Bangladesh has formally requested India to extradite former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, raising significant questions about India’s role as a key player in South Asian politics. This diplomatic request, sent through a note verbale, highlights the delicate balance India must maintain between international law, bilateral relations, and regional stability.
Sheikh Hasina, the long-serving leader of the Awami League, was ousted from power following widespread protests led by students. These protests erupted amid allegations of governmental misconduct and heavy-handed responses to dissent. Despite efforts from Hasina’s government to quell the unrest, which involved meeting some protester demands, turmoil continued. Hasina alleges the crisis was stoked by Muhammad Yunus, the interim government’s Chief Adviser, which compounded the situation and led to her fleeing to India on August 5, 2024.
The diplomatic note indicates Bangladesh’s interim government is intent on holding Hasina accountable for her actions during her tenure, particularly her alleged involvement in mass killings during the protests. Under the extradition treaty established between India and Bangladesh, revised as recently as 2016, the legal grounds for such requests are outlined. Importantly, the treaty includes clauses allowing India to refuse extradition if the charges against the accused are politically motivated or if there is concern about the fairness of judicial proceedings.
India and Bangladesh, neighbors with intertwined histories, enjoy complex ties marked by periods of cooperation and tension. The extradition of Hasina could be construed as India supporting the current interim government, potentially alienation the Awami League, one of Bangladesh's predominant political forces. The political crisis stemming from Hasina's removal has already begun to ripple through South Asia, and India's handling of this extradition request could reshape relations not only with Bangladesh but also with surrounding countries.
Sheikh Hasina’s security and the integrity of any trial she would face upon returning to Bangladesh are also significant concerns for India. Many observers question whether Hasina could receive fair treatment, with the history of the International Crimes Tribunal’s handling of political cases leaving much to be desired. Human Rights Watch has voiced strong support for India to grant asylum to Hasina and her cabinet members, expressing worries about their safety should they return to Bangladesh. They assert this stance should hold until Bangladesh abolishes the death penalty, reflecting international human rights standards.
India has some options as it considers the extradition request. One possibility is to grant Hasina asylum on humanitarian grounds, aligning with its historical role as a refuge for political exiles. Such action, though, might provoke backlash from the interim government, compliciting diplomatic relations.
Alternatively, India could agree to extradite Hasina but impose conditions aimed at ensuring her safety and access to justice. This might include guarantees of fair trial conditions, consistent with international legal norms, thereby allowing India to navigate the tensions between its obligations to neighboring governments and its commitment to democratic principles.
Another option for India could involve delaying the extradition process, allowing for diplomatic engagement to find mutually acceptable solutions. This approach would afford India time to assess the continuously changing political climate within Bangladesh and manage the potential fallout from its decision.
Comments from political analysts such as Professor Sreeradha Datta of OP Jindal Global University underline the complexity of this situation. Datta points out the various layers of political consideration involved, noting, "Extraditing Sheikh Hasina is a highly complex process involving political and other factors." The lack of clarity concerning Hasina's legal status and the nature of the charges complicates India’s response.
Concerns over the judicial integrity of the proceedings against Hasina have been raised by advocacy groups and academics alike. Sohela Nazneen from the University of Sussex noted, "Typically, such treaties allow a country to reject requests if it believes the person will not receive a fair trial." Ensuring adherence to such principles is as important as upholding diplomatic and bilateral relations.
Shireen Huq, co-founder of the women’s rights organization, Naripokkho, indicated similar sentiments, emphasizing the need for any judicial processes to follow due procedure. "We hope the trial will follow due process and maintain democratic standards,” she stated. This call for justice underlines the broader battle for democratic rights within Bangladesh.
With its history of adherence to treaty obligations—such as extraditing ULFA leader Anup Chetia previously—India’s decision-making process will undoubtedly be weighed heavily by these past actions. Yet the broader ramifications of whichever choice India makes will resonate far beyond its own borders.
Both politically and judicially, the stakes are high. The decision inflects not just the fate of Sheikh Hasina but also the stability of the region as India navigates its own narrative as a regional power committed to democratic principles and humane governance. The international community is watching closely, awaiting India’s response to Bangladesh’s extradition request, which could have lasting impacts on South Asian geopolitics.
