In the past few days, the media outlets that contacted me or invited me to talk shows all focused on one main issue—the verdict delivered by the International Crimes Tribunal against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. This is understandable. For the first time in Bangladesh’s history, a prime minister has been sentenced to death. Moreover, Sheikh Hasina is the daughter of Sheikh Mujib and, as a political figure, has probably been the most talked-about leader in Bangladesh’s political history. She still remains at the centre of discussion.
The questions the media asked me were mainly three: First, what is my personal reaction to the verdict? Second, what impact will this verdict have on the politics of the future? And third, will India ultimately extradite Sheikh Hasina?
Let me begin by saying—I cannot rejoice at anyone’s death, regardless of the way or the reason. Many developed countries do not impose the death penalty, perhaps because a person sentenced to death does not go through the torment of remorse. At the same time, it is also true that those who commit crimes against humanity cannot be allowed to evade justice.
If people like Hitler, Mussolini, or Genghis Khan were sentenced to death, I would feel nothing. It would seem natural. But when the death sentence is pronounced against Sheikh Hasina, I do have a reaction. What a towering figure she was (not speaking of virtues here—rather of her name, power, plunder, and misdeeds)!
I knew her personally; we spoke many times. It would perhaps have been better not to witness such an end for her. But history is merciless. Sin spares no one—not even one’s own ancestors. It pains me; but I scold myself for feeling that pain.
Why should I feel pain? The people of this country suffered a thousand times more. She and her government inflicted that suffering.
Now to the second question. Even on 4 August of last year, many people called me (when the streets of Dhaka and the rest of the country were witnessing a bloody ‘Holi’, and Sheikh Hasina herself had ordered it). Their question was, “Brother, will anything happen? Will you be able to remove Sheikh Hasina?”
As usual, I answered with a political slogan: Of course we will win! Fascism has never won. But deep inside, doubts rose and faded like bubbles. After 15 years, the people themselves had begun to believe that Hasina was unbeatable. Yet her defeat and subsequent escape once again proved that no dictatorship survives in the end.
Hasina refused to accept defeat. Her party members also refused—especially those who fled to India. In a Prothom Alo report on 19 November, I saw that Hasina expressed no remorse. The next day, on the 20th, I saw the same attitude among her party members who had fled to India.
For the past 15 months, even while staying in India, Hasina has been spewing venom about the July–August uprising and, in a way, attempting to call for the overthrow of this government. Yet things did not have to turn out this way. A different course was possible. I am speaking of a change in perspective. Many people have discussed this, and various opinions have appeared in the media. They argued that the Awami League should express remorse for the misrule it exercised during its time in power. For all the injustices and oppression it carried out, they should seek forgiveness and cleanse themselves.
There was talk that the Awami League should reappear before the people as a refined or purified party. Even after everything, there are still individuals within the Awami League whom the public likes. But the party does not seem to be moving in that direction. Individualism and family dominance have taken such deep root in the party that no one dares suggest that excluding Sheikh Hasina or her family from leadership might actually be good for the party.
As I said earlier, Hasina’s verdict once again shows that no one is invincible. Even Awami League leaders and workers are beginning to think this. From personal sources, I know that this sense of despair is spreading even in Gopalganj and Faridpur—areas considered strongholds of the Awami League. Many are wondering whether Sheikh Hasina will ever be able to return to the country, and whether the Awami League will be able to rise again.
Now to the third question raised by the media: Will Sheikh Hasina’s death sentence be carried out? Will India extradite her to Bangladesh? I don’t think so. When Hasina was in India endlessly criticising the 2024 uprising and the government of Bangladesh, the Bangladeshi government had already requested her return once. India did not comply.
I heard at the time that even if an extradition treaty exists, if the host country believes that returning the individual in its custody may endanger that person’s life, it is not obliged to send them back. And now that the person has been given a death sentence, India can very well use that argument for refusing extradition.
So let India not send her back. What will that mean for the future of Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League? Readers may have noticed that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ statement regarding Hasina’s death sentence did not express any position. They merely said they were aware of the verdict—an extremely neutral response. After the Bangladeshi election is over, what will India’s position be within this neutrality? India has already expressed its view that it will be interested in strengthening relations with Bangladesh’s elected government. That too is a form of neutrality. From a diplomatic standpoint, there isn’t much else India can do.
Readers have surely also noticed that Bangladesh’s National Security Adviser, Khalilur Rahman, met India’s National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, in Delhi on Wednesday. Their meeting was originally scheduled for the following day, but Khalilur Rahman adjusted his itinerary to accommodate the meeting with Doval.
Meanwhile, after the verdict against Sheikh Hasina, the statement issued by India’s Ministry of External Affairs said that, as a close neighbour, India remains committed to peace, democracy, inclusion, stability, and the best interests of the people of Bangladesh. A very diplomatic statement. I believe Bangladesh’s election will take place on time—barring any invisible factors beyond my knowledge. I also do not think India would declare war on Bangladesh to stop the election.
In that case, what does the future hold for Sheikh Hasina? And what might the future be for the Awami League as an organisation? India has spoken of “inclusion” (Bangladesh also speaks of inclusion). What is the significance of that? How deep does it go? How far might it take us?
There will be no resolution to these questions while this current government remains in power. The government has made it clear that the Awami League will not be allowed to contest the election during this term. What happens next will depend entirely on the government that comes afterwards—our future course and the structure of our politics will be shaped by that.
#Mahmudur Rahman Manna is president, Nagorik Oikya
#The views expressed are the writer’s own.