Politics
Should India Extradite Sheikh Hasina? Why Hasina’s Extradition Could Hit India’s Image
On December 23, Bangladesh sent a formal note to New Delhi demanding the extradition of its former Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina,
The heads are boiling, and Dhaka is not taking it lightly. On December 23, Bangladesh sent a formal note to New Delhi demanding the extradition of its former Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, under an extradition treaty signed in 2013 and amended in 2016. Yet, India has remained silent, “officially” at least.
Bangladesh’s interim leader, Muhammad Yunus, isn’t mincing words. With an arrest warrant issued against Hasina in October and an Interpol Red Notice already in motion, the call for her extradition has turned into a diplomatic hot potato. Yunus claims India’s refusal to act is a political decision, not a legal one. Bangladesh’s Adviser Mahfuj Alam recently hinted to the media that New Delhi’s stance appears set, even if no official response has come yet.
The accusations against Hasina are nothing short of grave—over 100 cases ranging from murder to genocide, linked to the deadly July uprising. But here’s the thing: Sheikh Hasina isn’t just another political leader. Her tenure brought stability to Bangladesh and forged closer ties with India.
When she first came to power, Bangladesh’s per capita income hovered around $600. Under her leadership, it skyrocketed to $2,646, with the economy growing nearly 18 times. Her governance transformed Bangladesh into a rising star in South Asia. But politics is a game of short memories, and Hasina’s achievements are now overshadowed by her alleged crimes.
Why India Won’t—and Can’t—Extradite
For India, the bets are high. Sheikh Hasina’s presence in the country is a double-edged sword. On one hand, harboring her aligns with India’s long-standing relationship with Hasina’s government—a relationship that has ensured stability in the region and helped curb anti-India elements in Bangladesh.
On the other hand, refusing to extradite her risks painting India as a nation that shields leaders accused of serious crimes. Bangladesh’s interim government is likely to milk this stance for all it’s worth, portraying India as an obstacle to justice.
But let’s face it—India extraditing Hasina would be akin to shooting itself in the foot. Handing her over to a politically charged interim government would not only destabilize Bangladesh further but could also strain bilateral relations for years to come.
The Geopolitical And Legal Tightrope
Back in 2010, Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government formed the International Crimes Tribunal to address crimes against humanity committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War. Fast forward to today, and the same tribunal is being wielded against her.
The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, has used it to level allegations of “genocide” against Hasina and her party members for their purported suppression of the student-led mass movement in July and August this year.
The Extradition Demand
Bangladesh is pulling no punches. Last week, the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Mohammad Rafiqul Alam, reiterated that the extradition treaty between India and Bangladesh has no time limit. “We will wait for the reply from New Delhi,” he stated.
The extradition treaty, signed in 2013 and amended in 2016, was designed to enable the swift handover of fugitive criminals between the two neighbors. Bangladesh has now cited this very treaty in its demand for Hasina’s extradition.
“Our government’s position on the extradition of Sheikh Hasina is very clear. We want to bring Sheikh Hasina back to the country to face the law,” Alam added.
What Should India Do?
At first glance, the situation seems straightforward. With 155 cases lodged against Hasina, shouldn’t India simply comply and send her back? But international law is rarely that simple.
The key complication lies in the principle of the “political exception.” Historically, this was intended to protect those fighting for democracy in authoritarian regimes. However, its application has broadened significantly, encompassing individuals from democratic, nihilist, or even anarchist contexts.
The crux is this – the decision ultimately lies with the sheltering state, as the law is intentionally vague about what constitutes a “political act.”
Additionally, the bilateral treaty requires a magistrate’s arrest order and concrete evidence of a crime. So far, Bangladesh has not provided these crucial elements.
When considering an extradition request, one crucial aspect to examine is the right to a fair trial, a cornerstone of international law. While not directly linked to extradition, the UN Model Law on Extradition allows for refusal if a proper legal process is absent in the requesting country. Bangladesh’s judiciary raises significant concerns in this regard.
For instance, the judiciary recently commuted the death sentence of Paresh Baruah, leader of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), who was involved in smuggling arms through Chittagong in 2004.
Similarly, Lutfozzaman Babar of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), sentenced to death for a grenade attack that killed 24 people and injured Sheikh Hasina, was freed earlier this month.
Meanwhile, a Hindu priest, Chinmoy Krishna Das, was denied bail simply because no lawyer represented him in court—a situation aggravated by the state’s failure to provide a defense attorney, as required by law.
The Ground Reality
Beyond the judicial issues, the ground situation in Bangladesh paints a grim picture. The country has witnessed a wave of hate not just against Hasina but also her supporters and members of the Awami League.
The party claims that 400 of its cadres have been killed in the recent unrest. A UN report highlights even more disturbing figures: nearly 650 people were killed between July 16 and August 11 this year. It has called for a transparent investigation into reports of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and detentions.
A Question of Trust and Diplomacy
Hasina’s presence in India is no accident; she was sent here by the Bangladesh army for her own safety. Sending her back would betray that trust and cast a shadow over India’s diplomatic image, especially in the neighborhood.
India’s actions here will set a precedent. Politicians and allies who have supported India in the past might think twice if India is seen as an unreliable friend. This isn’t just about Hasina; it’s about the broader message India sends to its allies.
The Yunus Factor
What’s curious is the interim government’s insistence on Hasina’s extradition, knowing it risks spoiling relations with India. This is not an elected government, and it has no electorate to appease. Instead, Yunus and his student-led government appear to be laying the groundwork for a political party, all while encouraging growing anti-India sentiment.
From deleted Facebook posts by advisers claiming Indian territory to objections over Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comments on the 1971 war, the interim government seems intent on antagonizing New Delhi. Even India-backed projects like the Rooppur nuclear power initiative have come under scrutiny.
The Larger Question
Extraditing Sheikh Hasina would be more than just a legal decision; it would carry profound political and diplomatic consequences. Hasina has been a steadfast ally to India, growing bilateral ties and regional stability. Her leadership helped elevate Bangladesh’s economic status, making her a key figure in South Asia’s geopolitics.
On the flip side, refusing the extradition request could strain relations with Bangladesh’s interim government and fuel accusations that India is sheltering individuals accused of serious crimes.
India finds itself walking a tightrope. While the treaty offers a legal framework, the political implications are far more nuanced. The absence of evidence from Dhaka, coupled with the politically charged nature of the accusations, gives New Delhi some room to maneuver.
For now, India’s strategy seems to be silence—neither affirming nor denying the request. This allows it to assess the situation without committing to a decision that could backfire on multiple fronts.
The Verdict
For India, this is a tightrope walk. There are layers to this situation, possibly involving outside influences, making it even more critical for New Delhi to tread cautiously.
The decision carries a lot of weight—not just for Hasina but for India’s standing as a regional power. Refusing the extradition request would affirm India’s commitment to justice, trust, and strategic alliances. Extraditing her, on the other hand, could compromise these principles and set a dangerous precedent.
Hence, in the present, India’s silence is strategic. While Bangladesh’s demands escalate, New Delhi is likely weighing the broader implications. The subcontinent’s geopolitics are complicated enough without India appearing to meddle—or worse, surrendering to what many might see as an unjustified extradition demand.
Moreover, extraditing Sheikh Hasina could embolden political factions in Bangladesh that are less favorable to India. Let’s not forget that the interim government’s legitimacy itself is a subject of debate.
For now, the answer is most likely that Hasina stays. Anything else would be a step in the wrong direction.