The Hasina verdict and implications for India
On November 17, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death for crimes against humanity related to last year’s student-led July Uprising, which resulted in the deaths of as many as 1,400 civilians and injuries to over 20,000. The much-awaited judgment is historic for many reasons. For the first time in Bangladesh’s history, a court has handed down such a severe punishment to a political figure of her stature. This verdict also arrives at a critical moment in the nation’s politics - barely two months before the 13th JatiyaSangsad elections. Sheikh Hasina, who has been residing in New Delhi since fleeing Dhaka on 5 August 2024, rejected the verdict, calling it ‘biased and politically motivated’. Nevertheless, this judgment places New Delhi in a difficult position, as Dhaka has, quite predictably, requested India to extradite her.
The interim government, following its establishment in August 2024, introduced amendments to the ICT Act (1973) in late 2024 to address crimes related to the July Uprising and the ensuing political violence. The ordinance underwent three rounds of amendments this year-in February, May, and September-expanding the ICT’s authority and designating Sheikh Hasina and other accused individuals as ‘fugitives’. Trials against Hasina and others officially began in June this year, a month after the interim government banned her party, the Awami League, under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance. This move followed protests in April and May by Islamic parties and the National Citizen Party (NCP), demanding that national elections be held only after the completion of the July trials and the announcement of the July Charter. Clearly, such pressure appeared to work, and the interim government complied with both demands.
Chaired by Justice Golam Mortuza Mozumder, the three-member ICT bench read portions of the 453-page judgment in a verdict live-streamed on Bangladesh Television. In videos presented by the investigating officers, subtitles claimed, among other things, that "Sheikh Hasina asked Delhi to attack Dhaka" and presented several pieces of evidence purportedly demonstrating that Hasina ordered forceful action against the students during the uprising. While BDMilitary.com, an independent defence and strategic affairs digital platform run by Bangladesh’s former defence veterans (founded in 2005), published an article titled "Sheikh Hasina begged India to attack Dhaka," no credible Bangladeshi media outlets reported this, clearly indicating that the documentary evidence claimed by the ICT was not accepted by the media in Bangladesh.
The ICT hearing also criticised the now-banned Awami League party, prohibited from contesting the upcoming national election. The chief prosecutor, Mohammad Tajul Islam, summarising witness testimonies, labelled the Awami League ‘fascist’ from the very inception of independent Bangladesh, accusing the party’s government of concentrating on perpetuating its power through exploitation, torture, curtailing fundamental rights, denying social justice and democracy, and eventually establishing a dictatorship by forming BAKSAL. He further claimed that, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Awami League government formed the infamous RakkhiBahini (a paramilitary force created in 1972) "in connivance with a neighbouring country to weaken and abolish our glorious Army," and that Sheikh Hasina did similar things after returning to power in 2008. The reading also indirectly blamed New Delhi for Bangladesh’s alleged democracy deficit since its liberation.
Anti-India sentiments in Bangladesh, long nurtured by anti-League factions, have escalated since the fall of the Hasina regime. Many have concluded that New Delhi was responsible for Sheikh Hasina’s autocracy and the last three rigged elections.
After the July Uprising, these sentiments have been echoed within the interim government, often blaming New Delhi for domestic law and order issues-from the demolition of 32 Dhanmondi to unrest in Khagrachhari and making unsubstantiated accusations that New Delhi "disapproved of" and "disliked" the student-led July protest. Critics have indirectly held India responsible for rendering SAARC ‘nearly defunct’. Major political parties like BNP, Jamaat, and NCP have pushed the narrative that "countering Indian hegemony" is central to Bangladesh’s foreign policy, following its reset under the Yunus government. Lastly, Sheikh Hasina’s exile in India has been cited as the principal cause of strained bilateral relations.
The ICT verdict on Hasina received praise across political parties, who claimed that justice had been served. The interim government called it "historic," while Chief Advisor Yunus asserted that the conviction affirmed that "no one is above the law."
The NCP called for the swift execution of the sentence and Hasina’s immediate repatriation from New Delhi, urging India not to shelter "killer Sheikh Hasina." Jamaat-e-Islami welcomed the verdict, stating that this trial met ICT standards, unlike previous trials against Jamaat members.
Jamaat also demanded India extradite the ousted prime minister, arguing that "if one claims to behave as a good neighbour, if one aspires to maintain friendly relations, this is their foremost responsibility." Earlier, BNP accused India of "creating opportunities for sabotage in Bangladesh by giving shelter to fugitive Sheikh Hasina."
In stark contrast, international human rights organisations-including Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, and Amnesty International expressed serious concerns over the fairness of the ICT trial. They noted that the verdict against Hasina, delivered in absentia, violated international law standards despite claims by the ICT that it followed the Rome Statute. Concerns about the trial process were also raised by 120 journalists from various media outlets in a joint statement, observing that the ICT proceedings presented ‘one-sided information’ and were visibly politically influenced. The government’s appointment of a state lawyer known for bias against the opposition as Hasina’s defence counsel was also deemed ‘absurd’.
Bangladesh’s interim government has renewed its request to India to extradite Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, both currently exiled in New Delhi. It asserts that India is under a ‘legal obligation’ as per the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty of 2013 to comply. The government stresses that granting asylum to those convicted of crimes against humanity would be "extremely unfriendly and demeaning to justice".
India’s Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement affirming that "as a close neighbour, India is committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including peace, democracy, inclusion and stability in that country," and that New Delhi will "always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end." As the ICT prepares to seek Interpol’s assistance for the repatriation of both Hasina and Kamal through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the extradition treaty provides New Delhi with ample grounds to decline Hasina’s extradition-an increasingly likely scenario.
With anti-India sentiment at its peak and Bangladesh’s political parties evidently making relations with New Delhi conditional on Hasina’s extradition, it appears that New Delhi’s relations with Dhaka are poised for a protracted winter.
The writer is a Research Fellow at the International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi
