Bangladesh has found itself at a dramatic crossroads after its International Crimes Tribunal handed down a death sentence in absentia to former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on November 19, 2025, for crimes against humanity. The verdict—delivered more than a year after a bloody crackdown on a student-led uprising—has not only stunned the region but also placed India, Hasina’s current place of refuge, at the heart of a diplomatic and legal storm. The far-reaching implications of this decision are being felt from the streets of Dhaka to the corridors of power in New Delhi, with legal experts, political analysts, and the families of victims all weighing in on what comes next for Bangladesh and South Asia.
According to The Federal, India has yet to receive a formal extradition request from Bangladesh, despite public statements and brief communications from Dhaka. Ambassador Veena Sikri, a former Indian envoy to Bangladesh, emphasized, “You can’t just send a one-liner saying we want so-and-so back. That is not how it works.” She explained that India requires comprehensive legal documentation—conviction details, evidence, court rulings—before even considering extradition. Until such paperwork arrives, India’s official position remains one of cautious observation, reiterating its commitment to peace, democracy, and stability in Bangladesh.
The tribunal’s verdict marks a historic first for South Asia: it is the first time a sitting or former prime minister in the region has been sentenced to death in absentia for state violence. Hasina, who led Bangladesh for 15 uninterrupted years before being ousted in August 2024, was found guilty of orchestrating a brutal response to the July 2024 protests. The court described her as the “mastermind, conductor and superior commander” of a crackdown that involved drones, helicopters, and heavily armed units. Over a thousand people are believed to have been killed during the uprising and the months that followed, according to the tribunal’s findings.
For many families of the victims, the ruling brought a sense of closure. One grieving father told reporters that only the death sentence could honor what happened to his son. These emotional responses reflect years of frustration and pain under Hasina’s government, which was marked by both economic progress and a steady tightening of political freedoms. Human rights groups documented a growing climate of repression, including enforced disappearances and media intimidation, while student discontent simmered over unemployment and corruption.
Yet, the verdict has also triggered a wave of concern among legal experts and international observers. The United Nations office in Dhaka acknowledged the suffering of victims but pointed to “significant due-process deficits.” Western human rights organizations have been even more direct, warning that the tribunal’s lack of independence and use of the death penalty risk blurring the line between justice and political retribution. The hearings were held without Hasina or her legal team present, raising questions about fairness and transparency. The tribunal itself, originally established in 1973 to try 1971 war crimes and updated by Hasina in 2009, was never intended for such high-profile political cases, especially under an unelected interim administration.
Ambassador Sikri highlighted these procedural uncertainties, noting, “The way in which the judges were removed” and new prosecutors appointed has only deepened doubts about the legitimacy of the proceedings. She added that the political nature of the charges and the timing of the sentence—just ahead of the February 2026 elections—raise further questions about the tribunal’s independence. The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, has presented the ruling as a step toward accountability. Yunus himself called the verdict “important, though limited justice,” but acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead.
India’s position is complicated by its historic ties to Hasina and its strategic interests in Bangladesh. Sanjay Kapoor, an international affairs expert, explained that India has a responsibility to “look after her friend,” recalling Hasina’s consistent support for India’s security interests across a sensitive border. He warned that any shift in Bangladesh’s political direction—particularly closer relations with Pakistan—would be a strategic concern for New Delhi. Recent visits by Pakistani officials to Dhaka and signs of growing cooperation have only heightened these anxieties.
Legally, India is not obliged to extradite Hasina under the bilateral treaty, especially if the alleged offence is political or the request is not made in good faith. Ambassador Sikri underscored the importance of dual criminality and the political-offence exception—key clauses that allow India to reject extradition in such circumstances. “India cannot act till we see the documents,” she insisted, adding that any process could take years and would be strictly governed by law, not political pressure.
Despite the high stakes, there has been little evidence of widespread instability in Bangladesh following the verdict. When Hasina called for a nationwide shutdown, “nobody stirred out of their homes,” Sikri observed, suggesting that while her political base remains intact, public fear or fatigue may have set in. The Awami League, Hasina’s party, has been barred from participating in the next elections, with thousands of its members jailed or in exile. The leadership, now scattered across India, Europe, and Southeast Asia, has vowed to mobilize supporters, but the country remains tense and deeply divided.
Hasina herself has expressed willingness to present her case before the International Criminal Court (ICC), and legal teams in the UK and Bangladesh have already submitted documentation regarding killings, attacks on minorities, and media restrictions. The ICC has yet to indicate whether it will take up the case. Meanwhile, security concerns for India extend beyond Hasina’s presence; they are rooted in the manner of regime change in Dhaka and the involvement of Pakistani networks operating through groups like Jamaat-e-Islami. Sikri stressed that India is “fully capable of defending our borders” and will not allow external pressure to dictate its actions.
The trial’s legitimacy and the future of Bangladesh’s political order remain deeply contested. If the tribunal is seen as fair and independent, the country could embark on a difficult but meaningful journey toward accountability and democratic renewal. But if the verdict is viewed as part of a broader political purge, the next years may be marked by further upheaval and eroding institutional trust. Trials lacking transparency risk undermining the very principles they aim to uphold, a pattern not unfamiliar in Bangladesh’s tumultuous history.
As the international community watches closely, Western governments have responded with caution, balancing concerns over due process with Bangladesh’s geopolitical significance. China has maintained a strategic silence, while India faces the delicate task of sheltering a leader condemned by her own courts without inflaming regional tensions or inviting unrest at home.
For Bangladesh, the death sentence of Sheikh Hasina is a watershed moment, but the country’s true trajectory will depend on how it navigates the tension between justice and political vendetta. There is a narrow window to rebuild institutions, restore trust, and allow political competition without fear. Whether this moment becomes a new beginning or another cycle of confrontation will shape not just Bangladesh’s future, but the stability of the wider region.