How independent Bangladesh introduced made-in-India one taka notes to end use of Pakistani currency
Before leaving Calcutta, Tajuddin had placed an order for printing 80 crore notes of one taka denomination with the Nashik Security Press as he wanted to gradually replace the Pakistani currency notes of all denominations then in circulation in Bangladesh with his own country's currency notes.
There was, after all, an urgency in replacing the Pakistani notes as that country's Central Bank was contemplating on demonetising Re 1 notes and also those of higher denominations. So, Tajuddin decided that before Pakistan went ahead with its demonetisation plan, his government would gradually release its own currency notes in the market so as to avoid a sudden financial crisis overtaking his newly liberated country. And he wanted to begin this exercise by releasing one taka notes.
As a result, he decided that his government, in the next two months, would withdraw the lowest denomination Pakistani notes and replace them with new one taka foreign-printed ones. That the one taka notes had been printed in India was not known to many in the government-in-exile. So, in early March when the one taka notes were put into circulation, the government's move was widely acclaimed with an open mind by people at large and the country's business community in particular as a welcome step in the right direction.
Some Dacca dailies even editorially complimented Tajuddin's provisional government for its administrative capability, profoundness and extraordinary far-sightedness in replacing Pakistani notes with Bangladesh's own so soon after liberation. The country's business chambers too welcomed the government's initiative in releasing the sleekly designed, printed and user-friendly notes in circulation. What was more welcoming was that the notes had Bengali texts printed in pleasing Bangla fonts, unlike the Pakistani ones, which made them look uniquely distinctive.
But suddenly, thereafter, news reports began to emerge in Dacca dailies quoting no source but citing rumours circulating in the country's western bordering districts that huge consignments of duplicate one taka notes were being smuggled into Bangladesh in sacks to destabilise its economy. The reports did not mention Tajuddin by name but there were enough hints to suggest that he had deliberately got the one taka notes printed at the Indian Security Printing Press Nashik, so that India at a later date, could push in duplicate notes to ruin Bangladesh's economy. The other purpose was that India wanted to have a total stranglehold on the country's politics and economy and Tajuddin had willingly agreed to be part of this Indian conspiracy. Those reports, without directly naming anyone, made no bones about the fact that Tajuddin and Mrs Gandhi were the main targets of this insidious whispering campaign.
The reports suggested that India, with the connivance of the provisional government's decision makers (obviously hinting at Tajuddin and Khondokar Asaduzzaman, finance secretary to the provisional government, whose Bangla signature was printed on the notes) had got the currency notes printed at its own security press so that duplicate notes could be printed and smuggled across to fulfil its nefarious designs in Bangladesh. The reports suggested that India's real purpose was to flood Bangladesh's markets with duplicate notes so that it could siphon off the original ones, thereby leaving the country with a currency which was bogus and had no value, the obvious result of which would result in an overnight collapse of the country's financial system.
What lent credence to those published reports was deliberate news leaks resorted to by Tajuddin's enemies in the cabinet and in the party who secretly briefed their confidants among the local press that even Bangabandhu was 'extremely worried' by identical reports conveyed to him by some of his ministers and district party secretaries about crores of one taka duplicate notes being smuggled daily into Bangladesh from India. Bangabandhu was so distressed by those reports that he had summoned senior officials of the Finance Ministry to his office in order to verify their veracity. This had upset Tajuddin tremendously as instead of calling him, Bangabandhu had summoned his ministry's officials without informing him. Interestingly, the officials' dismissal of those reports as being 'totally baseless and fabricated stories' as told to Mujib was never conveyed to the press and, thus, not reported by the dailies.
To lend credibility to those unproven reports, two Dacca Bengali dailies published a picture of two notes which bore the same number. Later it transpired that those who had been feeding the press with such unfounded details had taken pictures of a one taka note twice and juxtaposed them in such a way that readers were led to believe that they were two different notes bearing identical numbers!
Ehtesham Haider Chowdhury, editor of Purbodesh, a Bengali Dacca daily which had published the picture, was asked by Bazlur Rahman (then a senior assistant editor of Sangbad), whether those who had provided him the photograph of fake Indian currency notes had deposited the same with Bangladesh Bank and reported the matter to the police as required by law. Astonishingly, Bazlur bhai (who was also my professional mentor during my posting in Dacca) was informed by Chowdhury that he had no interest in finding out whether the fake notes had been deposited with Bangladesh Bank or if the matter had been reported to the police.
'Having carried such highly sensitive and damaging stories and a picture which has caused so much confusion and uncertainty in the country, was it not incumbent upon you to find out what the people, who supplied you with the photograph of the so-called duplicate notes, did with them?' Bazlur bhai had queried Chowdhury.
