Is India caught in Bangladesh storm with Sheikh Hasina's death sentence?

In this episode of Capital Beat, Ambassador Veena Sikri and international affairs expert Sanjay Kapoor examined the implications of the International Crimes Tribunal’s death sentence against former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and what her continued stay in India means for New Delhi. The panellists focused on legal, procedural, and geopolitical issues arising from the verdict, with both emphasising that India has not yet received a valid extradition request. They also underlined that any future action will be governed strictly by law, not political pressures.

Ambassador Veena Sikri stated that Bangladesh has only sent brief one-line communications and public statements, none of which qualify as a formal extradition request. She noted that an extradition process requires “all the legal documents”—including details of the conviction, evidence presented, court rulings, and associated judicial orders. None of these have been received by India. She stated, “You can’t just send a one-liner saying we want so-and-so back. That is not how it works.”

She said India’s response reflects this legal reality, adding that New Delhi has merely “noted the verdict” and reiterated its commitment to peace, democracy, and stability in Bangladesh. She explained that once legal documents arrive, the case can be examined under Indian law, and Sheikh Hasina would have full rights to approach Indian courts. She emphasised that such cases “can take up to years,” depending on complexity.

Validity of tribunal process in Dhaka

Ambassador Sikri pointed out that the tribunal used to sentence Hasina—the International Crimes Tribunal—was originally established in 1973 to try 1971 war crimes. She highlighted that its mandate was updated by Sheikh Hasina in 2009, and the tribunal has since completed several trials.

She questioned how this tribunal was suddenly used to try a former prime minister without parliamentary authorisation, especially under what she described as an unelected interim administration. She stated that “the way in which the judges were removed” and the appointment of new prosecutors raised further concerns.

She argued that such factors contribute to legal doubts surrounding the process. She added that Bangladesh’s tribunal was “never meant” for a case of this nature and that major procedural questions remain unanswered until India receives full documentation.

Key treaty clauses

The discussion then turned to the India–Bangladesh extradition treaty. Ambassador Sikri confirmed that India is “not legally obliged” to extradite Hasina. She explained dual criminality—where a crime must be recognised as an offence under Indian law as well—and highlighted clauses that allow India to reject extradition if the offence is political or if the request is not made in good faith.

She said that the political-offence exception and the requirement of good faith are significant in this case. She underscored that India cannot act “till we see the documents,” and that the trial’s political nature, questions around due process, and validity of the tribunal are all relevant considerations.

Regional security concerns

Responding to concerns about instability in Bangladesh, Ambassador Sikri said there was no evidence of widespread volatility at the time of the verdict. She pointed out that when Sheikh Hasina called a nationwide shutdown, “nobody stirred out of their homes,” indicating that her political base remained intact. She added that India would “never accept international interference,” though Hasina has expressed willingness to present her case before the International Criminal Court.

Ambassador Sikri noted that legal teams in the UK and Bangladesh have already made submissions to the ICC regarding killings, attacks on minorities, and media restrictions. The ICC has not yet indicated whether it will initiate proceedings.

Potential security implications

When asked if sheltering Hasina could create security threats for India, Ambassador Sikri distinguished between two separate issues: her presence in India and the larger security concerns emerging from Bangladesh. She stated that threats arise from the manner in which regime change occurred in Dhaka and from the involvement of Pakistani networks operating through Jamaat-e-Islami. She said these factors existed irrespective of Hasina’s location.

She added that Pakistan’s engagement with groups in Bangladesh and statements by their leaders about cross-border movement are security concerns India is already monitoring. She stressed that India is “fully capable of defending our borders” and does not link its security strategy to the question of extradition.

Ambassador Sikri dismissed the notion that the Modi government would face political or moral pressure to hand Hasina over. She repeated that without a valid request, “there is no process,” and therefore no external pressure can exist. She maintained that India has experience handling long-term political asylum cases and will follow due procedure.

India’s historic ties with Hasina

Sanjay Kapoor stated that India has a responsibility to protect an old ally. He said, “India has to look after her friend,” adding that Hasina has consistently supported India’s security interests across a sensitive and complex border. He recalled India’s role in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 and the bipartisan political consensus in India over supporting pro-India leadership in Dhaka.

Kapoor noted that any shift in Bangladesh’s political direction—especially closer ties with Pakistan—poses a strategic worry for India. He highlighted visits by Pakistani officials to Dhaka and growing cooperation as developments that require careful monitoring.

Political nature of charges

Kapoor pointed to India’s extradition law, including Section 31 of the Extradition Act, which prevents surrender in cases involving political offences. He said the events leading to Hasina’s removal, trial, and conviction stemmed from a domestic political uprising, giving India sufficient legal basis to refuse extradition.

He added that while Hasina herself had earlier expressed willingness to face trial, the Bangladesh government did not want her return before elections due to her political influence.

Kapoor said India is likely to continue providing protection to Hasina in line with its strategic interests and legal position. He described the tribunal verdict as “arbitrary” and questioned the timing of the sentence. He emphasised that India must ensure that the gains of 1971 are not reversed and that Dhaka’s growing proximity to Pakistan is a matter of concern.

India’s next steps

The discussion concluded with both panellists agreeing that India’s actions will be guided strictly by law and documentation, neither of which has yet been provided by Bangladesh. They emphasised that the situation requires careful observation in the coming weeks.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.