For families who lost relatives in Bangladesh’s July-August 2024 uprising, Sheikh Hasina’s presence in India is far more than just a question of political refuge. Some are caring for injured relatives, while others have been left devastated by their losses. Parents have rooms that are now empty. When the ousted prime minister speaks to Bangladeshis from India, the question arises: Why should those who paid the price for democracy have to watch the very person they hold responsible for their suffering continue to intervene in Bangladesh’s politics from abroad?
In February 2025, the UN Human Rights Office estimated that as many as 1,400 people may have been killed during the 2024 uprising, with thousands more injured. It identified systematic repression by the former government, the security forces and violent elements of the Awami League, and concluded that there was an official policy of violent suppression that warranted further investigation into potential crimes against humanity. These were international findings of fact, not a criminal verdict.
Subsequent domestic proceedings dealt with individual responsibility. In November 2025, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal found Hasina guilty of crimes against humanity, including instigating and abetting the atrocities and ordering lethal force against protesters. It also held her responsible under the doctrine of superior command responsibility and sentenced her to death in absentia. She has called the trial politically motivated. Her denial in no way diminishes the victims’ right to justice. Bangladesh has requested her extradition from India, but she remains there.
Under Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, the government is attempting to repair a damaged economy and to re-establish a political culture that has been badly scarred by years of autocratic rule. Yet Hasina’s supporters abroad continue to promote the prospect of her political comeback on social media. Such messages fuel uncertainty about the future of Bangladesh’s democratic transition, particularly for families still waiting for justice.
The elected government and all political organisations committed to that transition have a responsibility to defend it. They should respond to any attempts to destabilise it with factual information and legal action, keeping victims at the heart of their policies. But Bangladesh cannot address these concerns alone while Hasina remains in India.
In an interview with Prothom Alo, C Christine Fair, a political scientist at Georgetown University, said that Hasina had been useful to India and that New Delhi would not hand her over. But India’s decision to shelter Hasina is one issue; allowing her to continue intervening in Bangladesh’s politics from Indian territory is another.
In January 2026, Bangladesh’s Foreign Ministry accused Hasina of inciting violence to disrupt the forthcoming elections after she addressed a public event in New Delhi. Fair questioned why New Delhi appeared unwilling to restrain Hasina when it had previously persuaded foreign political figures, including the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi, to exercise restraint. She suggested that India’s domestic politics explained the difference. From Bangladesh’s perspective, this raises questions about how much weight New Delhi gives to its neighbour’s concerns when they conflict with its own political calculations.
Whatever political considerations shape New Delhi’s position, Bangladesh’s extradition request must be assessed on its legal merits. A person’s political status does not automatically prevent extradition. Article 6 of the India-Bangladesh extradition treaty specifically excludes murder, incitement to murder and a number of related offences from the political offence exception. Other grounds and safeguards for refusal remain applicable.
Through sustained diplomatic engagement, the government of Bangladesh should make clear that Dhaka wants constructive relations with India on the basis of sovereign equality and expects a serious response to its extradition request. It should also ask New Delhi to ensure that its territory is not used to incite violence in Bangladesh or threaten its people. Specific incidents should be documented, and peaceful political expression should be clearly distinguished from calls for violence.
If India is serious about resetting its relationship with Bangladesh, it has to respect the democratic mandate of that <a href="https://warsaw.today/where-does-your-country-rank-2/” title=”Where does your country rank?”>country and acknowledge the suffering of its people. Protecting a former dictator from accountability will only serve to increase mistrust. Sheikh Hasina must return to Bangladesh to answer in person for the killings and abuses committed under her government and to face any further lawful proceedings. Her return must deliver justice to the victims and help restore the rule of law that Bangladesh is so keen to re-establish.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Source: www.aljazeera.com
