India’s “principled” refusal to hand over former PM as prisoner contrasts with interim government’s public demands and private reluctance, says Hasina’s son
Sajeeb Wazed Joy, son and advisor to Awami League president and former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, on Saturday issued a detailed political statement accusing Bangladesh’s ruling BNP government of double standards over his mother’s planned return in December while praising India’s “principled” handling of the matter.
More than two and a quarter years after Sheikh Hasina left Bangladesh on 5 August 2024, Joy said she remains firm on her earlier declaration to Reuters that she will return in December. He pointed to her recent application at the Bangladesh Mission in Delhi for a passport and national identity card as proof that the plan is serious.
“The decision to return is Sheikh Hasina’s own. She has never done politics waiting for anyone’s permission,” Joy wrote on Facebook.
India’s Consistent Historical Position
Joy framed India’s current stance as part of a long-standing relationship that has transcended changes of government in Delhi. He recalled that the bond began in 1971 and was cemented by the rapid withdrawal of Indian forces after Victory Day at Bangabandhu’s request.
After the 15 August 1975 assassinations, he noted, India sheltered the orphaned Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Rehana in Delhi. She returned in 1981 on her own decision despite the military ruler’s reluctance.
“India had stood beside her in adversity, but it did not chart her path. History has returned in exactly the same way today,” Joy said.
‘Guest Statesman’ Cannot Be Handed Over as Prisoner
Citing a 12 November BBC Bangla report based on Delhi policy circles, Joy said India agrees with Sheikh Hasina’s two core positions: she will return, and she will face the legal proceedings directly rather than remain in exile.
He noted that the interim government sent a diplomatic note in December 2024 requesting her return, but India has still given neither a yes nor a no. Delhi’s position, he said, is that the matter must be settled through legal channels.
“A guest statesman residing on one’s own soil cannot be handed over as a prisoner to the opposing side,” Joy stated, adding that when Sheikh Hasina arrived in India she was not a convict but the recently former prime minister of a sovereign country. “India has kept the dignity and honour due to her intact.”
He sharply criticised Bangladesh’s State Minister for Foreign Affairs for speaking of returning her “in handcuffs.”
“When Bangladesh’s State Minister for Foreign Affairs cites the precedent of returning someone in handcuffs, it ceases to be the language of diplomacy and becomes the language of revenge. No responsible state can respond in such language,” Joy said.
Delhi’s Two Key Expectations
According to the same BBC Bangla report quoted by Joy, Indian officials have privately indicated two main expectations:
- Because Sheikh Hasina travelled to India on a Bangladesh Army military aircraft, the responsibility for taking her back should rest with the Bangladesh Army — either by air or at a land border point. Delhi is said to be ready to facilitate the necessary arrangements.
- Bangladesh must guarantee that she will be allowed to appeal the death sentence and that the trial related to the July events will begin afresh under conditions acceptable to the international community.
Quoting a Delhi official speaking to the BBC, Joy wrote: “We can never knowingly hand her over to be hanged.”
He stressed that India is deliberately avoiding public comment so that its position is not portrayed as interference in Bangladesh’s judiciary. “This is respect for Bangladesh’s sovereignty.”
Constitutional and International Rights
Joy argued that India’s expectations simply restate commitments Bangladesh has already made. He cited Article 36 of the Bangladesh Constitution (right of every citizen to re-enter the country) and Articles 12(4) and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a state party.
“India is not imposing anything. It is merely reminding us of the commitments we ourselves have made,” he said.
Why India Takes This Stand
Joy rejected the idea that India’s position is a personal or party favour. He listed four underlying reasons:
- Friendship with the forces that led the 1971 Liberation War, during which India sheltered nearly ten million Bengali refugees.
- Shared commitment to secular, non-communal politics — a principle of both Bangladesh’s Liberation War and India’s Constitution — amid post-5 August attacks on minorities.
- Regional security gains achieved when Bangladesh dismantled militant and separatist bases during Sheikh Hasina’s tenure.
- India’s need to preserve its diplomatic credibility as a reliable partner.
“This position is not merely a matter of preserving friendship; it is also a question of keeping India’s diplomatic dignity, credibility and international standing intact,” Joy wrote.
Equal Dignity in Past Diplomacy
He recalled Sheikh Hasina’s earlier diplomatic record with India — the 1996 Ganges water-sharing treaty, the 2015 Land Boundary Agreement that resolved the enclave issue, and the 2014 maritime boundary award — as proof that friendship and national interest can advance together on the basis of equal dignity.
Dhaka’s Double Standards
The sharpest part of Joy’s statement concerned the interim government. Quoting multiple Delhi Home and Foreign Ministry officials who spoke to the BBC, he claimed that while Dhaka publicly demands Sheikh Hasina’s return, it privately does not want her to come back.
According to those officials, the government is already under pressure from the energy crisis and garment workers’ unrest and fears that her return would heighten political instability.
“Public demands for extradition, diplomatic letters, threats of handcuffs. Yet when Sheikh Hasina herself wants to return to the country, the government privately does not want her return. This is the double standard,” Joy said.
The Decision Now Lies with Dhaka
In his concluding section, Joy reiterated that the return is both a personal decision of a statesman and a constitutional right of a citizen. He said India has once again stood by Sheikh Hasina in adversity without dictating her course, while refusing either to hand her over as a prisoner or to interfere in Bangladesh’s judicial process.
“The question is now entirely before Dhaka. Sheikh Hasina is ready; India too respects her decision. The present government says it wants her return with its mouth, yet privately wants to keep the path of return blocked. The time has come for their mask to fall,” he wrote.
He ended on a defiant note: “Bangabandhu’s daughter has never bowed her head to fear. The one who returned after the grief of 1975—no hostile force has the power to block her path.”