Donate ☕
[🇧🇩] - Ousted PM Hasina sentenced to death | Page 2 | PKDefense

[🇧🇩] Ousted PM Hasina sentenced to death

Reply (Scroll)
Press space to scroll through posts
G Bangladesh Defense
[🇧🇩] Ousted PM Hasina sentenced to death
33
374
More threads by Saif


India responds after Bangladesh's ICT issues verdict on Hasina
New Delhi stays silent on Dhaka’s call for ousted PM's extradition

1763516809674.webp


India today said it has noted the verdict announced by the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh concerning former prime minister Sheikh Hasina and said New Delhi remains committed to "the best interests of the people of Bangladesh".

India's Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement hours after the ICT sentenced Hasina to death for crimes against humanity during the student-led protests during the July uprising last year.

"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," read the statement.

"We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end," it added.

India has not made any mention of Hasina's extradition to Bangladesh, which has called upon India to do so last December.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: Bilal9

Before Hasina lost in the court of law, she had lost in the court of the people

1763689401327.webp

VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

Let legal experts discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the ICT trial and verdict. Our focus will be on the fact that Sheikh Hasina's political demise had already occurred, and the "guilty verdict" was pronounced by the people, especially the younger generation, much earlier, during the tumultuous days of July-August 2024.

The future is always unpredictable, but as of now, her reputation lies in ruins and her political career buried under a mountain of debris of self-righteous arrogance, misgovernance, and impunity. Whatever may be Awami League's narrative about the national or international conspiracy behind Sheikh Hasina's fall, the fact is that the "death sentence" by the ICT was brought on by her own cruel suppression of political dissent, abuse of the law, corruption, partisan administration, bank looting, money laundering, suppression of independent media houses and corruption of the compliant ones, and finally, the killing of 1,400 citizens including children to stay in power during the last few weeks of her rule. Over the years, enforced disappearance and extra-judicial killings became the hallmark of her regime. Yes, there were some vital infrastructural developments, increase in per capita income, and growth in many social indicators, but the credit for them was swept aside by her destruction of democracy and overwhelming dictatorial rule.

Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Eventually, Hasina's public acceptance totally collapsed, and hatred for her skyrocketed and the "death sentence" in the people's court was passed due to the killings on the streets, as mentioned above. What distinguishes her rule from that of many dictators and autocrats is that very few of them killed so many unarmed protesters in so short a time.

It is to Sheikh Hasina's credit that she was able to revive, reorganise, rejuvenate, and re-inspire Awami League (AL) to win elections in 1996 after 21 years out of power. Her first stint in office, especially the signing of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord (which she herself did not implement) and the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty, marked a new beginning for AL. But over the years, she effectively demolished her own party as she destroyed the police, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, etc—transforming it from a political powerhouse into an apparatus of extortion, corruption, and violence, and replacing ideology with sycophancy, principles with praise for the leader, and service to the people with service to themselves. Every nomination was for sale, most promotions within the party ranks came for a bribe, and every development project was treated as their plaything. BUET student Abrar Fahad's torture and murder by Chhatra League was testimony to how the AL's student body was turned into a murderous gang.

She did not take well either of her electoral defeats in 1991 and 2001. Her view that AL could never be defeated in a free and fair election, but only through rigged ones, partly made her reject these results, inventing the term "subtle-rigging." This marked the beginning of the arrogance and myopia that led her towards ignoring the truth and making massive blunders. A miraculous escape from a near-fatal attempt on her life in August 2004, in which 24 AL workers and leaders were killed, with no credible attempt by the then BNP government to investigate the grenade attack and punish the perpetrators, probably convinced Hasina that she would always be vulnerable as an opposition politician, and thus she may have decided never to give up power if and when she regained it. This, in our view, killed the prospect of democracy in Bangladesh.

Hasina regained power in a free and fair election in 2008, abolished the caretaker system in 2011, and then manipulated all the following elections held in 2014, 2018 and 2024. As her manipulations succeeded, she grew over-confident and felt that all her political allies were her pawns, all opponents manipulatable, and all dissenting voices easily suppressed. She became entrapped in the mindset of never admitting any mistakes, which resulted in her becoming supremely arrogant. During a meeting with editors in 2013, I heard her say: "In spite of so many attempts on my life, Allah has kept me alive for the purpose of carrying out His will. So, you all may write anything you like. I don't care." She felt she was divinely guided and, as such, had nothing to worry about. Thus, she plunged deeper into isolation on the one hand and became further intolerant on the other, both of which distanced her from the people and her party.

