The recent ousting of the Awami League government in Bangladesh has unsurprisingly led to instability and chaos. Looting has occurred, minority homes have been attacked, and old enmities have resurfaced in the form of violent retribution. While these incidents are regrettable, they are not unexpected. As the interim government finds its footing and law and order are re-established, the situation will likely stabilize.

However, the real concern lies elsewhere. If this interim government makes decisions with lasting negative impacts on the nation's core values and identity, it could have dire consequences. A particularly troubling example is the decision to cancel the public holiday for National Mourning Day on August 15. On this day in 1975, Bangabandhu and his family were brutally murdered. While it's true that the original declaration of this holiday was politically motivated, the idea that Bangladeshis were deeply divided over observing National Mourning Day seems far-fetched. The movement led by anti-discrimination students was against the Awami League government, not against Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or the broader ideals of the Liberation War. Bangabandhu, the Liberation War, and Bangladesh are inextricably linked. Therefore, canceling the public holiday on August 15 is not just disappointing; it's deeply concerning.

The previous Hasina government arguably overexposed Bangabandhu, turning him from a revered figure into a subject of ridicule, especially among younger generations. While older generations like mine found the constant commemoration of Bangabandhu acceptable, for the youth, often called "Gen Z," it became a mockery. The attacks on structures dedicated to Bangabandhu following the regime change on August 5 likely stemmed from this overexposure.

The blame doesn't lie with Bangabandhu but with those who, through political shortsightedness, turned the father of the nation into a target for scorn. However, we cannot ignore that he remains the father of the Bengali nation and the symbol of our independence struggle. The assassination of Bangabandhu and his family on August 15 was intended to erase the history and achievements of our national liberation movement. Observing this day as a national holiday served as a reaffirmation of our commitment to independence and freedom. The decision to cancel the August 15 holiday and scale down official observances feels both unnecessary and disrespectful.

Another area of concern is the undiplomatic rhetoric emerging regarding our neighbor, India. If such statements were confined to political or civil discourses, they might be less alarming. However, critical statements have been made by officials at various levels of the current government. While these remarks might seem insignificant on the surface, the fall of the Hasina government has created unusual tensions between our two countries. Indian media has openly indulged in anti-Bangladesh propaganda, often distorting facts, pitting the two peoples against each other. Even some central Indian leaders have joined in the criticism, amplifying the anti-Bangladesh sentiment.

It is crucial that we avoid making statements or decisions that could fuel this propaganda. Bangladesh is currently engaged in a struggle for survival. If our largest neighbor, one who had played a crucial role in Bangladesh's liberation in 1971, stands by us, managing this struggle will be easier. However, if they adopt a hostile stance, the consequences could be severe. Although the Hasina government has fallen, there is no guarantee that it won't attempt a comeback. If they were to plot a counter-revolution, it would not be illogical to assume that it might happen with Indian support. Therefore, it is wise to exercise the utmost caution regarding our relationship with India.

Another alarming development is the resurgence of religious political forces following the fall of the Hasina government. Parties that exploit religion for political gain never really left the scene; they were merely waiting for the right opportunity. Now, that opportunity has arrived, and they no longer have any obstacles to openly advancing their agenda.

In post-independence Bangladesh, secularism has often been more of a talking point than a reality. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Religion and religious practices have become omnipresent in our national life, often under government patronage. Religious pressure has led to the modification of textbooks, the rapid expansion of madrasa education, and even its recognition as equivalent to university education. Many in the new generation, raised in this cultural environment, are now highly adept in religious discourse. Some leaders of the current movement openly support the introduction of Islamic social and cultural practices at the state level. They oppose women's freedom, advocate for the purdah, and reject the rights of the third gender, believing all of these are inherent to Islamic teachings. Many of the student leaders agree with some Islamic propagandists that all forms of sculpture are inimical to Islam. It seems likely that this religious fervor has led to the destruction of valuable sculptures across the country. Some have even demanded a name change for Begum Rokeya University, claiming that her writings contain anti-Islamic sentiments.

One coordinator has even stated on Facebook that he wishes to die as a "practicing Muslim." While personal religious beliefs should be respected, incorporating these beliefs into state policy poses significant dangers.

In response to demands from students, an "Alim" (Islamic scholar) has been appointed to the advisory council. A.F.M. Khalid Hossain, a central leader of Hefazat-e-Islam, has been given the responsibility of the Ministry of Religion. In numerous public lectures - better known as Owaj - he has offered a blueprint for managing religion in national and personal life that has left me stunned. He advocates for a complete overhaul of the education system, with religious education being recognized as a constitutional right. He aims to incorporate "Islamic education" from primary school through to the master's level. In a sermon, widely available on the internt, he identified Udichi and Chhayanaut-our two revered cultural institutions - as among the enemies of Islam. He also criticized the celebration of the Bengali New Year at Ramna Batamul and the Mongol Shobhajatra (traditional procession) during that time, calling them anti-Islamic activities. He even questioned the inclusion of Lalon Shah, a famous Bengali mystic, in textbooks, asking, "Who is Lalon Shah? Lalon Shah is not our role model; our role model is Hazrat Umar."

I won't extend the quotations further, as the picture is clear. While I can't speak for others, I found his words deeply unsettling. If even a small portion of his proposed education policy is implemented, Bangladesh could become indistinguishable from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. I've heard that in Afghanistan, religious police patrol the streets, punishing women with canes for the slightest deviations in their veils. Everyone is required to keep beards of a specific length, with religious police measuring compliance.

Revolution is good. It's even better when revolution topples a tyrant. But if the price of that revolution is the introduction of state policies based on religious beliefs and the erosion of personal freedoms, then we must reconsider the legitimacy of that revolution.

The writer is a journalist and author based in New York.