Hasina's asylum: political vs criminal

The term asylum in international law refers to the protection granted by a country to a foreign citizen against one's own country of citizenship. The asylum seeker has no legal right to claim it, and the asylum-granting country has no obligation to grant it either. The granting of asylum broadly falls into three basic categories: territorial, extraterritorial, and neutral.

Territorial asylum refers to granting shelter within the geographical borders of the country offering asylum. It protects the individual from extradition to the home country to face charges of political offenses such as treason, desertion, sedition, and espionage and hence is also known as political asylum. The exclusions from this category include people accused of the murder of a head of state, certain terrorist acts, collaboration with the enemy in time of war, crimes against peace and against humanity, and war crimes.

Extraterritorial asylum refers to sanctuaries granted in embassies, consulates, warships, and merchant vessels in a foreign territory. This category is also known as diplomatic asylum and falls within the territorial asylum classification of a state from which protection is sought.

Neutral asylum is often granted by countries maintaining non-involvement during a war to offer sanctuary within its territory to troops of belligerent states on condition that the troops agree to confinement for the duration of the war.

There is a fourth category of asylum that is hardly known is called "criminal asylum". A criminal asylum is defined as an "inviolable place of refuge and protection giving shelter to criminals and debtors."

Sheikh Hasina, after fleeing (or having been smuggled) from Bangladesh, is now living in New Delhi in the safe sanctuary of the government of India. As reported in the media that she is frantically seeking asylum in India, United Kingdom (UK) and some other undisclosed European countries without success. The UK government is reportedly signalling at not extending asylum to her while Indian government is walking a tightrope about considering asylum or a longer stay on Indian soil. One obviously wonders why India appears hesitating to grant asylum to Sheikh Hasina.

Of the four categories of asylums outlined above, one may wonder which asylum category she would qualify for. My answer is none of the three, or possibly the fourth one - criminal asylum.

She fled the country or got smuggled out on her own volition, fearing for life for numerous mischiefs she had committed during her 15 years of tyrannical misrule. News of the aggrieved students marching towards her residence frightened her and forced her to flee to India leaving the country in utter chaos and constitutional crisis and her lifelong followers in abject perils. What a cowardly demeanour and disposition she displayed!

The situation in the country is slowly returning to normal state. She may soon be able to return to her country if she chooses to. There is no law stopping her from returning home. Therefore, she does not qualify for asylum under any one of the first three asylum categories. That way she does not have to wander on foreign soil as persona non grata, begging for sanctuary. However, once she returns, she will have to explain to the nation why she fled the country and account for the mischiefs she has been accused of committing.

If any country is willing to grant her asylum, it must declare that as a case of 'criminal asylum'. Why so? Why did she flee the country if she has not committed any crimes?

Any country considering granting asylum to Sheikh Hasina or even a temporary stay after normalcy returns to Bangladesh must weigh in what crimes she has been accused of committing during her 15 years of misrule. Her 15-year tenure of office as prime minister is recorded as the longest-serving female head of government in the world. During these years she was ruthless in her use of law enforcing state forces, including the notorious and most despised paramilitary, Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), which she was accused of using to abduct, torture, and even kill opposition politicians and dissenters, and of course, allegedly rig the elections time and time again.

Even the judiciary, supposed to be a bipartisan institution, was brought within her grip of mischief. The judiciary was compromised by naked politicisation. A chief justice was once forced to flee the country after his ruling went against her wishes. Then there was the mainstream media, which she subjugated to craft and preserve a narrative against her critics and opponents. Most of Bangladesh's mainstream media outlets are owned by businesses with ties to her political party, the Awami League.

By monitoring and controlling the voices of dissents she allowed the student wing of her party (Chatra League) to depict her supporters as the legitimate heirs to the legacy of the country's independence and its accomplishments, while portraying dissenters and opposition political parties as "Razakars"(interpreted as treasonous and extremists).

So far, no one has brought any charge of criminality against her in the court of law. Even if such charges are in the offing, she remains innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, she must return to her country and clear her name from possible charges of criminalities. There is a strong possibility that she will be tried for violation of human rights in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague. Obviously, she will have to defend her innocence at the ICJ, if that happens. The United Nations Human Rights Commission is also working to bring charges of violations of human rights against her.

Any country or entity with diplomatic ties with Bangladesh must not grant sanctuary to her and instead persuade her to return to Bangladesh. No country - especially India -- should take a misstep in granting any form of asylum to Sheikh Hasina risking the enrage of Bangladesh citizens.

Thanks to the government of India for providing refuge to Sheikh Hasina. That might have spared the country of further bloodbath. However, media reports are indicating that the government of India is increasingly feeling her presence in India as a "thorn stuck in the throat". No country seems willing to host Sheikh Hasina on their soil even temporarily, despite India's persistent efforts to secure asylum for her.

Bangladesh has always valued having a strong and supportive neighbour in both good times and bad. We hope that the government and people of India will be guided by the wisdom of one of their most respected and iconic intellectuals, Shashi Tharoor.

Shashi Tharoor (Indian politician, historian, public intellectual, writer, and former Under Secretary General of the United Nations, who has been serving as Member of Parliament since 2009) has said, "We don't want an unstable and unfriendly neighbour. The most important signal we need to send to the people of Bangladesh is that we stand with them".

Dr. Abdullah A Dewan, formerly a physicist and a nuclear engineer at BAEC, is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University, USA.

[email protected]