The interim caretaker regime headed by Mohammad Yunus appears to be crossing red lines rather recklessly and with impunity. After shamelessly dismissing the attacks on Hindus and incidents of temple vandalism, it has grudgingly admitted to the attacks, though at significantly lower numbers, and called it a political feud between supporters of Sheikh Hasina and agitators. As External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar heads to the US, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has taken serious note of the attacks on minorities in Bangladesh and sought assurances from the interim regime to protect minorities and respect the human rights of people of all faiths.
However, these assurances from Dhaka lack credibility as the US has no monitoring mechanism in Bangladesh, nor is the safety of minorities its priority. New Delhi needs to find its own leverage to bring Dhaka to its senses.
Far from taking responsible steps to restore normalcy and create an atmosphere of social harmony, the regime seems riveted on one objective—to continue its politics of vengeance and vendetta against the deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The unelected regime, which usurped power by deposing an elected prime minister, has asked India to extradite Sheikh Hasina, who fled to India in August 2024. Dhaka claims that the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) has issued an arrest warrant against the former prime minister. Besides the 77-year-old Sheikh Hasina, several of her cabinet colleagues have also been charge-sheeted.
Although there is no elected government or formal cabinet to make decisions, Bangladesh Home Adviser Jahangir Alam said that his office, the ‘Home Ministry’, has written to the ‘Foreign Ministry’ to initiate action for bringing the deposed prime minister to facilitate legal proceedings against her. Touhid Hossain, the ‘foreign ministry’ adviser acting as a de-facto foreign minister, has sent a note verbale to New Delhi asking government of India to hand over the former prime minister. Dhaka is either naive, foolish, unaware of repatriation rules, or wilfully neglecting the procedures required for such a request.
Should India extradite Sheikh Hasina?
Ironically, the ICT, which is said to have issued an arrest warrant against Sheikh Hasina, is neither competent nor mandated to handle political cases. Set up in 2010 by the Awami League government, the ICT of Bangladesh is a domestic war crimes tribunal that investigates and prosecutes individuals for crimes committed during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Sheikh Hasina and her family members were victims of genocide, not perpetrators by any stretch of the imagination. Mohammad Yunus, the Noble laureate for peace, was employed as an assistant professor of economics at Middle Tennessee State University when the Pakistan Army barbarically committed one of history’s worst crimes against humanity in East Pakistan in 1970-71. If not a witness, he should have acquainted himself with the history of the Liberation War and the ICT’s mandate.
The ICT has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other international law violations committed during the 1971 liberation war. Dhaka will need to constitute a special court to investigate the incidents leading to Sheikh Hasina’s ouster and the subsequent violence, arson, looting, and vandalism. However, this requires a legitimate elected government in Dhaka, which is what the current advisor to the regime needs to strive for.
Strangely, the regime has warned New Delhi that if Sheikh Hasina’s repatriation does not happen within a “certain time,” it will consider other avenues, implying urgency. The India-Bangladesh extradition treaty of 2013, amended in 2016, clearly outlines procedures, legal frameworks, and the types of crimes warranting repatriation requests. These primarily cover individuals involved in cross-border insurgency, terrorism, drugs and narcotics smuggling, and similar offences.
The 2016 amendment simplified the extradition process between the two nations, exemplified by the 2020 transfer of two convicts involved in the 1975 assassination of Sheikh Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who were returned to Bangladesh for execution. Another case was that of Anup Chetia, general secretary of the banned United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), who spent 18 years in a Dhaka prison. Dhaka should know that Sheikh Hasina’s case does not meet any of these provisions. Moreover, under Article 6 of the treaty, extradition may be denied if the alleged offence is of a “political nature”. Clearly, New Delhi can reject Dhaka’s note verbale to extradite Sheikh Hasina and disregard the alleged crimes of Sheikh Hasina. It is the illegitimate regime in Dhaka that must stop atrocities against Hindus and face punishment under the ICT for derailing democracy in Bangladesh.
source : theprint