‘Don’t need blessings of foreign powers': Hasina on if she wants US, India to pressure Bangladesh for her safe return

Sheikh Hasina rejected the idea that foreign governments must pressure Bangladesh before she returns. She said she values friendship and cooperation with all nations, but does not need a foreign power’s blessing to return to her own country. This presents her planned return as a personal and political decision, not an internationally arranged rescue.

Her position is striking because Bangladesh has sentenced her to death in absentia. She has lived in India since fleeing Bangladesh in August 2024, and Bangladesh has repeatedly sought her extradition. Despite these risks, she told AP that her decision to return by December had not changed.

Hasina also said she would rather die among her own people if death was her destiny. She has not announced the specific date, time, or entry point. She said the timing would be decided later, while consultations and security assessments would guide other Awami League leaders abroad.

Hasina could face arrest or worse because Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal convicted her in absentia for crimes against humanity linked to the deadly crackdown on student-led protests. The tribunal sentenced her to death in November 2025. She has denied wrongdoing, rejected the verdict, and questioned the trial’s legitimacy.

The danger is not limited to the formal sentence. Hasina previously said that, if she landed in Bangladesh, authorities could kill her, arrest her, or torture her. Her comments identify both legal and physical risks. The article does not report that these actions have occurred against her after return, because she remains in India.

The situation creates a direct conflict between her stated wish to return and the consequences awaiting her. Bangladesh has repeatedly sought her extradition, while India has not handed her over. Hasina nevertheless says she intends to return by December, although she has not named a precise date or entry point.

An International Crimes Tribunal is a judicial body that examines grave offenses, including crimes against humanity. In this case, Bangladesh’s tribunal dealt with allegations arising from the deadly crackdown on student-led protests in July and August 2024. The tribunal sentenced Sheikh Hasina to death in November 2025.

“In absentia” means the accused was not present during the trial or sentencing. Hasina had already fled Bangladesh and was living in India when the verdict was issued. The article says she denied wrongdoing, rejected the verdict, and questioned the legitimacy of the trial. It does not provide details about the tribunal’s procedures or evidence.

The sentence matters because it creates a major legal risk if Hasina returns. Bangladesh has repeatedly sought her extradition, but India has not handed her over. Hasina continues to say she plans to return, despite acknowledging that she could be arrested, tortured, or killed.

Nearly 1,400 people were killed during the violence linked to Bangladesh’s student-led protests in July and August 2024. The article attributes this figure to the United Nations. The scale of the deaths explains why the crackdown became the central issue in the case against Sheikh Hasina.

The protests were part of a student-led uprising that forced Hasina out of power. She fled Bangladesh in August 2024 and has lived in India since then. Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal later convicted her in absentia for crimes against humanity and sentenced her to death in November 2025.

The reported death toll also shapes the political and legal conflict that followed. Hasina denies wrongdoing and rejects the verdict. She says her return is not about regaining power, but about standing with Bangladesh’s people. If she returns, she faces the possibility of arrest or execution, while Bangladesh continues seeking her extradition.

After the student-led uprising forced her from power, Sheikh Hasina fled Bangladesh in August 2024 and took shelter in India. Bangladesh then repeatedly sought her extradition. India has not handed her over, leaving Hasina outside Bangladesh while the legal and political dispute continues.

This situation has allowed Hasina to speak publicly from India about returning home. She has said she intends to return by December, even though Bangladesh’s tribunal sentenced her to death in absentia. She has also acknowledged that she could be arrested, tortured, or killed immediately after landing.

The unresolved extradition issue means her return depends on her own decision rather than a completed transfer between governments. Hasina thanked India’s government and people for sheltering her. She has not announced the exact date, time, or entry point for her return, saying those details will come later.

The student-led uprising in 2024 changed Bangladesh’s political leadership by forcing Sheikh Hasina out of power. She fled to India in August 2024. The article later refers to the government as BNP-led, showing that political authority had shifted away from Hasina and her Awami League.

The Awami League was also banned. Hasina challenged that decision, arguing that the party should be allowed to contest elections and that voters should decide its future. She alleged that Awami League leaders and workers were being killed, arrested, and targeted with criminal cases. She also said families faced attacks, harassment, and displacement.

These developments made Hasina’s planned return part of a wider political crisis. She says her return is about standing with Bangladesh’s people, not regaining power. She says the timing for other Awami League leaders abroad will depend on party consultations and security conditions.

Extradition is the process in which one country formally asks another to surrender a person wanted for prosecution or punishment. The requested country does not automatically comply. Its government and courts may consider domestic law, the alleged offense, the person’s rights, and any treaty or agreement between the countries.

National sovereignty is central because each country controls its own territory and legal decisions. International cooperation can make a handover possible, but it does not erase that control. In Hasina’s case, Bangladesh has repeatedly sought her extradition after she fled to India, while India has not handed her over.

The dispute therefore remains unresolved. Hasina continues to live in India and says she intends to return to Bangladesh by December. If she travels voluntarily, that would be different from India formally surrendering her. Her death sentence and allegations about arrest or torture make the extradition issue especially politically and legally sensitive.