What’s in the name?

Whenever governments change in Bangladesh, the names of state institutions and public infrastructure change.

Roads, bridges, universities, and even military facilities cannot escape the names of ruling party leaders and their relatives, in the process of which taxpayers are forced to pay for the replacement of all signboards, official documents, records, and related materials.

The recent renaming of five Bangladesh Coast Guard vessels is the latest illustration of this recurring practice. Four vessels previously named after the nation's four national leaders – Syed Nazrul Islam, Tajuddin Ahmed, Captain M Mansur Ali, and AHM Kamaruzzaman – have been renamed in honour of four naval officers who died in the line of duty: Nurul Islam, Firoz Kabir, M Humayun Kabir, and Ashraf Siddiqui.

Meanwhile, BCGS Joy Bangla has been renamed BCGS Adommo Bangla. Although a Ministry of Home Affairs letter cited approval from the appropriate authority, the reports did not provide a detailed rationale for the decision. Neither the ministry nor the Bangladesh Coast Guard has publicly explained why the vessel names were altered at this juncture.

These developments do not stand in isolation.

Since the fall of the Awami League government in August 2024, a wave of renaming incidents has swept across various state institutions and infrastructure projects. In fact, the Awami League government had also followed a similar practice during its tenure.

Consequently, the core issue extends far beyond the cycling of one political party's preferred names for another.

When did the politics of renaming begin in Bangladesh?

The history of renaming in Bangladesh did not begin after independence. Even during the colonial period, the naming of streets and neighbourhoods was closely connected to power, social status, and local identity.

A historical review of street naming in Dhaka, published by The Daily Star in 2017, stated that proposals to name streets after individuals were made in the early 20th century in exchange for financial contributions.

After independence, this practice acquired a new political dimension.

Various institutions and public structures were named after figures associated with the Liberation War, national identity, and the founding of the state. However, following the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975, changes in political power also brought changes to institutional names. During subsequent military regimes, names associated with Bangabandhu and the Awami League were removed in many cases, while various institutions and infrastructure were named after Ziaur Rahman.

In 1983, Kurmitola Airport was renamed Zia International Airport. When the Awami League returned to power in 1996, the name of Bangabandhu was reinstated in various places, alongside new naming decisions.

After the BNP-led alliance came to power in 2001, some of those names were changed again. In 2009, the Awami League government renamed Zia International Airport as Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport.

This pattern is also documented in The Daily Star's 2009 editorial, 'Politics of Renaming'. A research paper by Aniruddha Kar, published in Journal of Memory Studies in 2026, further examines how successive political regimes in Bangladesh have used the renaming of public spaces as a means of exercising control over collective memory and political identity.

The name game by the Awami League

Between 2009 and 2024, during the tenure of the Awami League, numerous public institutions and infrastructure projects across the country were named after Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Sheikh Hasina, and members of the Sheikh family.

According to a 26 June, 2025 report by The Daily Star, citing the Chief Adviser's Press Wing, 977 public structures, institutions, and infrastructure projects had been named after Sheikh Hasina, her family members, and Awami League politicians since 2009.

This extensive list encompassed military installations, vessels, bridges, roads, educational institutions, hospitals, and research centres.

While acknowledging that legitimate reasons may exist to commemorate the contributions of political leaders, critics point out that when the names of a single family or political party dominate public infrastructure, the representation of other historical figures, regions, and contributions is constrained.

In the absence of transparent guidelines, naming public assets risks serving as a display of political allegiance rather than reflecting broader public interests.

The same game by the interim govt

Since August 2024, the interim government has altered numerous institutional names tied to the previous administration.In January 2025, it decided to rename 13 public universities. Among them, Sheikh Hasina University became Netrokona University, the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman University in Kishoreganj was retitled Kishoreganj University, and the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University was renamed Maritime University Bangladesh.

In February 2025, the Bangabandhu Bridge reverted to the Jamuna Bridge, and the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Tunnel was renamed the Karnaphuli Tunnel, alongside four roads and eight bridges.

By March, various installations, including military facilities, were also renamed. 

In June 2025, the Chief Adviser's Press Wing announced that 808 of the 977 public structures and infrastructure projects named during the prior administration had been altered.

Who bears the cost?

Altering the name of a public institution extends far beyond a formal announcement. It necessitates updates to physical signboards, directional markers, maps, official government documents, websites, identification cards, letterheads, seals, databases, and institutional archives. For major infrastructure projects, these revisions must be coordinated across multiple state agencies, consuming both administrative time and public funds.

Ultimately, citizens shoulder this financial burden, as state expenditures rely primarily on tax revenues and public funds. 

How justifiable is it to spend additional public funds on renamings while the nation confronts pressing demands in education, healthcare, employment, and economic development? While removing names originally assigned through blatant political bias may be necessary, each decision must be weighed against the public interest, historical context, and financial cost. Moving forward, the government should also publish transparent expenditure reports for every renaming decision.

What should be the criteria?

In some instances, local geographic identities have been restored; in others, partisan political names have been removed or replaced with new honourees. Each decision warrants individual examination.

Similarly, the government should transparently explain the renaming of the Coast Guard vessels. Given that the ‘four national leaders’ were central figures in Bangladesh's independence struggle and political history, the public merits an understanding of why the ships were initially named after them and why authorities now deem those names obsolete.

The rationale for replacing the slogan-derived name Joy Bangla also requires public clarification. A thorough assessment of these shifts depends entirely on official accountability.

Currently, Bangladesh lacks a standalone statutory framework regulating the naming and renaming of public assets. While the National Implementation Committee on Administrative Reorganisation (NICAR) handles administrative approvals, having been reconstituted via a March 4, 2026 gazette notification as a 20-member committee chaired by Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, an administrative mechanism alone remains insufficient.

Bangladesh would benefit from dedicated legislation governing the naming of public institutions, one that explicitly outlines eligibility criteria, legitimate grounds for altering existing names, mandatory public consultations, and decision-making transparency.

Such a framework could prevent successive administrations from weaponising infrastructure renamings for partisan legacy-building whenever political power shifts.

Public institutions do not belong to any single political party. Decisions regarding infrastructure funded by taxpayers must prioritise the public interest, historical context, and local community sentiment.

Whenever a name is altered, both the justification and the associated costs should be disclosed.

Without such guardrails, one regime will bestow a name, the next will erase it, and a subsequent government will start anew – wasting public funds and administrative hours in an endless cycle. 

Breaking this pattern will ultimately depend on whether future leaders are willing to insulate state institutions from political battles over national legacy and ownership.

Md Abbas is a freelance journalist and corporate communications professional.