India on Monday stayed non-committal to Dhaka’s request to extradite ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, sentenced to death by a Bangladeshi tribunal for the crackdown on the student-led uprising of July-August 2024.
“India has noted the verdict announced by the ‘International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh’ concerning former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina,” the external affairs ministry said in a statement.
“As a close neighbour, India remains committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion and stability in that country. We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end.”
The ministry made no reference to Dhaka’s renewed demand, made earlier in the day, for the extradition of the two Awami League politicians on the basis of the International Crimes Tribunal’s (ICT) verdict.
A statement in Bengali from the Bangladesh foreign ministry had said: “If another country gives refuge to these people sentenced for crimes against humanity, it will be an extremely unfriendly action and one that is akin to disrespect for justice.”
The foreign ministry’s statement added: “We appeal to the Indian government to immediately hand over these two sentenced individuals to Bangladeshi authorities. In view of the extradition treaty between the two countries, this is also a duty India must abide by.”
Bangladesh had earlier, too, requested Hasina’s extradition after she took shelter in India in August 2024. India had ignored the request and might well do so again, considering the requests are coming from an interim government and not a democratically elected one.
View of a mural of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina vandalised by protesters, a day after her resignation, in Dhaka Reuters
The emphasis on democracy and inclusion in the Indian statement indicates New Delhi’s position that the Awami League — banned by the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government under the Anti-Terrorism Act — has a right to participate in next year’s elections.
Former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal flagged the “political offence exception” clause in the extradition treaty, which allows both India and Bangladesh to refuse extradition if the offence for which it is requested is a political one.
In a post on X, Sibal described the Bangladesh foreign ministry statement as a “cavalier way” of dealing with a very serious issue.
“The intention is to add to tensions in bilateral relations by immediately seeking extradition through a press statement even before approaching GoI (Government of India) formally with the Tribunal’s in absentia judgment and the evidence it has relied on,” he said.
“One should recall Yunus’ own statement in Washington that the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina was meticulously planned.”
Rigged: Hasina
Hasina, in a statement issued from her party office in Dhaka, said: “The verdicts announced against me have been made by a rigged tribunal established and presided over by an unelected government with no democratic mandate.
“They are biased and politically motivated. In their distasteful call for the death penalty, they reveal the brazen and murderous intent of extremist figures within the interim government to remove Bangladesh’s last elected prime minister, and to nullify the Awami League as a political force.”
Hasina said the purpose of the tribunal was neither to achieve justice nor to provide any genuine insight into the events of July and August 2024.
“Their purpose was to scapegoat the Awami League and to distract the world’s attention from the failings of Dr Yunus and his ministers,” she said.
Digging her heels in, she said: “I am not afraid to face my accusers in a proper tribunal where the evidence can be weighed and tested fairly. That is why I have repeatedly challenged the interim government to bring these charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague.”
About the specific allegations, she said: “What happened in July and August last year was a tragedy for our country and for many families who lost their loved ones. In taking the actions we did to try to stem the disorder, Bangladesh’s political leaders acted in good faith and were trying to minimise the loss of life.
“We lost control of the situation, but to characterise what happened as a premeditated assault on citizens is simply to misread the facts.
“Despite their lurid claims, the ICT’s prosecutors produced no persuasive evidence to show that I ordered the use of lethal force against the people. Transcripts and audio files cited as evidence are fragmentary and have been taken out of context.
“The fact is that operational control rested with security forces on the ground, acting under established legal protocols.”
Hasina underlined that the prosecutors had accused the Awami League of burning down state buildings even though various student leaders had cheerfully and publicly admitted they were responsible for these acts of arson and sabotage.
About the human toll, her contention is that the UN’s much-quoted figure of 1,400 deaths is disputed.
“Bangladesh’s own Ministry of Health’s has a verified count of 834 deaths. The higher number seemingly includes unverified cases supplied by the National Security Intelligence and counts among the dead police officers and Awami League activists murdered by protesters. But only 614 families have received state assistance as families of martyrs,” she said.
Commenting on the day’s developments in Dhaka, strategic thinker Brahma Chellaney said in a post on X: “The unelected interim regime and its patrons have weaponised the legal process to eliminate their strongest political adversaries. This verdict is not a judicial finding but acalculated act of political retribution.
“Having already outlawed the country’s largest political party — Hasina’s Awami League, which led Bangladesh to independence — the Yunus-led regime has stripped the planned February 2026 election of legitimacy. Now, through a death sentence delivered by a tribunal stacked with politically aligned judges, it is seeking to erode Hasina’s mass base.”