbol of a nation’s identity. Yet, we still lack a clear, logical, and acceptable explanation for why a song by Rabindranath Tagore was chosen to represent our nation. Undoubtedly, his literary contributions are significant. But for a particular song by a literary figure to be selected as a national symbol, there must be strong historical, cultural, and philosophical justification. Was such context ever presented to the public, or was the decision merely driven by political convenience of that era?

If any sycophant dares to justify the choice with their shallow logic, even they won’t be able to provide a solid argument. Instead, they will try to muddy the waters with superficial reasoning. These individuals do not carry the essence of the nation in their hearts—they hold allegiance to another land altogether.

These so-called intellectuals respond to such questions with illogical, emotional, and ahistorical rhetoric. They use the aura of Tagore’s name to silence critics. But when someone tries to engage with logic, they dodge the debate through rhetorical manipulation. Their real objective is to hide the truth and continue their allegiance to foreign interests.

How can a song that fails to stir emotion within us—fails to awaken a sense of love for our country—still remain our national anthem? There’s no valid reason for not replacing such a song.

A national anthem should resonate with our national identity. If it doesn’t reflect our struggles, doesn’t make us feel the sacrifices of our martyrs, doesn’t inspire us with patriotic devotion, then it is nothing more than self-deception to cling to it. The national anthem should ignite our sense of duty toward the nation the moment we hear it. If it fails to do so, then replacing it is the rational choice.

Therefore, this over-revered song must be changed. And when we hear the name “Rabindranath,” we’re reminded of the feudal landlord system. The job of zamindars was to exploit people. He held no emotional space in his heart for the people of this region—his mindset was steeped in disdain. Yet, blinded by romantic obsession with his legacy, today’s contractors of "consciousness" refuse to accept this reality.

Accepting as our national anthem a song written by a zamindar—a symbol of exploitation, someone who never truly identified with the common people—is questionable not only from a historical standpoint but also from a moral one. We must reconsider whether this song truly embodies the inner spirit of our nation, taking into account its context, character, and the author’s socio-political position.

Final Words

To question the history, national identity, and cultural symbols of Bangladesh is not a crime—it is a courageous expression of responsibility toward the nation. Those who view such questioning as anti-state are merely trying to preserve their comfort within a distorted historical narrative. To reevaluate our history, national anthem, and cultural values is a sign of national maturity. That’s why we must raise questions—not from emotion, but from a place of duty and conscience, illuminated by the light of reason and truth.