Since the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government, there has been a public discussion on how to bring Sheikh Hasina back from India and let her stand trial. A bilateral extradition treaty is in force between Bangladesh and India for the exchange of accused, and therefore many were hoping that it would be easy to bring Sheikh Hasina back from India as per the provisions of the treaty. The head of government also made it clear once in this regard that India would be requested to let handover Sheikh Hasina. Finally, this has been done. The request was made. The foreign advisor said that India has been requested to hand over Sheikh Hasina through a diplomatic note. What exactly is said in the note is not yet known, however it is written, the message is clear.

Now the new question in the public mind is whether India will return Sheikh Hasina? Or is India obliged to return her? If not, what else can Bangladesh do? The Indian government has known since the time it granted asylum to Sheikh Hasina that an extradition treaty was in force between the two countries. Sheikh Hasina herself is well aware of this information, as she herself made the treaty. On the other hand, the interim government in Bangladesh also knows that India has given shelter to Sheikh Hasina knowingly. And Bangladesh certainly does not expect that India will send Sheikh Hasina to Dhaka on the next flight as soon as it receives the diplomatic note. Both countries have experts on extradition issues, and both sides therefore know the pros and cons or the potential course of action of an extradition request.

So the question is, why did Bangladesh issue a diplomatic note? When relations between the two countries are at a very low point, and when there has been some initiative on both sides to rebuild those relations, and since the ice of hostility has started to melt, was such a diplomatic note really necessary?

Even though it sounds bad, to me, this diplomatic note has been a face-saving measure. It is like, nail it but keep the gear intact. In other words, people want the fallen prime minister to be brought back, the court has issued an arrest warrant in her name, the Home Ministry has informed the Foreign Ministry about it, and the Foreign Ministry has informed India about it. Although I do not know, I assume that the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi has requested the Indian Foreign Ministry for the extradition in question through a diplomatic note.

I think there will be no favourable response from India regarding the extradition of Sheikh Hasina. This became somewhat clear when India granted her asylum.

Bringing back the accused is never an easy task. In this case, a bilateral agreement does not provide any guarantee. Loopholes can be found in any treaty. That is why a legal instrument like a treaty always becomes a protection for the powerful and wealthy. The accused will definitely try everything to escape justice. In this case, she will not probably even have to resort to Indian courts. The Indian government may attest that there is no rule of law in Bangladesh, the judiciary is not independent and the judges are not impartial. The chief justice of Bangladesh and other judges were the chief martial law administrators when martial law was imposed. A chief justice has been forcibly sent out of the country. Corruption cases are filed later against him. Recently, the entire appellate court, including the chief justice, has been forced to resign. New judges and prosecutors have been appointed to the International Crimes Tribunal. Accused persons convicted in sensational cases are now being acquitted in droves by appealing. Many such incidents have happened in the past too. As a result, it will not be difficult to prove that justice is not guaranteed in the judicial system of Bangladesh. The kind of governance or justice system we have become accustomed to in Bangladesh is unacceptable to anyone outside Bangladesh, particularly in the West, and in the advanced developing country or in the advanced democratic world. The once autocratic prime minister may now try to take advantage of this reality. There is an opportunity for her side to show the excuse of ‘politically motivated’ cases in the extradition treaty, and to prove that there is a lack of ‘good wishes’. As a result, even if the extradition treaty is in force, it may not fulfil the expectations of the people of Bangladesh.

We are still not clear on what status India has given shelter to Sheikh Hasina. Is she a refugee? If she is a refugee, a different dimension is added. The UN Refugee Commission also created complications during the extradition of Anup Chetia to India. India also requested the return of criminals to various Western countries on various occasions, many of which are turned down. In most of those case, the lack of justice in the Indian judicial system has been used as an excuse. Bangladesh has already been unable to bring back convicted criminals from Canada or the United States. One reason for this was that if a convicted person returns to Bangladesh, his death sentence may be executed. Therefore, it seems that no matter what the obligations are in the treaty, it is not difficult to avoid those obligations.

In this particular case, what can a country like Bangladesh do? In response to such a question, I would say that bringing the accused to justice is important for establishing the rule of law and protecting the rights of the victim and therefore, should be discussed bilaterally. Since Sheikh Hasina has been the Prime Minister of Bangladesh for a long time, it was necessary for Bangladesh to present her extradition request to India with more seriousness. Note Verbale is a very basic type of initiative in diplomatic communication. It is written in the third person, addressed in the name of the ministry. Here, the pad and seal of the ministry are used and only the initial of one person is used without mentioning the name. In the case in question, even if a Note Verbale is issued, it should have been handed over at least from the political level. That is, it could have been handed over at a meeting of the foreign ministers of the two countries, if possible, only in a one-on-one meeting. Or, the foreign advisor of Bangladesh could have written a letter to the foreign minister of India requesting extradition. A special envoy could have gone to India or the Bangladesh High Commissioner in New Delhi himself could have handed it over on behalf of the foreign advisor. When she is the main accused in more than ninety cases, including murder cases, does not matter whether she was a former prime minister; it is important for the interests of justice that she stands at the trial.