Bangladesh Moves For The Extradition Of Sheikh Hasina From India

The Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) has said that it is taking steps to secure the extradition of ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from neighbouring India to face trial in serious cases against her.

But India’s hands are tied by the fact that Hasina was a reliable geopolitical and security partner for two decades.

Bangladesh has a criminal extradition treaty with India which was signed in 2013, while Sheikh Hasina’s government was in power. The ICT was itself set up by Hasina in 2010 to investigate atrocities committed during the 1971 war of independence against Pakistan.

According to the UN, more than 600 people were killed in July-August 2024 in a country-wide, university students-led agitation which Sheikh Hasina tried to put down with a heavy hand.

Hasina fled to India on August 5. She tried to leave for the UK from India but was refused entry. Therefore, India has had to hold the baby, even as Bangladesh keeps insisting that she be extradited.

It will be near impossible for India to hand Hasina over to Bangladesh given the fact that her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, had been a friend of India and Hasina herself had been a reliable security and geopolitical partner for long.

However, there is a danger of losing Bangladesh’s friendship if she is not handed over soon. Alternatively, Bangladesh could ignore the issue and get on with the task of building good neighbourly relations with India, as it did in the case of the US and Canada which had refused to extradite the killers of Sheikh Mujib.

This could well happen if the political temperature comes down in Dhaka and Sheikh Hasina eschews overt politicking while in India as suggested by Bangladesh’s current ruler Dr.Muhammad Yunus.

The extradition treaty between India and Bangladesh was signed in 2013 and amended in 2016. It was primarily meant to address the issue of insurgency and terrorism. The treaty also covers attempts to commit, aiding, abetting, inciting, or participating as an accomplice in such crimes.

The principle of “dual criminality” is crucial here. Dual criminality requires that the crime for which extradition is requested is recognized as a punishable offense in both countries.

In 2016 the treaty was amended to eliminate the need for “evidence”. Thus, it only requires an arrest warrant from a competent court in the requesting country.

However, Article 6 says that political offenses may not qualify for extradition. If India considers the offenses against Hasina to be of a political nature, it could deny extradition.

Charges like murder, terrorism, and kidnapping are excluded from being considered “political.” So, the Bangladeshi authorities could lay serious charges such as these to force New Delhi’s hand.

However, India could use Article 8 to prevent extradition. Dewan Alif Ovi, Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Genocide and Justice (CSGJ) at the Bangladesh Liberation War Museum points out in an article in The Diplomat, that Art 8 cites situations where the accusations “are not made with good faith in the interests of justice.”

India could potentially refuse extradition on the basis that the charges against Hasina are not made in good faith, Ovi says.

Ovi’s concludes his essay saying: “India finds itself on a tightrope over a minefield, juggling legal commitments under the treaty with broader geopolitical and diplomatic considerations. However, legal experts and former diplomats argue that national interests frequently take precedence over legal procedures in such circumstances.”

And national interests apply not just to India, but to Bangladesh too. Both have a heavy stake in having solid bilateral relations.

“While the treaty’s language provides clear guidelines on the grounds for extradition and refusal, the broader implications of any decision will likely extend beyond the legal framework. Ultimately, whether India decides to extradite or refuses will hinge on a delicate balance of maintaining regional stability, upholding diplomatic ties, and managing the public and political ramifications on both sides of the border,” Ovi says.

There is another important factor for India to consider. In 2015, Bangladesh had obliged India by extraditing Anup Chetia also known as Golap Baruah, a founder and general secretary of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), an armed separatist group in Assam. Bangladesh also extradited Babul Sharma and Shakti Prashad, two other ULFA leaders.

India’s External Affairs Minister S.Jaishankar has said that the issue of extradition will be addressed diplomatically. And it is likely that the Chief Advisor of the Bangladesh Interim Government Dr.Muhammad Yunus will take up this issue if he meets Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York later this month.

In this context it is worth recalling Bangladesh’s bitter experience with extraditing the killers of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh from the US and Canada. The latter refused to cooperate. And yet, the issue did not spoil bilateral relations.

Six accused, S.H.M.B Noor Chowdhury, Rashed Chowdhury, Khandaker Abdur Rashid, Shariful Haque Dalim, and Moslemuddin, remain fugitives despite extensive efforts to have them extradited.

Khandaker Abdur Rashid and Rashed Chowdhury currently live in the United States, after applying for asylum. S.H.M.B Noor Chowdhury, applied for asylum in Canada, and currently lives in Toronto. He openly told the CBC television series “The Fifth Estate”, in an episode titled "The Assassin Next Door", about his role in Mujib’s assassination.

The whereabouts of Shariful Haque Dalim and Moslemuddin are unknown. It is believed that Dalim has a Kenyan passport and that currently he lives in Pakistan.

Major (Rtd.) A.K.M. Mohiuddin Ahmed was extradited from the United States after he failed to get asylum or permanent residency in the US. He was tried and hanged along with Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, Syed Faruque Rahman, and Bazlul Huda.

US and Canada said that the fugitives in their country could not be extradited because of the death sentence awarded to them in Bangladesh. But Sajeeb Wazed, the son of Sheikh Hasina, wrote in the New York Times in November 2016 to say that the United States too awarded the death penalty for crimes like treason and terrorism.

Strongly urging the US to extradite the Bangladeshi fugitives, Wazed said that decades after killing his grandfather Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Rashed Chowdhury was living in liberty in the United States.

“He was fairly tried in open court in Dhaka and convicted in absentia on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, even though his former military rank as a lieutenant colonel would have allowed for a court-martial, a far quicker and less transparent process. Although a fugitive from justice in Bangladesh since 1996, Mr. Chowdhury has never been punished for his crimes. Bangladesh made its initial request for his extradition in 2000 and has waited for more than a decade and a half. It’s past time for him to be sent home to face justice,” Wazed wrote.

“Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman, one of the main beneficiaries of the massacre and the founder of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, went so far as to codify protections for them. Not only were the murderers immune from prosecution, they were also rewarded with important jobs in government and diplomacy. One even ran for President.”

“It was only when my mother (Sheikh Hasina) became Prime Minister through democratic elections in 1996, that trials of our family’s murderers were begun. There was popular pressure for fast convictions, but my mother knew that the trials must not only be fair, they must also appear to be fair. To maintain rule of law and to ensure transparency, she chose to hold the trials in civilian courts with all constitutional protections.” Wazed recalled.