Bangladesh's domestic war crimes court - the International Crimes Tribunal - has sentenced Sheikh Hasina to death after a trial in absentia. This verdict raises many questions.
Bangladesh has no legally legitimate government at present. It is an interim government that has no basis in the country's constitution. Muhammad Yunus is the Chief Advisor, with other ministers as advisors. It is this unelected government, headed by an individual who has been parachuted into power by his US backers, which has taken the decision to try Sheikh Hasina.
To begin with, it is unclear how the actions of a government in the present case to suppress violent mobs by using force, whether excessive or not, can be characterised as "international crimes". The crimes attributed to her were committed within the territory of Bangladesh and had no external links. When Sheikh Hasina set up this tribunal, the logic was the involvement of the Pakistan army and its collaborators inside the country in genocidal acts against the Bangladesh population.
The violent street uprising that led to Sheikh Hasina's ouster was accompanied, as known, by widespread arson against properties and symbols associated with Mujibur Rahman, the Father of the Nation. Broadly speaking, the street revolt appeared to be not only against Sheikh Hasina but against the legacy of the Awami League that had fought for the country's independence.
In the background of the assaults against the judiciary during the rioting, the forced resignations of some by the mobs, it is reasonable to suspect that the tribunal judging Sheikh Hasina was packed with compliant judges who would have given the desired judgment.
The ruling clique in Dacca seems bent on barring Sheikh Hasina's party, the Awami League, from elections next year. This judgment against Sheikh Hasina de-legitimises the party even though it has a very strong following in the country. Any election held without the participation of Awami League as a party would amount to disenfranchising a large part of the population.
The condemnation to death of Sheikh Hasina should be seen also in the context of the hostile policies of the Yunus government towards India and the related restoration of ties with Pakistan, including the Pakistan military that was responsible for the genocide in Bangladesh.
The anti-India and pro-Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami that sided with the Pakistani army during the liberation struggle has acquired major influence in policymaking in Bangladesh, which also explains the growth of the anti-India sentiment in the country. Yunus himself has been contributing to this, which has prompted our Defence Minister to caution him about the statements that he has been making.
That Sheikh Hasina was not seen as being directly responsible for the loss of lives during the street rioting would explain why, to prevent a mob assault on her, she was flown out of the country by the country's Army Chief in an Air Force plane. If Sheikh Hasina was directly responsible for war crimes, it stands to reason that the Bangladesh Army Chief should be held accountable for aiding her escape to India.
Moreover, Yunus himself is on record saying proudly at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York in September 2024 that the revolution in Bangladesh was "meticulously designed", and introduced Mahfuz Alam, the "brain" behind the student led movement to the audience.
The interim government of Yunus has taken many acrimonious steps towards India. The presence of Sheikh Hasina in India is no doubt a source of discord. The issue could have been handled more wisely by the Yunus team by not consciously aggravating ties with India by unfriendly steps. Her presence here would have receded in the background and become more manageable politically for both sides if the Chief Advisor had pursued a friendly course towards India. By not doing that, the attention is now on what divides us and not what unites our interests.
The Bangladesh clique knows that India will not extradite Sheikh Hasina. This clique had sought her extradition even earlier. Now that the tribunal has given its verdict, Bangladesh is raising the ante by asking India to immediately hand Sheikh Hasina, saying New Delhi is obligated to do so under the bilateral extradition treaty, and adding that extradition is a "mandatory duty" under the existing treaty.
The interim Bangladesh government law advisor has raised the pitch by saying that Bangladesh would formally write to New Delhi again to seek Sheikh Hasina's extradition, and that "if India continues to shelter such a mass murderer, it must know this would be an act of enmity against Bangladesh and its people".
The spokesperson of the UN Human Rights Commission has welcomed the verdict as justice done, pointing again to the involvement of foreign interests in the ouster of Sheikh Hasina.
Sheikh Hasina has, of course, rejected the ruling as politically motivated, calling the tribunal "rigged" and accusing the interim government of trying to wipe out the Awami League. She said she was willing to face charges before a fair judicial forum.
Extradition is a long drawn process. We have not been able to extradite economic fugitives or terrorists from the UK, Canada or the US. Those whose extradition is sought move local courts, resort to appeals and use every means at their disposal, aided by lawyers, to prevent extradition. Our courts will examine very carefully the evidence produced by the Bangladesh authorities, on the basis of which the Tribunal gave its verdict. The fact that a death sentence has been pronounced will make it virtually impossible to obtain her extradition.
In our Treaty of Extradition with Bangladesh, Clause 6 says that extradition may be refused if the offence for which it is requested is an offence of a political character. It can well be argued that the decisions taken to quell violent mobs that burn government property, attack the police and potentially threaten the stability and security of the country is a political responsibility that the head of the government has to bear, and hence decisions taken in the interest of the nation and society are political in nature.
Article 8 of the treaty says that the extradition request can be rejected if the person concerned can satisfy the requested state that it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to extradite him if the accusation made against him has not been made in good faith in the interests of justice.
The Ministry of External Affairs has "noted' the verdict of the "International Crimes Tribunal", stating, "As a close neighbour, India remains committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion and stability", adding that it would "engage constructively with all stakeholders" in Bangladesh.
The implicit message here is that this decision is not in the larger interests of the Bangladesh people, and that India will constructively deal with developments beyond the positions taken by the interim government. We have rightly said nothing at this stage to the Tribunal's verdict, which clearly smacks of political vengeance. However, the words "constructively" and "commitment to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh" can cause some confusion because of equivocal language. A positive sounding note in the statement could have been avoided. Anyhow, it is early times and we will have occasion to make our position clearer.
(Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
