A tribunal in Bangladesh has sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina November 17 to death. The verdict was pronounced after convicting her of crimes against humanity, including murder and ordering the use of lethal weapons against protesters during the student uprising that ultimately ousted her last year. Hasina was doomed to get the harshest punishment from the moment the trial, conducted in absentia as Hasina had fled into exile, had begun.
The verdict was only predictable as it was clear, even to the most naïve, that she would be held to account for the killings of hundreds of civilians during the protests, which began peacefully but turned into a violent revolution after security forces ruthlessly suppressed the movement. The brutality of the crackdown was played out before the world on social media as scenes of repression were witnessed with students even jumping to death and injuries when police raided their university campus. Hasina, of course, denied involvement in any atrocities and criticised the court proceedings against her. Her conviction came alongside her ex–interior minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, and former police chief, Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun who was, however, the only defendant present in court when the sentence was read out. He had pleaded guilty in July for his role in last year’s unrest and testified as a state witness. It is significant that the verdict was in consonance with the promises made by the interim government of Muhammad Yunus, tasked with leading that country out of the brief spell of bloodshed and mayhem into a stable electoral democracy with free and fair elections.
During the trial, prosecutors told the court they had uncovered evidence of Hasina’s direct command to use lethal force to suppress the student-led uprising. Trial in absentia is always mired in controversy, and doubt is cast on the fairness of the proceedings. There is no guarantee that the verdict is made with due diligence, and Hasina has already pleaded that she is ready to face any trial conducted under an elected government. True, she could not defend herself, but the prosecution is vocal that she did not use the opportunity offered to her to present her case. Predictably, a spokesperson for the interim government of Yunus denied the trial was politically motivated and claimed the court had functioned transparently, allowing observers and publishing regular documentation. Even if the trial proceedings appear suspect, one thing is clear that the crisis in Bangladesh will be further deepened with the elections due in February, 2026.
The Opposition Awami League has indicated following the verdict that in all likelihood its supporters will boycott the elections since they do not expect there could be fair polls under the caretaker government. India is in a tricky situation. It is a foregone conclusion that the Indian government will not extradite Hasina to face the sentence since she is the most pro-Indian politician in Bangladesh. The government of Yunus will certainly try to bring her back to the country. Most people in Bangladesh affected by Hasina’s rule erupted in joy when the verdict was announced. They would not accept India’s refusal to withdraw the asylum given to her. Anti-India waves or protests are likely to continue. The interim government of Bangladesh will have to proceed cautiously in this regard since the success of its efforts to improve its economy hinges on huge trade and investment by foreign countries.
To give his due, Yunus has been able to improve his country’s economy a little. But, foreign investment would come only when there is peace and stability in Bangladesh, which appears to be a far cry. With the death sentence slapped on Hasina, things look even gloomier. Bangladesh should be treated as a textbook case for democratically elected leaders nurturing ambitions of dictatorial actions.
Although Hasina won through the ballot and was elected over and over again, there were doubts cast on her last election results as being manipulated. These allegations sound like rumours and can never be proven, similar to allegations of corruption at the topmost level. Yet once those seeds are planted, very many plants start growing in the minds of the populace. Restiveness among the common citizen could erupt in violence at the slightest opportunity.
Hasina used the police and the paramilitary to suppress her own citizens. When the unarmed people rose up in protest against her, the mightily armed forces ran helter-skelter, as could be seen on social media. Ears to the ground and feelings for the people are the best means to govern any nation democratically. Otherwise, it is the top echelon, the leader and her closest cohorts who always get to run away or, if caught, hanged.