From Power to Exile: The Fall of Sheikh Hasina
In a dramatic turn of events last August, Bangladesh’s long-serving Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned amid a massive student-led uprising and fled to India. Her 15-year rule came to a crashing end after nationwide protests against a controversial job quota system escalated into violent clashes. The uprising, which lasted seven weeks, resulted in over 1,000 deaths and thousands more injured or disabled, according to Bangladesh’s interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.
Following her ousting on August 5, 2024, Hasina sought refuge in India, where she has remained in an undisclosed location. As the interim government consolidates power and pushes for accountability, Hasina has become a central figure in a series of criminal proceedings, including charges of genocide, murder, enforced disappearance, and “crimes against humanity.”
Mounting Legal Pressure from Dhaka
The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Dhaka has spearheaded the legal pursuit against Hasina. The tribunal has issued arrest warrants and recently sentenced her to six months in prison in absentia for contempt of court. A leaked audio tape, verified by BBC Eye, intensified the allegations, revealing Hasina purportedly authorizing the use of lethal force during last year’s protests. In the audio, Hasina is allegedly heard instructing security forces to “shoot” protesters wherever found.
Her party, the Awami League, remains banned, and several of her close aides and former officials are also under investigation or facing trial.
In December 2024, Bangladesh formally submitted an extradition request to India through a note verbale, urging New Delhi to return the exiled leader. On July 9, 2025, interim government spokesperson Shafiqul Alam renewed that appeal, calling on India to act with “conscience and moral clarity,” and condemned India’s silence as “no longer tenable.”
The Legal and Diplomatic Tightrope for India
While the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, signed in 2013 and amended in 2016, theoretically obliges India to consider Dhaka’s request, the issue is far from straightforward.
Key provisions of the treaty include:
· Dual criminality: The alleged offence must be recognized as a crime in both countries.
· No evidence requirement (post-2016): An arrest warrant from a competent court in the requesting country suffices.
· Exclusions for political offences, unless the crimes fall under categories such as murder, terrorism, or kidnapping.
Despite the gravity of the allegations, India has ample legal and diplomatic leeway to decline the extradition request. According to foreign policy experts, the case against Hasina may not meet the threshold required for a politically sensitive extradition.
Former Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, noted that “extradition is essentially a judicial process.” India would require credible, independently verifiable evidence to proceed. “The clauses of the bilateral treaty, which emphasize fairness and safety, must be honoured,” he said.
Moreover, India could invoke exceptions that allow denial if the request appears politically motivated or not made in good faith. The Yunus-led interim government, installed after a non-electoral transition, lacks full international recognition, which further complicates the matter.
Strategic Interests vs Regional Expectations
India now finds itself in a precarious position. Sheikh Hasina has been a long-standing strategic ally, closely aligned with India on issues ranging from counterterrorism and border security to regional trade and connectivity. Her government often acted in sync with Indian foreign policy interests, particularly in limiting Chinese influence in South Asia.
Returning her to Bangladesh could alienate Hasina’s remaining political base and damage India’s standing with sympathetic factions within the Awami League. On the other hand, refusing the extradition risks angering the current leadership in Dhaka and could be seen as interfering in Bangladesh’s internal justice processes.
Political analyst believes India’s past support for Hasina stemmed more from strategic calculation than democratic alignment. “India must have known how unpopular Sheikh Hasina was in Bangladesh… but maintained the status quo because it served their interests,” he said. Bringing her back now could ignite fresh political unrest and further complicate India-Bangladesh relations.
A Question of Legitimacy and Proof
Another critical point is the legitimacy of the charges and the body making them. Hasina has not been accused of financial crimes, money laundering, or direct murder—charges that typically carry more straightforward legal weight in extradition cases. The allegations, while serious, are deeply entangled with political upheaval and could be seen by India as lacking judicial neutrality.
Former diplomat Deepak Vohra told CNBC-TV18 that the charges against Hasina remain largely political. “Just because the Bangladesh government says she’s a terrible person doesn’t mean we’ll hand her over,” he said. “There has to be very hard evidence.”
He also questioned the judicial integrity of the current regime, highlighting that Hasina’s sentence for contempt may reflect a political grudge rather than impartial justice.
Conclusion: An Extradition Unlikely, but a Tense Future Ahead
India’s refusal to extradite Sheikh Hasina appears not just likely but almost certain. Between treaty loopholes, the political nature of the allegations, strategic interests, and the questionable legitimacy of the interim government, New Delhi has numerous grounds for resistance.
Yet, the case remains a diplomatic landmine. How India manages this request will set a precedent in regional diplomacy, especially in handling post-regime-change asylum cases. India’s next steps will be closely watched—not just in Dhaka but across South Asia.
In shielding a former ally, New Delhi risks accusations of selective justice. But in surrendering her, it may sacrifice a critical relationship and fuel political volatility. For now, the scales appear tipped in Hasina’s favour—but not without cost.
(With agency inputs)
