The Tamesis
February 27, 2026
Dhaka – Critical decisions are usually judged on three things: their merits, their methods, and their significance or importance. The government’s decision to remove Dr. Ahsan H. Mansoor as Bangladesh Bank Governor failed on all three fronts. Since the news broke on Wednesday, widespread questions have been raised about its merits. In its method it was rude, undignified, and rabble-rous; and its meaning was very difficult to understand, especially its time.
First, let’s look at the pros of this decision. Of course, the new government has every right to appoint new key positions so that the most suitable people can carry out its policies. This is especially necessary in key positions such as our central bank governors. But what’s the benefit of Wednesday’s decision?
This particular position involves the most sensitive sector of the economy – banking – which has long been plagued by mismanagement, corruption, cronyism, capital flight and other problems. The depletion of our reserves and the loss of overseas profits has led to a serious crisis that central banks have been grappling with. Everything the governor says and does affects the economy. The governor not only controls the central bank; Through his leadership, he influenced the entire banking industry. The industry has been facing structural, institutional and management problems. The huge and largely unmanageable non-performing loans (NPLs) are caused by inefficiency, political compromise and corruption on the part of Bangladesh Bank’s leadership.
Given that central bankers play a key role in controlling important aspects of the economy, do issues such as academic qualifications, personal experience, institutional exposure, training and understanding of how the global economy work justify the appointment of the person currently holding the position? This is not a personal criticism of him, but rather a focus on the bigger picture – the needs of the country, and specifically the needs of this administration. How effectively can he achieve the government goals set out in the 31-point plan? The new governor may be great for a lot of things, but what about this?
An embarrassing fact that could greatly affect his credibility is that he rescheduled his loan in December. There are two types of loan defaulters: intentional and accidental. Let’s hope he doesn’t fall into the first category. Loan default is the biggest shortcoming of my country’s banking system, which has greatly affected the operations of various banks. How harshly and decisively the new governor will deal with other loan defaulters in office is an open question. Rescheduling a loan does not relieve borrowers of their responsibilities; it simply provides them with a way out of a difficult situation.
Another question concerns the governor’s political stance. He was a key member of the electoral team that brought BNP Paribas a huge success in the February 12 elections. Is this a reward? Doesn’t our experience tell us that such positions should be filled by non-political, impartial professionals? The central bank cannot become an extension of the Ministry of Finance, but must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in its operations. Isn’t this also a lesson from past regimes? To ensure this, the governor must be a man of stature, backbone and confidence to operate independently. Above all, he must be a nonpartisan professional. How do we explain this government’s deliberate appointment of a straight party activist as Bangladesh Bank Governor? So what’s the difference from the past?
The Finance Minister said that the government is implementing many changes and making many new appointments and the appointment of the new Bangladesh Bank Governor is part of this process. This comment clearly shows that in the mind of the Finance Minister, the central bank is similar to the Finance Minister’s other departments. So, what’s new in the new government’s dealings with Bangladesh Bank?
Then there is the question of “method” – how the decision to appoint a new governor is carried out. For the sake of argument, we accept that the government needs to appoint a new governor, that the person chosen is the right one, and that the decision needs to be implemented quickly. Wouldn’t this process be more dignified? Minimal courtesy requires the finance minister to call Mansour to his office and inform him of the decision, or at least inform him by phone. Minimal courtesy requires that he be given some time to leave the office, say goodbye to his employees, and show some honor on his way out. Instead, he learned about his departure from the media and decided to leave on his own. Around the same time, one of Mansour’s advisers was allegedly besieged by a group of disgruntled officials and forced to leave the central bank building.
This behavior contrasts sharply with the standards set by the head of government. The dignity, sobriety and calmness with which the Prime Minister handled the decision-making and implementation process stood in stark contrast to the indignity the Treasury subjected a man who held the position of central bank governor to.
Finally there is the “meaning” of the decision. What does it mean? What message is the government trying to send with this dramatic and humiliating change in such a critical and sensitive institution – one that has been so maligned and weakened in the past and whose rebuilding is so vital? Why remove the governor at this moment when the new administration is settling down, learning how the vast government apparatus works, reorganizing law enforcement agencies, and appointing other key positions?
The ouster also targets a man who successfully addressed many of the problems facing our economy after the ouster of Sheikh Hasina. His 18-month term can be defined by positive macroeconomic stability. Ahsan Mansur successfully transitioned the country’s exchange rate to a more market-based one, which many feared would depress the value of the taka. But the taka has actually stabilized against the dollar. During his tenure, our total foreign exchange reserves increased from $25 billion to $35 billion. He pursued a tight monetary policy to curb inflation and prioritized economic discipline and price stability over easy credit. He took the bold step of restructuring the boards of at least 11 troubled banks. Overall, he accurately diagnosed financial sector vulnerabilities and strengthened central bank supervision. Most importantly, he was able to build confidence in the country’s economy at an international level. This is an area where the country not only needs to perform well but also convince global markets that it is doing so. Ahsan Mansoor was able to do this to a great extent. His ouster could trigger uncertainty on the global stage and further jeopardize our recovery.
One of Prime Minister Tariq Rahman’s promises is that every major action of his government will be justified and transparent. The reasons given by the finance minister refer only to the government’s authority to make new appointments. So far, there is no word to explain why this appointment comes so suddenly, dramatically and insultingly to the incumbent.
The greatest damage this action could cause stems from the impression that it was taken in response to “mob” pressure. There is no indication that the decision was made after an in-depth analysis of the situation, a careful weighing of the factors that accompany a change in such an important position, or serious consideration of its implications. A number of employees gathered together and the demands were mostly administrative in nature.
One of the first promises made by the new government was not to allow mob rule. Won’t what happened at Bangladesh Bank trigger similar moves by other institutions? We urge the Prime Minister to examine this incident very carefully and think carefully about what it means for his government and what steps he needs to take to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents. Such behavior casts a shadow of doubt on the government, and some of the consequences may be long-lasting.
Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.
