Hasina’s extradition is a non-starter
AS expected, Bangladesh wants its former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina back. After all, an arrest warrant had been issued in October, and interim leader Muhammad Yunus called for extradition and an Interpol Red Notice in his November speech. That’s pretty tough talk, especially since Yunus and student leaders know full well that New Delhi will not extradite a leader who prioritised good relations with India and brought stability to her own country. The per capita income more than doubled from a mere $600-odd when she was first elected to the present $2,646 as the economy grew some 18 times. All that is now forgotten.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs has acknowledged that a note verbale was received from Dhaka, seeking extradition, but has made no further comment. The two countries have an extradition treaty framed by the need to combat terrorism and other ills. It bars extradition for offences of a political character, in line with international law. Extradition and the right to asylum are determined by the UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum, which is based on Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The latter states very simply, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. It adds that this right does not include “prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations”.
Given that some 155 cases are lodged against Hasina, it would seem to be a simple matter — send her back. But international law is not simple, because states are never black and white in their behaviour. The ‘political exception’ was historically seen as applying to those seeking democracy in totalitarian states. But legally, it applies to all — democratic, nihilist or anarchist. In essence, it is up to the sheltering state to decide on whether or not a particular act is political or not, since the law is vague on exactly what that is.
Meanwhile, the bilateral treaty also requires a magistrate’s arrest order and presentation of evidence of a crime. Those are yet to be provided.
Another aspect worth noting while considering an extradition request is the right to a fair trial, which is codified in international law. Though not directly connected to extradition, the UN Model Law on extradition does make the lack of a proper legal process a basis for refusal of extradition. Consider the recent acts of the Bangladesh judiciary. It has commuted the death sentence of Paresh Baruah, leader of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) that had once created mayhem in India. He had been caught smuggling 10 truckloads of arms from a state-run jetty in Chittagong in 2004. Also implicated was Lutfozzaman Babar of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), besides several others. Babar was also given the death penalty for a grenade attack which killed 24 people and left Hasina injured. He and other BNP leaders indicted in this case were freed earlier this month. Worst of all has been the refusal to grant bail to Hindu priest Chinmoy Krishna Das on the grounds that no lawyer represented him in the court. The state did not provide a defending lawyer, though it is duty-bound to do so.
Apart from all this is the situation on the ground. Bangladesh has witnessed a frenzy of hate against not just Hasina but also her supporters and Awami League members. The party has claimed that 400 of its cadres have been killed. A UN report notes that nearly 650 people were killed between July 16 and August 11 this year. It has suggested a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation into reports of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests and detentions. Clearly, there is a great danger to the life of the Awami League leader if she returns.
Then are moral and other aspects too. Hasina was sent to India by the Bangladesh army for her own safety. That trust would be betrayed if India sends her back. Diplomatically, India’s image would be hit, especially in the neighbourhood, if it gives in to Yunus’ demand. Politicians and others who have stood by us in the past would have second thoughts about their future actions if India is not seen as a sincere friend. The most curious aspect is that Yunus and his band of students are making extradition an issue despite knowing that it would spoil relations with India. This is not an elected government, and accordingly, it has no requirement to score brownie points with its electorate.
It seems that Yunus is in no hurry to go; his students have already declared their intention of forming a political party of their own. That’s fine, except for a growing anti-India sentiment among the students now at the helm of affairs. That includes a now-deleted Facebook post by the interim government’s student adviser Mahfuz Alam that showed a map of Bangladesh claiming Indian territory. Then there is the puzzling objection to a perfectly harmless post by Prime Minister Narendra Modi praising the Indian Army for the victory in the 1971 war, by Bangladesh officials and student advisers. Besides, questions are being raised about a clutch of India-backed projects, most recently the Rooppur trilateral nuclear power project that also includes Russia.
New Delhi has to tread carefully. There is clearly more to all this than meets the eye, and possibly more than one outside actor is involved. Meanwhile, Hasina stays. No two ways about that.