Changing the constitution to do away with the caretaker government system to oversee elections gave the first clear signal of Hasina's intention to take over the process of holding national elections. It was crystal clear that the 2014 election was openly and shamelessly manipulated. We have written before—but it deserves to be repeated—that out of 300 seats in parliament, 153 had only one contestant as others withdrew "voluntarily." The Election Commission, therefore, declared "elected" the only contestant there was, who happened to belong to the AL. Thus, in the 2014 election, before a single vote was cast, AL gained the majority in parliament to form a government. It was the most blatant, undemocratic, and immoral tinkering with elections ever. Could that have happened without the sitting prime minister (PM) and the party chief's direct involvement?

The fact that Sheikh Hasina's government was able to get away with such electoral frauds—marking a failure on the part of the BNP to make an effective protest—gave her and her sycophants a dangerous but ultimately illusory confidence that led them to repeat this manipulation in the 2018 and 2024 elections, thereby digging its own grave, into which it fell in July-August 2024.

The Covid pandemic during 2020-2022 isolated her from her party and the people. The day-to-day functioning of the administration became an unthinking ritual. This was followed by the ostentatious observance of Bangabandhu's birth centenary, which greatly offended the conscientious section of civil society and the public in general. It became clear that people's urgent needs had no place in the PM's mind; instead, creating an infallible personality cult was where her government placed all its attention and resources.

Hasina totally misread the national psyche, which is fundamentally averse to individual cultism. Dubious authors wrote thousands of books that the government bought at exorbitant prices, which, in fact, became a way of siphoning off public money to corrupt bureaucrats, teachers and so-called professionals, all of whom were in an undeclared competition to curry favour with the AL leadership and, of course, make some money in the process. The birth centenary celebration did not produce a single well-researched or intellectually honest account of the leader of our independence movement, but instead flooded schools, colleges, universities and all institutions linked with education with substandard publications not worth even the paper they were written on. The hundreds of statues built—a culture previously almost non-existent in Bangladesh—greatly damaged Bangabandhu's reputation instead of increasing authentic learning about him, eventually becoming targets when the anti-government rebellion started. The first time I saw his statue near the PMO in Dhaka, the image of Saddam Hussein's being demolished and dragged through the street flashed through my mind, and I intuitively felt that our people would reject it at the first opportunity they would get.

This was followed by the 50th anniversary celebration of Bangladesh's liberation in 2021. Hasina celebrated this crucial occasion as a continuation of Bangabandhu's birth centenary. Freedom fighters were horrified to see how little tribute was paid to them and how their stories of sacrifice, bravery, and patriotism remained untold. The members of the armed forces who rebelled against the Pakistani rulers in 1971 and played the most crucial role in galvanising young freedom fighters into an effective fighting force hardly received any focus. The crucial role of declaring independence played by Major Ziaur Rahman was not even remotely mentioned, as was the role of Colonel M.A.G. Osmani (the chief of the Liberation War army) and other sector commanders. The significance and central role of the government-in-exile led by Tajuddin Ahmad did not receive much attention. Once again, everything converged on one man. Freedom fighters still alive, and the family members of those killed during the war, felt insulted.

Just to cite another example of arrogance and lack of foresight, Hasina forced every government office, every semi-government institution, universities both public and private, NGOs, banks, airports, etc, to open what was called a "Mujib corner" to display photos and books—mostly substandard ones—on him. If instead she had set up "Muktijoddha corners"—which would have been most appropriate at that moment—and filled them with books on the Liberation War, our people in general, and the younger generation in particular, would have been far better informed about that glorious moment in our history. The truth is that Hasina's government was in power for 15 consecutive years and did virtually nothing to raise public awareness about our freedom struggle; she turned it into Mujib worship that only served to create a sense of disgust and alienation.

By 2022, Hasina had reached the height of arrogance. "I know everything," "Every critic is an enemy," "Whatever I do is best for Bangladesh," and similar statements dominated the political discourse. The sycophancy reached such absurd levels that her party leaders and workers started to believe that there were no problems their leader could not solve and no challenges she could not tackle. This allowed conniving party henchmen to try to outdo one another with ever cruder assertions of the leader's infallibility, creating a bubble of absurdities in which Hasina and her courtiers lived.

