Justice or Revenge? The Global Debate Over the Sheikh Hasina Death Sentence
The Sheikh Hasina death sentence has plunged Bangladesh into one of the most dramatic,
emotionally charged moments in its modern history. A woman who once bestrode Dhaka’s politics like a
colossus, a long-serving prime minister hailed for economic growth and stability, now stands condemned
as a perpetrator of crimes against humanity.
Sentenced to death in absentia by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), Sheikh Hasina has
been held responsible for the brutal crackdown on last year’s student-led protests, in which around
1,400 people are believed to have lost their lives. For some, the verdict is overdue reckoning; for
others, it is simply the latest twist in a never-ending cycle of political vengeance.
Between these competing narratives lies the real story: a country standing at a crossroads, torn
between the hunger for justice, the temptation of revenge, and the urgent need to build a more
democratic, stable future.
The Verdict: How Sheikh Hasina Reached Death Row
The tribunal’s nearly 450-page judgment paints a grim picture. During the student revolution that shook
Bangladesh, Hasina’s government is accused of unleashing “tremendous, excessive, deadly force” on
largely unarmed protesters. Police firing, indiscriminate crackdowns and a climate of fear turned what
began as a movement over reservations and jobs into a nationwide uprising against authoritarian rule.
According to the tribunal, the former prime minister did not merely fail to control rogue elements; she
actively enabled and perpetuated the violence. The deaths of at least 1,400 people, based on United
Nations data, were held to be the result of deliberate state policy. Many in Bangladesh believe the
real numbers are even higher.
In legal terms, the judgment goes beyond political blame. It finds Hasina guilty on multiple counts:
abetment, incitement, complicity and failure to prevent mass killings. On two major counts, the court
imposes the ultimate punishment: death. On others, it recommends life imprisonment and confiscation of
assets. In symbolic terms, the message is blunt: the state that she once controlled now brands her a
criminal against her own people.
Exile in India: A Death Sentence Without a Gallows?
For now, the Sheikh Hasina death sentence is more political and symbolic than practical.
Hasina has taken refuge in India since her government collapsed at the height of the student revolution.
She insists that the charges are fabricated, the figures exaggerated, and the tribunal biased.
From her safe haven, she has challenged the legitimacy of the process, questioning the impartiality of
the interim government and the judges, and calling for any genuine trial to be held at the
International Criminal Court in The Hague. According to her, she was denied counsel of her choice, not
given a meaningful chance to defend herself, and tried in a system that had already decided the
outcome.
New Delhi, meanwhile, finds itself in a delicate bind. India has historically been one of Hasina’s
strongest allies, working closely with her government on security, trade and regional connectivity.
Yet the Indian leadership also understands the profound anger that the protests and subsequent
bloodshed have unleashed inside Bangladesh. Officially, India says it stands with the “people of
Bangladesh” and stresses stability in the neighbourhood. Unofficially, almost everyone knows that
extraditing Hasina to face execution is highly unlikely.
A Tribunal Caught in Its Own Web
Ironically, the same International Crimes Tribunal that has now sentenced Sheikh Hasina to death was
created by Hasina herself. Originally conceived to try collaborators and war criminals from the 1971
Liberation War, the ICT was once projected as an instrument of historical justice.
Over time, however, it drew severe criticism. When several leaders of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party
(BNP) and the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami were sentenced to death between 2013 and 2016, opponents
accused Hasina of weaponising the tribunal to crush political rivals. The label of “vendetta politics”
stuck.
The irony today is hard to miss. Lawyers who once defended the BNP and Jamaat leaders – and failed –
are said to be among the main prosecutors against Hasina. The tribunal she built, defended and used in
her years of power has now turned against her, operating under an interim government eager to signal
that nobody is above the law.
Human rights organisations, however, urge caution. They do not deny that grave abuses were committed
during Hasina’s rule, or that families of victims deserve justice. But they question whether a tribunal
with a controversial history, functioning under acute political pressure, and ending in a death
sentence after a trial in absentia, can truly deliver that justice.
Justice, Revenge, or a Dangerous Mix?
