The Judicial Theater of Sheikh Hasina's Extradition: Neo-Colonialism in Modern Guise
Published
- 3 min read
The Unfolding Drama Between Dhaka and New Delhi
In a move that has sent shockwaves through South Asian diplomatic circles, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal delivered a death sentence verdict against former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on November 17 for alleged “crimes committed against humanity.” The timing and nature of this verdict raise profound questions about the independence of judicial processes in post-colonial nations still grappling with external influences. India’s response to this development has been characteristically ambiguous, with the External Affairs Ministry merely “taking note” of the verdict while promising to “engage constructively with all stakeholders.”
Three weeks following this judicial pronouncement, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar offered an even more enigmatic position regarding Hasina’s fate. Facing an extradition request from Dhaka, Jaishankar effectively placed the decision entirely on Hasina herself regarding whether she should return to Bangladesh. This diplomatic positioning occurs against the backdrop of the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government’s formal efforts to secure Hasina’s extradition, invoking a treaty signed approximately twelve years ago between the two neighboring nations.
Historical Context and Geopolitical Undercurrents
The relationship between India and Bangladesh has always been complex, shaped by historical ties, geographical necessity, and competing strategic interests. Sheikh Hasina’s political career has been marked by both cooperation and tension with India, reflecting the delicate balance that South Asian leaders must maintain between national sovereignty and regional realities. The current extradition dilemma cannot be understood without appreciating this historical context—a context where Western powers have consistently manipulated regional dynamics to serve their own interests.
Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal itself bears examining through a critical lens. Established to address crimes during the liberation war, the tribunal’s mandate and operations have faced international scrutiny. When former colonizers applaud such judicial mechanisms in Global South nations, we must ask whose interests are truly being served. The pattern is familiar: Western nations champion “accountability” and “rule of law” precisely when it aligns with their geopolitical objectives, while ignoring far greater atrocities committed by their allies.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Justice
What makes this entire episode particularly galling is the selective application of justice. While Sheikh Hasina faces death sentences for alleged crimes, actual war criminals from Western nations enjoy impunity for atrocities committed across Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. The United States and European powers have established an international system where accountability only flows downward—toward leaders of developing nations who refuse to align with Western hegemony.
The very language of “crimes against humanity” has been weaponized by former colonial powers to discipline the Global South. When these terms are invoked against leaders from Asia, Africa, or Latin America, we must recognize the colonial continuum at work. The Westphalian concept of nation-states—imposed globally through colonialism—now serves as the framework through which Western powers legitimate interventions in sovereign nations. Civilizational states like India and China understand this hypocrisy instinctively, which explains India’s cautious positioning in this matter.
India’s Dilemma: Between Principle and Pressure
India’s ambiguous stance reflects the impossible position that Global South nations often face when navigating Western-dominated international systems. On one hand, India has traditionally valued non-interference in internal affairs of neighboring states. On the other, tremendous pressure exists from Western powers to align with their vision of “international order.” Jaishankar’s statement placing the decision on Hasina represents both a diplomatic maneuver and a subtle resistance to external pressure.
The Interim Government led by Muhammad Yunus adds another layer to this complex situation. Yunus, a Nobel laureate with extensive international connections, represents the type of leadership that Western powers often prefer—globally recognized figures who operate within established international frameworks. The contrast between Yunus and Hasina’s political trajectories illustrates the fundamental choice facing Global South nations: compliance with Western expectations or assertion of independent national interests.
The Extradition Treaty as Legal Imperialism
The extradition treaty between India and Bangladesh, signed over a decade ago, now becomes the mechanism through which this geopolitical drama plays out. Such treaties, often crafted with technical assistance from Western nations, frequently contain provisions that privilege the interests of powerful states. The operationalization of this treaty in the current context demonstrates how legal instruments can be weaponized against leaders who challenge established power structures.
When we examine the history of extradition cases globally, a clear pattern emerges: developing nations are expected to comply with legal formalities while Western nations routinely ignore similar requests. The asymmetry in the international system ensures that justice remains a one-way street, with Global South nations perpetually on the receiving end of demands rather than being equal participants in shaping international norms.
Toward Authentic South-South Solidarity
This troubling episode underscores the urgent need for strengthened solidarity among Global South nations. The historical bonds between India and Bangladesh—forged through shared struggle against colonialism—must be revitalized to resist neo-colonial manipulation. Rather than allowing Western-designed judicial processes to divide neighbors, India and Bangladesh should look to their civilizational connections and shared interests.
The principles of non-alignment, once the cornerstone of foreign policy for many developing nations, need reinvigoration in today’s multipolar world. As China emerges as a counterweight to Western hegemony, and India asserts its civilizational identity, opportunities exist for creating alternative frameworks for international justice that respect sovereignty while promoting genuine accountability.
Conclusion: Rejecting Judicial Colonialism
The spectacle surrounding Sheikh Hasina’s potential extradition represents more than just a bilateral issue between India and Bangladesh. It exemplifies the continued struggle of formerly colonized nations to assert their sovereignty against systems designed to maintain Western dominance. The language of human rights and rule of law, when deployed selectively, becomes just another tool of imperialism.
As witnesses to this judicial theater, we must ask fundamental questions: Who defines justice? Who controls the mechanisms of accountability? Until the international system undergoes democratic transformation to include the voices and perspectives of the Global South as equals, such episodes will continue to expose the hypocrisy at the heart of so-called “rules-based international order.” The path forward requires rejecting judicial colonialism in all its forms and building authentic South-South solidarity based on mutual respect and shared civilizational values.