He had then gone on to remind him pointedly,
Did it ever occur to you that they were feeding your paper with false stories and pictures with evil intent? We at Sangbad were well aware of the Awami League members who were resorting to these dirty tricks against whom and with what intent. So we ignored the story as none of our correspondents from the bordering districts had reported about large-scale smuggling of fake Bangladesh currency notes from India. Nor had the police of those districts and the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) deployed on the border, had reported any seizure of fake notes. The whole campaign was politically motivated to nail Tajuddin.
But the press reports had created such panic and furore in the nation, that even Dacca's rickshawallahs were scared and refused to accept fares in those newly printed Bangladeshi taka notes and insisted on being paid in Pakistani notes and coins instead. Similarly, shopkeepers declined from accepting India printed currency notes as 'they were not legal tender in this country.' When I would personally counter their charges by saying that 'your government was yet to declare them so,' they would respond by saying, 'our people have no faith and confidence in that currency and that is why no one is accepting them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
28 minutes ago
- NDTV
Siding With Pak, China: BJP's Jay Panda Trashes Congress Questions On Op Sindoor
New Delhi: The BJP's Jay Panda today ripped into the Congress over its plans to corner the government on Pahalgam attack and the subsequent Operation Sindoor in the upcoming session of parliament, saying their stance plays into the hands of Pakistan and its all-weather ally China. In an exclusive interview with NDTV, Mr Panda said, "The Congress leaders' stance raises questions since they play into the narrative -- the propaganda being spread by Pakistan and China". The comments of these "two or three top Congress leaders" are repeatedly being played by the media in the two nations. They are discussed in the Pakistani National Assembly. "That should cause them to introspect and think why is it that their stand is being cheered by Pakistan," he said. As a representative of the country for the government's outreach programme on Operation Sindoor, he said he got the vibe that things have changed in some Muslim nations. In the four nations to which he had led a delegation --- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Algeria -- it was clear that they have moved on from the days when they an "natural affinity" for Pakistan. "They have completely changed," he said. "These are nations that Prime Minister Modi has focused on building relations with. They have given him their highest honors. And all these four countries have faced terrorism and reacted similar to us -- very hard action against terrorists and against the kind of terrorists that Pakistan has given shelter to. For example, Al-Qaeda," he explained. The other big reason why the world is ready to see India's view is that "We are the world's fastest growing economy". "We have become the fourth largest. We are going to become the third largest. Countries all over the world, including these Gulf, GCC and Middle Eastern countries that we visited, all want to be associated with India," he said. The Congress has insisted that India's diplomatic outreach has failed. Senior party leader Pooja Tripathi told NDTV, "When Pakistan and Russia are signing a big-ticket deal with Pakistan, you send diplomatic missions to every country possible... and then nobody, not even a single country came out making statement that Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism and Pakistan was responsible. They did criticise the terror attack, but nobody named Pakistan". Pakistan, she said, was "not alone" in its efforts to target India after the terror camps were targeted. Pointing out that Lieutenant General Rahul Singh, the deputy military chief, "has gone on record and said that China was providing real-time updates to Pakistani drones and they were having our information," she said the government should think of that "rather than calling it anti-national and we are siding with Pakistan and China". "This is a strategic fallout. This makes us vulnerable at two strategic borders. This was not a one-on-one India-Pakistan war that was going on," she said. "We were exposed at multiple levels. And this government needs to, rather than shying away from having an all-party discussion, rather than shying away from having a joint session... These are the questions that they need to answer," she added.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Rethinking the reinforced one-front war concept
Indian strategists have long worried about the deepening security partnership between China and Pakistan. The bilateral relationship today extends well beyond arms sales to include diplomatic shielding, intelligence sharing, and even elements of tactical integration. Some observers, however, suggest a more diabolical possibility: the threat of a 'reinforced one-front war'— a scenario in which India would face Pakistan and China fighting together on a single front. Proponents of this view imagine a deeper military integration, with Pakistan benefiting directly from Chinese technology, intelligence, security assets, and even military personnel. When the balloon goes up, they warn, China would act as a strategic enabler on India's western front, turning Pakistan's challenge into a more formidable, integrated threat. The argument seems almost a truism at first glance. China's support for Pakistan is undoubtedly real, sustained, and strategically motivated. Even so, describing it as a 'reinforced one-front war' risks overstating the degree of operational integration in ways that misread Beijing's intentions and distort India's own strategic calculus. At the very least, it calls for a dispassionate assessment of the facts. Not one front Let us start with the undeniable. China has become Pakistan's principal arms supplier, providing everything from advanced drones to missile systems, naval vessels, and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platforms. China's BeiDou satellite navigation system supports Pakistani missile targeting. During moments of crisis — such as the Balakot strikes