After the death sentence against Sheikh Hasina, what can India do to calm its turbulent eastern front?

India will never ever extradite Sheikh Hasina back to Bangladesh. Nothing will change that. There is yet another certainty: that the death sentence delivered upon the former Bangladesh Prime Minister in absentia on Monday by a tribunal of questionable legitimacy in Dhaka will plunge the region into a dangerous turbulence unparalleled since the birth of Bangladesh in 1971. India will find itself at the epicentre and should belt up. Bangladesh is strategically vital and we need to get them back in our corner.

No wonder then that it was only close to midnight on Monday, hours after the death sentence was passed, that the Ministry of External Affairs issued a cautious statement. "India has noted the verdict announced by the "International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh" (quote marks MEA's) concerning former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. As a close neighbour, India remains committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion and stability in that country. We will always engage constructively with all stakeholders to that end."

On the streets of Dhaka, once the death sentence was announced, one of the slogans that rang out called for the gherao of the Indian high commission there with the demand: return Hasina or leave. India cannot let matters come to such a pass. After all, it was under Sheikh Hasina that Dhaka cracked down on anti-Indian insurgents operating from its soil.

A lot changed after Sheikh Hasina fled Dhaka, the most glaring being the growing presence of Pakistan, once Bangladesh's arch enemy and India's constant foe. First, Dhaka waived any scrutiny of all imports from Pakistan. Then came increasingly frequent visits by military and intelligence top brass and political leaders. As Dhaka warmed up to Islamabad, its ties with New Delhi went south.

Alarm bells buzzed in intelligence circles when a Pakistan Army General Ahmed Sharif Choudhry, asked by the Economist in August about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's warning to Islamabad after Operation Sindoor, said, "We will start from the east. They also need to know they can be hit everywhere."

India simply cannot afford this vulnerability. Not in a region that is also of great strategic interest to the United States and China. Sheikh Hasina was India's bulwark against its backyard turning into a playing ground for superpowers.

Because of strategic concerns and because of history, there is then no question of India responding to Dhaka's calls for Sheikh Hasina’s extradition. Mohammed Yunus, the chief adviser of an interim government, got the job after her ouster and is not an elected leader.

The International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh (ICT) that passed the sentence is not legally sanctioned by the country’s elected representatives. Sheikh Hasina was not allowed to field a defence lawyer. The government appointed one, but he was allegedly loyal to the Jamaat, the most radical Islamist party in Bangladesh today and historically opposed to Awami League.

Levelling the charge of crimes against humanity, the court said 1400 people died in the violence last July-August allegedly because Sheikh Hasina "incited and provoked students" into violence, then unleashed the police and "helicopters, drones and lethal weapons" against them. They are grave charges and deserve investigation and justice. But is an unelected government or unconstitutional tribunal fit to do so?

Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League do not think so. Many Bangladesh watchers in India agree it was a rigged verdict by a kangaroo court. But what can Sheikh Hasina do next? The Awami League's back is to the wall. Its top leaders are hiding in New Delhi and a number are in jail in Bangladesh. Party workers promised a nationwide "lockdown" on verdict day but their call had minimal impact. They are clearly scared of a state crackdown and are lying low.

The national elections due in February would be the perfect launchpad for the Awami League to return to the political mainstream. But just last week, Yunus suddenly banned it from participation under an anti-terrorism law. Till the dates are actually announced, a question mark hangs over the polls. Yunus had wanted polls in mid-2026, switching to February only after several parties, including the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), insisted.

An election without the participation of the biggest party in the country, the Awami League, would be farcical. Of course, there is no missing the irony of history biting back. Sheikh Hasina held several national elections when in office and declared them valid though her biggest opponent, BNP, refused to participate to protest rigging and over Sheikh Hasina's refusal to let a neutral caretaker government oversee the elections.

In the circumstances, with no options left, will the Awami League have little choice but to return to its strategy of 1971, when it took up arms against the Pakistan Army to snatch liberation from Islamabad? India helped train and arm the freedom fighters of Mukti Bahini back then. Is that history heading for an encore?

For India, free and fair elections in Bangladesh with the Awami League contesting would be the best bet for a return to some kind of normalcy in its neighbourhood. But with Sheikh Hasina camping in New Delhi, a fugitive from Bangladesh, persuading the interim government to allow a level-playing field is not a workable strategy.

All sides need to do some out-of-the-box thinking, but signs sadly are that they will not.