Hasina and her government's handling of the students' stance against the government quota system for jobs clearly showed the dysfunctionality to which her party and her government had descended. At one stage, she suddenly declared all quotas abolished, which went against constitutional guarantees for quotas for the physically and mentally challenged and ethnic minorities. So, the higher court threw it out. Thus, the demand lingered. At this stage, she could have held a dialogue with the demonstrators and resolved it. In July 2024, things turned violent, and since July 16, killings on the streets in large numbers began. The Daily Star's reporters counted bodies in government and private hospitals. By August 1, 2024, they tallied 201 dead bodies and spoke to hundreds of families who lost their loved ones. We headlined death counts every day that we could verify.

Hasina denies that she gave orders to fire lethal weapons on demonstrators—despite a plethora of proof—but then why did she not stop it once it began occurring? Each day's newspapers showed how many were killed the day before. If she is speaking the truth about not giving orders to kill, then why didn't she issue an instant order to stop the carnage? There is no way one can believe that firing on the streets would occur day after day for several weeks, and the PM would not know. She knew, and she had given the order. So, her direct involvement—and the doctrine of "command responsibility"—brings these cruel crimes to the doorstep of the PM, who ran her government with an iron hand.

Legalities aside, those who lived through those crucial days, witnessed the tragic incidents, reported on them, wrote on them, or warned and alerted the government about them, feel convinced that as the head of government, Sheikh Hasina is guilty of crimes against her own people.

Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: Bilal9
Proved why BD is a rogue nation. Replication of what Pakistan did with Bhutto. Kangaroo court can deliver capital punishment without listening to the person who happened to be their PM.
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Hasina's trial and future politics of Awami League

1763776015965.webp


One can imagine a scenario. A once-elected Prime Minister ruled the country with immense authority for years. She is overthrown in an uprising. Accusations of crimes against humanity are leveled against her, and she is sentenced to death. She is being taken to the execution stage. On her way, she wonders—what is her crime? This reflection is echoed in the work of the English poet Robert Browning. His poem The Patriot conveys a message: a patriot who is celebrated one day may face downfall the next.

A simple Bengali translation of a portion of the poem reads:
"Soaked in rain, I run the path to the execution ground, my hands tied tightly behind me, I feel them being cut, I suppose blood is also flowing from my brow, whoever wills it throws stones at me, this is the fruit of my deeds in a year.

Such is my arrival and departure! Such is the result of my year’s work."

The resonance of this is also found in one of Nazrul’s songs: “Today’s king may beg tomorrow, no one stays equal forever.” History is full of examples of majestic rises and tragic falls, yet few seem to learn from it.

The International Crimes Tribunal-1 in Dhaka has sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death. She is not in the country; she is in New Delhi. The Indian government has given her safe refuge. She will not return to Dhaka to face the sentence. In audio and video messages, she has expressed her determination to return in the guise of a victor. She still considers herself the elected Prime Minister and believes she was ousted through a conspiracy.

She is the leader of a political party named the Awami League, which is over 76 years old. Sheikh Hasina has been the party president for nearly 47 years. As an opposition leader and Prime Minister, she has been at the centre of power for almost 27 years. Even though she has lost executive authority, she remains at the forefront of political discourse. Despite criticism, she is almost god-like within the party, with no equal. Even 15 months after leaving the country, the Awami League is synonymous with her. The question arises: what is the future of the Awami League in this situation?

There are many examples, both domestically and abroad, of individuals or parties regaining ground after setbacks. Can the Awami League once again dominate the political landscape? This question emerges because, when the head of a highly personalised party is absent, there is uncertainty about whether the party can survive without them.

On 25 January 1975, through the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, one-man rule was established in the country. That person was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the architect of the Bangladesh movement, affectionately called Bangabandhu by the people. The roles of leader Mujib and ruler Mujib could not be measured on the same scale. Despite his immense popularity, he could not deliver good governance. After three years, the political landscape had changed. On 15 August, 1975, he was killed in a military coup, yet his party could not respond effectively.

After Sheikh Mujib’s death, the Awami League eventually managed to rise again. This was possible partly because the rulers of that time were somewhat accommodating; they did not ban the party. In 2025, however, the Awami League’s activities were banned. The current rulers are not as lenient toward the party as those who governed after 1975. If the restrictions are not lifted, the Awami League’s prospects of returning are slim. The question is whether the party can, through political and diplomatic processes, create enough pressure to regain the opportunity to operate openly.

It is worth noting that the initial demand was not to ban the Awami League. The demand was the trial of 'crimes against humanity'. Suddenly, the situation changed. When a group of newly formed NCP activists and supporters blocked roads and advanced toward the chief adviser’s residence, Jamuna, the government issued an executive order banning the Awami League’s activities until the next election.