and Operation Swift Retort — Beijing has offered diplomatic cover, blocking UN sanctions and tempering the international fallout. China ensures Pakistan remains a capable military adversary, able to field modern platforms and fight on more equal terms with India, despite economic constraints. Chinese weapons lock Pakistan into a client-supplier relationship that deepens Beijing's political influence in Islamabad. Worrying as these developments are, they do not readily lend themselves to the notion of a single, integrated military front. Arms transfers — even at scale — are not the same as a shared war plan. India itself is a major buyer of Russian, Israeli, American, and French military systems. Nobody claims India is fighting America's or Russia's wars by proxy. India has even begun exporting weapons — such as BrahMos missiles to the Philippines — without any suggestion from Beijing that Manila is fighting an Indian war against China. Likewise, Azerbaijan does not accuse India of forming an integrated front with Armenia, despite significant Indian arms sales in recent years. Similarly, advanced sales — such as China's potential supply of J-35 stealth fighters to Pakistan, or India's exploration of Russia's Su-57 — do not imply joint war planning or a unified front. China may have provided direct military support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, even monitoring the performance of its weapons systems in Pakistani use, as Indian military officials recently stated. However, monitoring is standard practice for arms suppliers. The U.S., Russia, Israel, and France all routinely do this, and India itself will understandably be interested in how the BrahMos missile performs in the Philippines. Some might argue that this is a false equivalence — that the China–Pakistan strategic partnership is by no measure comparable to the relationship between India and the Philippines. This does not detract from the principal issue: monitoring and even limited intelligence sharing are typical of arms sales relationships. But they are not evidence of a single, unified war front with joint command or shared operational planning. What many alarmist narratives often gloss over is that China and Pakistan have very different strategic interests vis-à-vis India. For Pakistan, the military contest with India is existential — a constant, defining rivalry. For China, India is a regional competitor to be managed and contained, but not an existential enemy. Beijing's principal strategic focus remains the U.S. While China has much to gain from an India tied down on its western border, Beijing's preferred denouement is an India that is cautious, preoccupied, and wary of escalation. That is precisely why China might be careful about escalation itself. This caution is evident in the absence of any commitment to join Pakistan in a full-scale war with India. Indeed, no joint commands exist; no integrated operational planning has been demonstrated. China-Pakistan military exercises, while symbolically important, fall short of the combined-force planning seen in alliances such as NATO or even U.S.-South Korea. Challenges for India This is not to deny the challenge of China-Pakistan collusion altogether. Their defence partnership does complicate India's security environment, increasing the costs of military preparedness and the demand for sophisticated countermeasures from air defence to ISR and precision strike capabilities. Even so, framing the threat as a single 'reinforced one-front war' risks misunderstanding. It imagines a level of operational integration that does not exist, encouraging Indian planners to over-invest in blunt, worst-case military postures that may be unaffordable or strategically rigid. It also underplays opportunities for diplomatic management with China, further shrinking India's options. Beijing may shield Pakistan diplomatically and arm it militarily, but it also has an interest in limiting escalation that could trigger nuclear thresholds or force Chinese military intervention. That is a lever India can look to exploit. Overstating China's willingness to fight India directly on Pakistan's behalf risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which all crisis management is abandoned in favour of maximalist, binary threat perceptions. However serious the China–Pakistan nexus may appear, Indian planners ought to avoid turning prudent concern into simplistic formulations. Instead of declaring the threat a single, unified front, Indian analysts must see it for what it is: a complex, asymmetric partnership in which China equips Pakistan to be a tougher local rival without assuming the costs and risks of fighting India itself. That is the harsh strategic truth. Planning for it requires clear-eyed analysis, not rhetorical overreach. Abhijit Singh is a retired naval officer and former head of maritime policy at ORF, New Delhi
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
19-year wait for school, students study in leaking kitchen shed in Chhattisgarh
On this episode of To The Point, the focus is on West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee leading a massive protest march in Kolkata over the alleged harassment of Bengali-speaking people in BJP-ruled states. This move rekindles the Bengali identity pitch against the BJP's Hindutva politics, setting the stage for the 2026 state elections. The programme delves into this clash of ideologies, with the Trinamool Congress framing the protest as a fight for rights, which one spokesperson called a 'Haki Ladai'. The show also covers other major headlines including Rahul Gandhi's allegations against the Election Commission over voter lists in Bihar, protests in Odisha following a student's death in Balasore, and new NCERT lessons on Mughal history. Additionally, the episode investigates a contentious electoral roll revision in Bihar, labeled a 'backdoor NRC' by critics. An exclusive ground report by Shreya Chatterjee explores the realities of this exercise across various regions, including Simanchal, uncovering issues from simplified form submissions to allegations of arbitrary power by BLOs. Swaraj India's co-founder, Yogendra Yadav, joins the show, calling the exercise 'illegal and unconstitutional' and highlighting potential disenfranchisement of women, migrants, and minorities.
