If mobs go unchecked, government will pay the price

Md. Mukhlesur Rahman :

In every democracy, the right to protest is sacred. It is a pillar upon which public accountability rests. From the freedom struggles led by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi to modern civic movements across the world, peaceful dissent has shaped nations for the better. However, there is a clear and dangerous line between lawful protest and mob rule. When that line is crossed, and authorities fail to act swiftly, the consequences can be severe not only for public safety but for the government itself.
If a future BNP government fails to ensure that those public officials who attempted to destabilise the administration of Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus adhere strictly to civil service regulations, it could create serious challenges even for Prime Minister Tarique Rahman. The actions taken by certain Bangladesh Bank employees amounted to outright mob culture. If such incidents are not addressed firmly at the outset, administrative discipline could weaken significantly and, in some instances, risk complete breakdown.
During the tenure of Yunus’ government often criticised for mob culture. For one and a half years there were continuous agitations with demands of “this and that.” While students’ mob entry into the Secretariat demanding promotion without examinations drew severe criticism, the employees’ mob actions holding the Secretariat hostage to demand increased benefits did not receive equal attention.
During Dr. Yunus’s tenure, even BCS cadre officers of the National Board of Revenue resorted to unprecedented mob tactics, effectively holding the state hostage over promotions and postings. Teachers aside, the Admin Cadre even came to physical altercations.
Other cadres violated laws and rules and observed work stoppages in an unprecedented manner. Despite committing offenses that could have resulted in daily dismissals, the Yunus government did not take action, or could not take action, because it lacked political strength.
The BNP, on the other hand, is a strong government elected by an overwhelming mandate. Under no circumstances should it tolerate violations of law by government employees, nor should it display leniency. If this culture of indulgence and tolerance continues—if illegal assemblies and protests by employees are encouraged—one day even the opposition may incite such actions to push the government into a corner. Therefore, from the very first night, the government must act decisively and be firm in enforcing discipline.
An elected government has the legal authority to terminate the contract of a contract-appointed governor such as Dr. Ahsan H. Mansur and appoint a successor of its choosing. Whether that decision ultimately proves beneficial or detrimental is something only time can judge.
However, the immediate catalyst behind the unrest at Bangladesh Bank appears to have been the transfer of three officials outside Dhaka. The protesting employees demanded that the transfer orders be revoked; failing that, they called for the governor’s resignation. It is difficult to see the logical connection between administrative transfer decisions and a demand for the governor to step down.
Protesting transfer orders raises serious questions. Under existing laws and service rules, government employees are obligated to comply with transfer directives. Refusal to do so can ordinarily result in disciplinary consequences, including termination. Available information suggests that the transfers in question were carried out on reasonable and rule-based grounds rather than arbitrarily.
On 16 February, some of the officials held a press conference in which they described the governor as autocratic. Their remarks resembled political rhetoric. As employees of Bangladesh Bank, they are bound by service conduct rules and are not authorized to engage in political-style public statements.
Their principal demand was that Islami Bank Bangladesh PLC and EXIM Bank Bangladesh should not be merged with five financially weak banks. Such concerns could have been formally submitted to the appropriate authorities through established procedures. Ultimately, decisions on banking consolidation rest with policymakers—not with individual employees.
The fall of the Awami League government occurred solely and exclusively because of oligarchic plunder. If the BNP extends patronage to them, I believe these same forces will be able to damage the BNP’s image by creating an economic crisis.
The three officials leading the movement are Nawshad Mustafa, Director of the SME and Special Programs Department of Bangladesh Bank; AKM Masum Billah, President of the Bangladesh Bank Officers’ Welfare Council; and General Secretary Golam Mustafa. As far as is known, all three are leaders of the pro–Awami League “Blue Panel,” reports media.
There are widespread allegations that certain individuals within the BNP have been lending support to those behind the unrest. Before stepping down, the governor claimed that he had faced pressure—allegedly under the patronage of the previous administration—to return banks to groups that had earlier taken control of them.
Yet the broader economic reality is clear: restoring control of banks to those accused of plundering them cannot be a viable solution if the goal is to safeguard the economy. The decision taken by the previous government to merge five banks is now subject to review by the newly elected administration, which will ultimately make its own policy determination.
The manner in which former governor Dr. Ahsan H. Mansur and his adviser Ahsan Ullah were reportedly forced out of Bangladesh Bank is deeply troubling. According to media reports, Ahsan Ullah was physically manhandled and pushed into a vehicle in the presence of several senior officials and dozens of employees. Such actions, if accurate, represent a grave breach of institutional norms and professional conduct.
The central issue is not merely who occupies the governor’s chair, but whether Bangladesh Bank can function free from undue influence particularly from powerful vested interests. If a governor can be publicly humiliated today, the same could happen to any successor tomorrow, potentially backed by illicit financial interests. Under such circumstances, stable governance becomes increasingly difficult. The swift change in leadership following these events has already fueled public speculation and concern about the direction of the institution.
In this context, firm and lawful action becomes essential. Those found to have violated service rules by engaging in unlawful protests, assemblies, or harassment should face appropriate disciplinary measures under existing regulations. Upholding institutional discipline is not a partisan issue; it is fundamental to protecting the country’s financial system. Even the opposition should support efforts to prevent bank looting and restore order.
If the cycle of financial capture and impunity is not broken, the consequences could extend far beyond the banking sector. A weakened financial system threatens economic stability, national confidence, and political continuity alike. Protecting the integrity of the central bank, therefore, is not just an administrative necessity—it is a national imperative.
(The author Md. Mukhlesur Rahman is a political analyst and an economist)