Since the election commission operates under government influence, it promptly suspended the party’s registration and removed the Awami League’s 'boat' symbol from the list of electoral symbols. Now, many other parties are speaking in the same tone. No one is willing to take the risk of publicly defending the Awami League’s right to political activity. However, some still speak in soft tones about the 1972 Constitution, the spirit of the Liberation War, or keeping Sheikh Mujib’s portrait on their office walls.

If a political party believes it follows a doctrine, it is difficult to eradicate it. The biggest example is Jamaat-e-Islami. The party was banned four times—twice in Pakistan and twice in Bangladesh. In 1953, a tribunal even sentenced its leader, Maulana Maududi, to death on charges of inciting anti-Ahmadiyya riots. None of this eliminated the party. Jamaat remains alive and functional.

When a party is denied the chance to operate openly, or considers open activity too risky, it often goes underground and engages in various covert actions—carrying out surprise attacks, planting bombs, committing arson. We have not forgotten the Purba Banglar Sarbahara Party or Jasad’s Biplobi Ganobahini. Following that path, Awami League members are now conducting similar activities in different places, disrupting public life by declaring lockdowns.

A major criticism against the Awami League is that they do not acknowledge any mistakes on their part. They show no remorse or sense of conscience. As a result, a large segment of society’s anger against them is growing. It is also true that no political party in this country has had the courage to admit its mistakes once in government. They all consider themselves infallible.

After August 1975, many members of the Awami League were arrested, some went underground, and some even went to India. After the Liberation War, examples were set by leaders and activists of the BAKSAL, formed by the Awami League, NAP, and CPB, who went to India. These included Kader Siddiqui, Shamim Osman, Sheikh Selim, Mostafa Mohsin Montu, Nurul Islam Nahid, Mujahidul Islam Selim, Monayem Sarkar, SM Yusuf, Obaidul Quader, among others. Once again, we see that many have gone to India, which they consider a safe refuge. The Awami League has maintained a long-standing rapport with India, and this equation does not change even when the Indian government changes.

Will the Awami League always remain a party dependent on India? This does not seem unusual. If there can be pro-China, pro-Russia, or pro-Pakistan parties in this country, why not a pro-India party? It is true that the Awami League has a strong diplomatic position with India. Whether the party will be able to operate openly in politics soon depends largely on international pressure, especially the stance of India and its global allies. In this context, the demand for an ‘inclusive election’ could provide legitimacy for the Awami League.

#Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Pakistan says Hasina’s death sentence Bangladesh’s ‘internal matter’
Bangladesh ‘fully capable’ of addressing own issues, says Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson

1763776743457.webp

A combination photo of Foreign Office Spokesperson Tahir Andrabi and former Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina. Photo: DawnNewsTV/Reuters

Pakistan on Friday said that the recent death sentence for former Bangladesh prime minister Sheikh Hasina was an "internal matter" for the country and that its people were fully capable of solving their own issues.

A Bangladesh court had sentenced Hasina to death on Monday, concluding a months-long trial that found her guilty of ordering a deadly crackdown on a student-led uprising last year.

Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
The verdict came months ahead of parliamentary elections expected to be held in early February.

Addressing his weekly press briefing on Friday, Pakistan's Foreign Office (FO) Spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said several queries were received regarding the development, on which he said: "This is an internal matter of Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh are fully capable of addressing their issues in accordance with their own democratic and constitutional processes."

The verdict by the International Crimes Tribunal -- a court that Hasina set up to try war crimes from Bangladesh's 1971 war for independence from Pakistan -- marked a dramatic turn for her political career.

After the sentence was handed down, the Bangladesh government had told India that failure to return her would be a highly unfriendly gesture and an affront to justice.

But all previous efforts so far to persuade New Delhi to send her back have faltered.

New Delhi said it was 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 development also came amid a thaw in ties between Islamabad and Dhaka, with trade and bilateral relations seeing a marked improvement.

Copyright: Asia News Network/Dawn​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Will Hasina with death sentence be able to return at all?
Mahmudur Rahman Manna
Published: 24 Nov 2025, 08: 37

1764035423934.webp


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​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Will Hasina with death sentence be able to return at all?
Mahmudur Rahman Manna
Published: 24 Nov 2025, 08: 37

View attachment 22598

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​

A Rogue nation called BD is trying to copy an another rogue nation who has a history of inflicting last couple of centuries' biggest geocode on them. Desi Dalit converts try very hard to be like Arabs.
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Members Online

Latest Posts

Latest Posts