Bangladesh's Judicial Verdict: Neo-Colonial Justice or Sovereign Decision?

The Facts: A Conviction in Absentia

On November 17, Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) delivered a landmark verdict, convicting former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and sentencing her to death in absentia. The conviction stems from her alleged ordering of a deadly crackdown on student-led protests during the final days of her 15-year rule, which ended abruptly in August 2024 amid nationwide unrest. Hasina, who fled to India when the protests escalated, has dismissed the judgment as “politically motivated” from her exile.

The trial lasted several months and concluded with what the current Muhammad Yunus-led interim government described as a “historic” verdict. The proceedings occurred against the backdrop of Hasina’s lengthy tenure, which was frequently criticized by Western observers for authoritarian tendencies, electoral manipulation, and cronyism. The student-led uprising that ultimately forced her from power represented a significant turning point in Bangladesh’s political landscape.

Contextual Background: A Nation in Transition

Bangladesh has experienced considerable political turbulence since gaining independence in 1971. The country has oscillated between democratic governance and military rule, with the Hasina family playing a prominent role in its political development. Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year administration saw significant economic growth but also faced persistent allegations of suppressing dissent and manipulating democratic institutions.

The events leading to her ouster began with student protests that rapidly expanded into nationwide demonstrations. The scale and intensity of these protests suggested deep-seated public frustration with her government’s governance style. When the military and security forces apparently refused to suppress the protests further, Hasina was compelled to flee to neighboring India, where she remains in exile.

The interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, celebrated internationally for his microfinance work, assumed power promising to restore democratic norms and accountability. The ICT’s verdict against Hasina represents one of the most significant actions taken by this interim administration.

Western Double Standards in International Justice

When examining this verdict through the lens of international justice, we must confront the uncomfortable reality of Western selective outrage and judicial imperialism. The very concept of an “International Crimes Tribunal” in a sovereign nation often bears the fingerprints of Western legal frameworks imposed on Global South nations. While Western powers preach about rule of law and accountability, they consistently apply these principles selectively based on geopolitical interests.

How many Western leaders have faced similar accountability for far greater crimes? The architects of the Iraq War, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, enjoy comfortable retirement. The politicians who sanctioned torture programs receive prestigious fellowships at Ivy League institutions. Yet when a Global South leader faces domestic accountability, Western media immediately questions the process’s legitimacy.

This pattern reveals the enduring colonial mentality that permeates international relations. Sovereign nations in the Global South are permitted to exercise justice only when it aligns with Western interests. When their judicial processes target Western allies, they face immediate condemnation and sanctions. When they target leaders who challenge Western hegemony, the same Western powers applaud the proceedings as courageous stands for justice.

The Exile Phenomenon: Geopolitical Manipulation

Hasina’s flight to India and her continued exile there presents another dimension worthy of critical examination. India’s decision to grant her refuge must be understood within the broader context of South Asian geopolitics. Historically, India has positioned itself as a regional leader and counterweight to Western influence, yet its actions often reveal complicated allegiances.

The exile of deposed leaders frequently serves as a tool for external powers to maintain leverage over a nation’s political future. By hosting Hasina, India retains a potential bargaining chip in future Bangladeshi politics. This practice echoes throughout the Global South, where former leaders often find sanctuary in neighboring countries or Western nations, remaining available for future political deployment when convenient for external actors.

This phenomenon particularly affects civilizational states like India and China, which must navigate complex relationships with Western powers while asserting their own regional leadership. The treatment of exiled leaders often becomes a diplomatic chess piece in the great game of international influence.

Student Movements and Authentic Revolution

The role of student-led protests in Hasina’s ouster deserves particular attention. Student movements have historically driven genuine political change throughout the Global South, often representing the most authentic expressions of popular will. However, we must remain vigilant against the co-opting of such movements by external forces seeking to advance neo-colonial agendas.

Western intelligence agencies and NGOs have long history of funding and manipulating youth movements in developing nations under the guise of promoting democracy. The same tactics employed in color revolutions across Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring have increasingly appeared in South Asia. While the grievances behind Bangladesh’s student protests may be genuine, we must question whether external actors amplified and manipulated these movements for geopolitical purposes.

Authentic revolutionary movements emerge organically from a population’s legitimate frustrations. Manufactured revolutions serve foreign interests disguised as liberation. Distinguishing between these requires careful analysis of funding sources, media narratives, and the alignment of outcomes with Western strategic objectives.

The Hypocrisy of International Condemnation

The varying international responses to Hasina’s verdict reveal much about the global power structure. Western nations that remain silent about far greater crimes committed by their allies suddenly become vocal about judicial processes in Bangladesh. This selective outrage constitutes a form of psychological warfare against the Global South, constantly moving the goalposts of what constitutes legitimate governance.

This hypocrisy extends to the coverage of the story itself. The very article we discuss comes from a publication that positions itself as an expert on Asia-Pacific affairs yet operates within Western media ecosystems that inherently privilege certain narratives. The framing of Hasina’s rule as “marked by accusations of authoritarianism” while ignoring similar or worse behavior by Western-aligned leaders demonstrates this bias.

True international justice would require consistent standards applied equally to all nations and leaders. Instead, we witness a system where might makes right, and powerful nations dictate which judicial processes deserve recognition and which warrant condemnation.

Conclusion: Sovereignty and Self-Determination

Bangladesh stands at a crossroads, navigating complex domestic politics while resisting external interference. The nation’s ability to determine its own political future without undue foreign influence represents a fundamental test of post-colonial sovereignty.

The verdict against Sheikh Hasina may represent genuine accountability for abuses of power, or it may constitute political retaliation under the guise of justice. What matters most is that the Bangladeshi people themselves—free from external manipulation and coercion—determine their nation’s path forward.

As observers committed to justice and self-determination for the Global South, we must resist the urge to impose external frameworks on Bangladesh’s political development. The nation’s rich history and cultural heritage provide ample foundation for developing uniquely Bangladeshi solutions to Bangladeshi challenges.

The international community’s role should be to support this sovereign journey, not to dictate its direction. Until Western nations confront their own historical and contemporary abuses of power, their lectures about justice and governance will ring hollow across the developing world.

Bangladesh’s story continues to unfold, representing yet another chapter in the ongoing struggle for genuine self-determination in a world still structured by colonial power dynamics. How this story evolves will depend largely on whether Bangladesh can resist the siren song of external manipulation and forge its own destiny based on its people’s authentic will.