At its heart, the debate surrounding the Sheikh Hasina death sentence is a debate about
what justice should look like in a wounded democracy. Can a system accused of bias and political
manipulation restore faith in the rule of law? Or does the harshness of the punishment risk turning
Hasina into a martyr for her supporters and a symbol of selective justice for her critics?
The anger against her is real. Under her long rule, Hasina gradually dismantled the checks that could
have constrained her power. The caretaker government system was abolished, opposition leaders jailed or
side-lined, independent media throttled by digital security laws, and dissent painted as treason.
When students finally exploded onto the streets, they were not merely protesting reservation policies;
they were rebelling against a suffocating political order.
Yet, if accountability is delivered through a process perceived as hurried, biased or vengeful, the
wounds of the past may deepen instead of healing. Bangladesh then risks replacing one form of
authoritarianism with another, dressed up in the language of justice but driven by the logic of
retribution.
Political Shockwaves Inside Bangladesh
Domestically, the verdict has redrawn the political map. Hasina’s Awami League, once an all-powerful
machine, is scattered and defensive. Many senior leaders face investigations or social backlash. The
party that led the liberation movement and dominated post-independence politics now finds itself on the
back foot, unsure whether to distance itself from Hasina or rally behind her.
The interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus carries enormous expectations but also
enormous burdens. It must stabilise the economy, keep extremist forces at bay, and prepare the ground
for genuinely free and fair elections – all while navigating the emotional fallout of the student
revolution and the Hasina verdict.
The stakes are high. A misstep could open the door to radical groups who promise order at the cost of
pluralism, or to new strongmen who talk democracy but practice domination. The student movement, which
once protected minorities and reached across communal lines, had offered a glimpse of a different,
more inclusive future. Whether that spirit can survive the pull of old-style vendetta politics remains
uncertain.
India, the Region, and a Fragile Balance
For India, the Sheikh Hasina death sentence is a diplomatic minefield. On one hand, New
Delhi cannot be seen as shielding a leader convicted of crimes against humanity by her own courts. On
the other, handing her over for execution would be politically explosive, domestically and in the
region.
For now, both sides appear to be buying time. National Security Advisors meet, the language of
“friendship with the people of Bangladesh” is repeated, and back-channel discussions work quietly. The
likely outcome is an uneasy compromise: Hasina remains in India, the sentence remains on paper, and
both governments focus on managing public opinion while dealing with more immediate challenges.
Will the Sheikh Hasina Death Sentence Bring Closure?
For the families of those who died in the student protests, no sentence can truly compensate for the
lives lost. Many of them view the verdict as an official recognition that their children were not
criminals or terrorists, but victims of state brutality. In that sense, the judgment offers a measure
of moral vindication.
But closure is something deeper than a legal verdict. It requires credible investigations, transparent
trials, reparations, memorialisation and, above all, a commitment to never repeat such abuses. If the
Hasina case remains a one-off spectacle, while other abuses go unexplored and other powerful actors
remain untouched, the promise of justice will ring hollow.
Bangladesh at a Fork in the Road
Bangladesh today stands before a fork in the road. One path leads back to the familiar terrain of
vendetta politics, where every government seeks to destroy its predecessors, and every trial is
suspected of being a show trial. The other path, harder and longer, is the route of genuine
accountability and democratic renewal.
Choosing the second path will require immense political maturity. It means building institutions that
outlast individual leaders, protecting independent media and judiciary, allowing genuine opposition,
and treating citizens not as subjects to be controlled but as stakeholders to be heard.
The Sheikh Hasina death sentence is a turning point, but not a solution. It signals
that even the most powerful can fall. Whether it also signals the beginning of a new, more just
Bangladesh depends on what comes next: on the choices of leaders, the vigilance of citizens, and the
determination of the young people whose courage brought down a dictator – and who now must decide what
kind of country they want to build in her wake.
Sheikh Hasina is undoubtedly guilty of many political and moral failures. The real question now is
whether Bangladesh chooses to be defined by her crimes – or by its own capacity to rise above them.
