South Asia rarely experiences moments that expose the region’s diplomatic contradictions as starkly as the drama surrounding Sheikh Hasina Wajid. A former prime minister convicted after a year-long judicial process for directing lethal force against unarmed students now sits comfortably under Indian protection, while Bangladesh awaits answers under the very treaty both countries once cherished. The moral theatre that India stages globally, presenting itself as a champion of the rule of law, stands in sharp contrast to the political refuge it is extending to a leader found guilty of crimes against humanity. This case is no longer about one individual; it is a litmus test of India’s credibility, its historical relationship with extradition law, and its willingness or unwillingness to apply its own standards when the beneficiary is its long-time political proxy.

India has always projected itself as a state that respects global legal frameworks, especially in extradition matters. Over the years, New Delhi has aggressively pursued the return of individuals it considers offenders. It demanded and received Abu Salem from Portugal, returned after a prolonged legal battle tied to the 1993 Mumbai bombings. It pressured the UAE to hand back terrorists and financial fugitives, including individuals linked to Dawood Ibrahim’s network. It has repeatedly petitioned the United Kingdom to extradite Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi, insisting that financial crimes cannot be excused under the shelter of political asylum. Under its treaty with the United States, India also secured the return of Tahawwur Rana for his alleged role in the Mumbai attacks. These cases collectively represent India’s........

© The Nation