 "India may not send back Sheikh Hasina to Bangladesh. File Photo/AFP")
Bangladesh has urged India to act with “conscience and moral clarity” over its extradition request for former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The ousted leader is wanted in her country on charges of “crimes against humanity” and other offences.
Hasina resigned and fled to India last August after student-led protests toppled her government. She has since been residing in the country at an undisclosed location.
As Dhaka presses for her extradition, here’s why New Delhi is unlikely to comply to its request.
Why Sheikh Hasina is wanted in Bangladesh
A massive nationwide protest opposing the job quota system, which began last July, led to the collapse of Sheikh Hasina’s government on August 5.
After the seven-week uprising, more than 1,000 protesters had been killed and about 20,000 injured or disabled, as per an estimate by the interim Bangladesh government led by Muhammad Yunus.
Yunus had formed the government in August, soon after Hasina resigned, ending her 15-year rule.
The Dhaka-based International Crime Tribunal (ICT), the court hearing cases against Hasina and others, issued arrest warrants against the former PM and her associates.
Hasina has been accused of orchestrating a genocide and “crimes against humanity” during the student-led protests last year. Serious charges of murder and enforced disappearance have also been levelled against her.
Hasina’s Awami League party is still banned, with ongoing trials against former officials.
Last week, Sheikh Hasina was sentenced to six months in prison in absentia for contempt of court by the ICT.
Recently, an audio of a phone call verified by BBC Eye claimed that the crackdown on last year’s student-led protests in Bangladesh was authorised by Hasina.
In the purported audio, leaked in March, Hasina said she allowed the security forces to “use lethal weapons” against protesters and that “wherever they find [them], they will shoot”.
Bangladesh presses India to extradite Hasina
Bangladesh’s interim government on Wednesday (July 9) called on India to extradite Hasina.
Last December, Dhaka sent New Delhi a note verbale, requesting the extradition of the deposed PM. India confirmed receiving the formal diplomatic note but did not comment further.
Shafiqul Alam, Yunus’ press secretary, said in a post on social media yesterday, “We now urge the Republic of India to act with conscience and moral clarity.”
“For too long, India has refused to comply with Bangladesh’s lawful request for the extradition of Sheikh Hasina,” he said.
Alam went on to describe India’s stance as “no longer tenable”. “Neither regional friendship, strategic considerations, nor political legacy could justify the deliberate murder of civilians,” he added.
Why India may not extradite Hasina
India and Bangladesh signed an extradition treaty in 2013, which was amended in 2016. The pact was meant to address the issue of insurgency and terrorism along the border between the neighbours.
The treaty entailed the extradition of fugitives and criminals, particularly those engaged in activities that threaten national security.
As per the agreement, both countries are required to extradite persons charged with or convicted of offences that carry a minimum of one year of jail term. Dual criminality applies here, meaning the crime for which extradition is requested must be recognised as a punishable offence in both countries.
The 2016 revision of the treaty removed the need for evidence and only required an arrest warrant from a competent court in the requesting country. The extradition request can, however, be rejected in some cases, including political offences.
However, offences such as murder, terrorism-related crimes and kidnapping are explicitly excluded from being categorised as political.
While India is legally bound by the treaty to extradite Hasina, it could refuse on valid grounds.
Foreign policy experts say New Delhi is unlikely to heed Bangladesh’s request without solid proof of wrongdoing.
“Bangladesh needs to present solid evidence that Hasina is guilty of the crimes they are accusing her of, as extradition is essentially a judicial process,” Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, former Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh, told South China Morning Post’s This Week in Asia.
“The clauses of the bilateral extradition treaty between the two countries, which emphasise on fairness and safety, must also be honoured,” he added.
As per The Diplomat, India could refuse to extradite Hasina, citing that charges against her were not made in good faith.
Another exception offered by the treaty to deny the extradition request is when an accusation was not made with good faith in the interests of justice, or if the crime was a military one not recognised under general criminal law.
New Delhi is on a tightrope in this case. If it refuses to extradite Hasina, India risks straining diplomatic ties with Dhaka’s current ruling dispensation. But if it agrees to the request, it could alienate key political forces in Bangladesh and India , where Hasina is considered a long-time ally and strategic partner, noted The Diplomat.
Bangladeshi political analyst Zahedur Rahman told This Week in Asia that it is “almost certain” that India would not repatriate Hasina.
“India must have known how unpopular Sheikh Hasina was in Bangladesh during her long rule and how much anger, resentment, and hatred people had towards her. But since she was able to stay in power and fulfil India’s needs, the Indian government wanted to maintain that status quo,” he said.
“India surely knows that trying to bring Sheikh Hasina back to power in Bangladesh will only further incite anger, resentment, and hatred among the people, which will make it impossible for her to remain in power.”
Speaking to CNBC-TV18, Deepak Vohra, former Indian envoy to Poland, described the allegations against Hasina as a “political issue.”
“Is she a criminal? That’s the first question that has to be addressed,” he said. “Simply because the Bangladesh government says she’s a terrible person, give her back to us, we won’t.”
“She has not been accused of directly murdering people, nor has she been linked to money laundering or financial crimes. There has to be very hard evidence,” Vohra emphasised, pointing out the lack of electoral legitimacy of the Yunus government.
With inputs from agencies