Muhammad Yunus, once hailed as a visionary economist and social reformer, now accused of steering Bangladesh into deeper division and decay through a caretaker regime defined more by personal retribution than national stewardship
This week’s attack on Rabindranath Tagore’s ancestral home in Sirajganj is no mere incident but a stark symptom of Bangladesh’s deterioration. Once a cultural sanctuary, it now lies desecrated by mob violence over a trivial dispute — reflecting a nation fraying under extremism, institutional decay, and political chaos.
The state’s feeble response exposes its waning control, while the turmoil mirrors the catastrophic misjudgements of Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus’s fractured stewardship. Once revered worldwide as the architect of microfinance and a Nobel laureate whose work redefined social entrepreneurship, Muhammad Yunus’s trajectory into Bangladesh’s political arena has proved paradoxically corrosive. His appointment as the head of the caretaker Government, intended to ensure impartiality and a smooth transition, has instead become synonymous with deepening partisan rancour and administrative shortsightedness. Yunus’s virulent antipathy towards the Awami League, and particularly its leader Sheikh Hasina — scion of the revered Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman — has become the defining characteristic of his Governance. It is widely known that Sheikh Hasina once sought to imprison Yunus on charges of financial irregularities, charges that Yunus has deftly manipulated to foment public dissent against her and to galvanise efforts not merely to dislodge her from power but to systematically excise her family’s enduring imprint on Bangladesh’s national consciousness. This vendetta is no more visible than in the excision of Bangabandhu’s visage from the nation’s currency notes.
Since 1971, the Father of the Nation’s image has been etched onto the Taka, an emblematic tribute to the liberation struggle and a unifying symbol of identity. The Yunus administration’s replacement of this enduring iconography with cultural landmarks, framed under the pretext of “depoliticising” currency, reveals itself as an act less of sober governance than of emotional retribution. To excise the very face that personifies Bangladesh’s birth is to leave the country from its roots, a symbolic mutilation that threatens to fracture collective memory.
Yunus’s rhetoric has further inflamed divisions. In a contentious address at London’s Chatham House, he openly questioned the legitimacy of the Awami League. His inflammatory statements do not merely delegitimise a political party; they alienate millions of citizens who have invested their faith in the Awami League over decades. This polarising discourse deepens the fissures within an already fragile polity, fostering discord where unity is desperately needed. Compounding these political fissures is the dire economic reality confronting Bangladesh under Yunus’s leadership. At the same Chatham House forum, Yunus lamented that the economy had not simply stalled but regressed beneath zero, burdened by “immense debt pressure” and foreign reserves “at the bottom — because they’re empty.” The banking sector, he revealed, has “completely collapsed,” the victim of “rampant corruption, bribery and money laundering” allegedly perpetrated during the previous Government’s tenure.
The revelation that billions — estimated at $234 billion — have been siphoned off via illicit channels paints a grim picture of systemic plunder, one that threatens to choke any prospects of recovery. However, the indictment of the past also illuminates the present conundrum: the interim Government itself inherited and perpetuated systemic rot. The wholesale replacement of bank boards with cronies issuing loans as “gifts” compounds institutional dysfunction. The challenge of rehabilitating a banking sector crippled by nepotism, impunity, and political interference looms large, a task made all the more formidable by ongoing factional infighting and a deteriorating governance framework.
Globally, Yunus’s stature has suffered a perceptible decline. Despite proclamations of “enormous support” from the IMF and foreign Governments, reality paints a more sobering tableau. Notably, the UK Prime Minister reportedly declined to meet Yunus during a recent diplomatic mission, a pointed gesture of diplomatic coolness that exposes his precarious standing on the world stage. This tacit rebuff marks a sharp contrast to his previous global acclaim, highlighting how domestic political entanglements and perceived instability have diminished his credibility. The interim Government’s revisionist approach to history and national symbolism has only served to alienate broad swathes of the population. The rewriting of textbooks, removal of Sheikh Mujib’s statues from public spaces, and suspension of Awami League activities are widely perceived not as reforms but as punitive purges. This behaviour reeks of sectarianism disguised as statesmanship — a profound breach of the mature leadership Bangladesh urgently needs. Responses from emergent political entities, such as the National Citizen Party, articulate the widespread scepticism gripping the political milieu. While tentatively welcoming the prospect of elections in the first half of next year, the NCP conditions its support on the implementation of the July Charter and Declaration, alongside comprehensive institutional reforms.
Their insistence on restructuring the Election Commission and prioritising local elections signals a demand for foundational renewal before any credible national vote can transpire. This cautious posture encapsulates the broader anxieties of a civil society wary of being entrapped in another cycle of compromised democracy. The quest to recover stolen assets in countries riddled with entrenched patronage systems is widely acknowledged as Sisyphean. Extensive research by governance watchdogs like Transparency International and the World Bank elucidates that such endeavours demand not only domestic resolve but also robust international cooperation, forensic accounting expertise, and a judiciary capable of withstanding political pressure. Bangladesh’s current fissures and institutional weaknesses severely constrain such ambitions, casting doubt on the feasibility of Yunus’s promises to repatriate illicit capital without a concerted, unified national effort. Yunus’s tenure illustrates the peril inherent when a fragile democracy is entrusted to a leadership that substitutes vindictiveness for statesmanship — rewriting history not to enlighten but to erase. The rise and precipitous fall of Muhammad Yunus as Bangladesh’s political architect serve as a sobering admonition of the consequences wrought when personal animus supplants public duty.
His relentless pursuit of political objectives, seemingly intertwined with an abiding enmity towards the Awami League and its storied legacy, has not only imperilled his standing but threatens to thrust the nation further into fragmentation and despair. The symbolic purging of Bangabandhu from the currency and public memory is more than mere iconoclasm; it is an affront to the nation’s very soul. Consequently, the future of a ‘New Bangladesh’ hangs precariously in the balance, burdened by economic stagnation, vindictive politics, and a rising tide of extremism. Without a fundamental shift towards inclusive governance, respect for historical legacy, and robust institutional reform, Bangladesh risks becoming a cautionary case study in the devastating aftermath of regime-change projects orchestrated by warmongering Western democracies — nations devoid of conscience in their interventions, willing to sacrifice anything for political expediency.
(The writer is a columnist based in Colombo. Views are personal)
