Troubled Ties

The Backdrop
On November 17, the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, was sentenced to death in absentia for crimes against humanity for her active role in ordering a brutal crackdown on the student uprising of 2024. In early 2025, the United Nations Human Rights Office found that Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League party systematically engaged in a series of human rights violations during the student-led protests, which toppled her government and led to the deaths of at least 1400 people.

Sheikh Hasina remains in exile in India after having fled Bangladesh on August 5, 2024. The interim government of Bangladesh, led by Chief Advisor Professor Muhammad Yunus, has repeatedly requested India for Hasina’s extradition, citing the 2013 bilateral extradition treaty between Bangladesh and India. Repeated requests have been made for her extradition, to which India remains largely silent. This leads to Bangladesh perceiving India’s sheltering of Hasina as “unfriendly,” and it has even considered approaching the International Criminal Court (ICC) if necessary.

India’s Response
India’s response has essentially been very measured. The Ministry of External Affairs has stated that it is “examining” the matter via judicial processes, while simultaneously affirming its commitment to the stability and democracy of Bangladesh.

This type of generic response by India and avoidance of extradition requests indicates that India may not extradite her. There are several factors to consider in this regard:

• There are provisions in the extradition treaty and India’s Extradition Act of 1962 permitting refusal if the offense is considered to be political, in bad faith, or in the interests of justice.
• There are very profound ties between India, Sheikh Hasina, and her party, the Awami League.
• There is a political consensus in India against the extradition, particularly in relation to the death sentence and concerns over the fairness of the trial, which was conducted in absentia, drawing criticism from international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.

India’s Position
It is worth noting that the glaring hypocrisy in India’s position is hard to miss.

First, for a country which plays the “internal affairs” card for any internationally evident overreach, such as its human rights violations against minorities, India sees no problem in interfering in the political and judicial process in Bangladesh.

It is evident that an extradition request will be based on political issues. Hence, India’s Extradition Act’s refusal to extradite Hasina based on a political offense is duplicitous.

Second, citing that the death sentence was pronounced in absentia is yet another dishonest factor. It is India which has refused to ignore extradition requests time and again. Hence, citing the absentia factor is hypocritical, to say the least.

Point to Ponder
The one point that is absolutely clear about Bangladesh’s position is the distrust that has been fostered towards its neighbor, with the latter’s absolute bias and favoritism towards Hasina and her regime, perceived in Bangladesh to be authoritarian, corrupt, and utterly devoid of any regard for human rights.

Clearly, bilateral relations between the two countries reached a low point in 2024 and have continued to deteriorate since then. Significant points of contention were India’s perceived violations of minority rights (particularly those of Hindus) in Bangladesh. However, factors of civil unrest are often credited to India’s intelligence agency, RAW’s false-flag operations to create instability within its neighbors. Interestingly enough, India’s own grave human rights violations of minorities, particularly of Muslims, seem to be of no concern and are deemed by India as its “internal matter.”