The death of Tofail Ahmed closes another chapter in the story of Bangladesh's founding generation. Yet unlike some of his contemporaries, his legacy is unlikely to inspire much consensus.

For many of his admirers, he was a student leader turned statesman, a loyal lieutenant of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and a fixture of the Awami League's rise from opposition movement to governing machine.

For his critics, however, he embodies some of the gravest failures of Bangladesh's early state-building project.

No assessment of Tofail Ahmed can avoid the shadow of the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini, the controversial paramilitary force established in the turbulent years after independence.

To supporters, the force was a necessary instrument for restoring order in a war-ravaged country struggling with insurgency and lawlessness. To detractors, it became a symbol of political repression, operating with impunity at a time when democratic institutions were still fragile.

The suffering associated with that period remains deeply contested, but what is beyond dispute is that the national reckoning many expected never truly arrived.

The allegations, abuses as well as grievances linked to the force were never examined with the seriousness they deserved. Instead, they were gradually absorbed into the partisan narratives that dominate Bangladeshi politics.

That omission remains one of the country's most uncomfortable historical silences.

The irony is that some of those who once denounced the excesses of the era eventually found accommodation within the very political order they had opposed.

Former radicals who had built careers on challenging state repression later joined governments they once condemned. Such transformations are hardly unique to Bangladesh; politics often rewards pragmatism over consistency.

Yet they also contributed to a culture in which historical accountability became secondary to political expediency.

Checkered legacy

If the Rakkhi Bahini represents one pillar of Tofail Ahmed's controversial legacy, the civil service represents another.

Critics argue that the erosion of bureaucratic neutrality and meritocracy can be traced, in part, to political decisions taken during the formative years of the republic.

Bangladesh inherited a state apparatus that was imperfect, elitist and often detached from popular aspirations. Yet it also possessed a professional ethos that, however flawed, offered some insulation from partisan pressures.

Over time, that insulation weakened. Recruitment, promotion and administrative culture became increasingly entangled with political loyalty.

Tofail Ahmed's detractors contend that he played a significant role in this transformation, helping establish precedents that subordinated institutional independence to political considerations.

Whether that judgment is entirely fair is open to debate. What is harder to deny is that the politicisation of the bureaucracy became one of the defining features of Bangladesh's governance.

The consequences have proved remarkably durable. A bureaucracy that sees political alignment as a pathway to advancement inevitably develops incentives that extend beyond the neutral execution of state policy.

The emergence of factions within the civil service and the growing willingness of bureaucrats to act as political stakeholders rather than impartial administrators did not occur overnight.

It was the product of decades of institutional evolution.

The phenomenon commonly associated with the so-called "Tofail cadre" is often cited as evidence of this shift.

The thing that began as a political network within the state apparatus eventually produced officials who occupied influential positions throughout government.

Critics argue that this blurred the line between administration and politics in ways that continue to haunt the country.

And the legacy continues..

Subsequent governments did not reverse the trend; they deepened it.

Under Sheikh Hasina, political considerations became an even more visible factor in appointments and promotions, reinforcing patterns that earlier generations had helped establish.

There is a final irony in Tofail Ahmed's career. He was long associated with the influential Awami League quartet known by the acronym "RATS"—Abdur Razzaq, Amir Hossain Amu, Tofail Ahmed and Suranjit Sengupta.

During the political turmoil surrounding the 2007-08 caretaker era, they were widely perceived as having distanced themselves from Sheikh Hasina at a moment of uncertainty.

Whether they genuinely sought a post-Hasina arrangement or were simply adapting to extraordinary circumstances remains disputed. Either way, it reportedly took years before relations were fully repaired.

History is rarely kind to uncomplicated verdicts. Tofail Ahmed was neither solely the villain of his critics' imagination nor merely the loyal party elder celebrated by his supporters.

Yet public figures are ultimately judged not only by their intentions but by the institutions they leave behind.

On that measure, the criticisms directed at him endure because they touch on questions that remain unresolved: accountability, bureaucratic neutrality and the relationship between party and state.

Bangladesh's greatest post-independence challenge was never simply achieving sovereignty; it was building institutions capable of outlasting the passions of politics. The country's struggle with that task continues.

Tofail Ahmed did not create all of those problems. But to many observers, he helped shape some of the habits and incentives that allowed them to persist.

That, more than any single controversy, is the legacy that will continue to provoke debate long after his passing.

—

Nayel Rahman is a political analyst