The death penalty handed down by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunals (ICT) to the ousted Prime Minister (PM) Sheikh Hasina, who is in India, for perpetrating crimes against humanity, has kicked up a storm. Ironically, Hasina revived the ICT in 2010, allowing in absentia trials, which the Mohammad Yunus regime weaponised against her. While Hasina’s sympathisers have denounced the verdict, calling the entire process reminiscent of a kangaroo court, the ruling has left India in a diplomatic predicament. It has revived the debate on Hasina’s extradition from India to Bangladesh.

The propensity to bring politics into discussions about Sheikh Hasina is inescapable. However, the problem arises when foreign policy commentators selectively employ the law to validate their political positions, leading to partisan analysis. Thus, it is imperative to dispassionately segregate the legal wheat from the political chaff and address conspicuous misconceptions. First, some argue that under the 2013 India-Bangladesh extradition treaty, any extradition request must be accompanied by evidence of the crime committed. This is not correct. While the original text of the treaty, in Article 10(3), included this requirement, along with other provisions such as the sharing of arrest warrants, the 2016 amendment removed it. Article 10(3) of the India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty now requires only an arrest warrant and evidence that the person requested for extradition is indeed the person for whom the arrest warrant has been issued. This amendment, enacted when Sheikh Hasina was the........

© hindustantimes