Exiled But Unbroken: Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s Banned Party, and the Crisis of Constitutional Legitimacy

By:Tuhin Sarwar

A Crisis Born of Accountability

The political earthquake that toppled Sheikh Hasina’s government in August 2024—the culmination of the student-led ‘Monsoon Revolution’—was universally celebrated as a victory for justice. Yet, as Bangladesh progresses toward a promised election, the victory has curdled into a crisis of fundamental democratic principles. From her self-imposed exile in New Delhi, the deposed Prime Minister recently issued a stark ultimatum, stating that if her party, the Awami League (AL), remains banned, they will boycott the polls

This declaration, reported by NDTV (NDTV, 2025), is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the interim administration led by Dr. Muhammad Yunus. The challenge is amplified by the interim government's unprecedented legal step in May 2025: the official banning of the Awami League and its affiliates. This action, taken under amended laws, aims to deliver accountability for the massive state coercion and human rights violations documented during the 2024 protests, but it simultaneously hollows out the democratic process by excluding the country's most powerful political force. The resulting tension—the clash between the urgent need for judicial accountability and the imperative of constitutional legitimacy—has created a geopolitical fault line stretching from Dhaka to Beijing.

The Context and The Fall: A Staggering Death Toll

Bangladesh's political intensity in 2024 was defined by a surge in student-led unrest that escalated rapidly due to a disproportionate and lethal state response. Initial local reports and later, independent investigations, unveiled the brutal scale of the crackdown.

OHCHR Fact-Finding Report (February 2025): The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) formally documented the historical scale of state violence. Their findings were damning: an estimated 1,400 fatalities occurred during the July and August 2024 clashes. Crucially, the report noted the use of military-grade weapons against unarmed civilians, with a significant number of the dead being children and young adults (OHCHR, 2025). This data transformed the narrative from one of political instability to one of potential mass atrocities, providing the legal and moral impetus for the subsequent legal purges.

The flight of Hasina's government and the installation of the interim regime, mandated with ensuring a free and fair electoral transition, placed justice at the top of the agenda. However, the mechanism chosen to deliver this justice—the ban on the $\text{AL}$—has now itself become the central source of instability.

The Legal Quagmire: Accountability vs. Political Exclusion

The decision to ban the Awami League in May 2025 marked a historic moment of political and legal reckoning. The interim government justified the ban by arguing that the AL, as an organisation, was intrinsically linked to a pattern of systemic corruption and human rights abuses that culminated in the 2024 massacres.

Case Study: The Ban and Due Process

The ban was executed under the framework of amended Information and Communication Technology (ICT) laws and specific provisions related to anti-terrorism, allowing for the widespread prosecution of party leaders and the suspension of the party’s operational functions (Reuters / AP News, 2025).

Proponents of the Ban argue that the ban is necessary for collective accountability. They cite the Amnesty International reports detailing thousands of arbitrary arrests and systematic torture (Amnesty International, 2024), arguing that a party capable of such actions cannot be permitted to compete in a democratic process without compromising the very essence of that democracy. Justice, they contend, must be served first.

Critics of the Ban raise profound questions about constitutional law and political due process. They warn that utilizing anti-terrorism legislation for the blanket exclusion of the country's oldest and most popular political entity constitutes collective punishment. This action, while addressing past wrongs, sets a dangerous precedent, potentially rendering any future election illegitimate in the eyes of a massive segment of the population and the international community.

The central paradox is that a ban implemented in the name of justice risks crippling the possibility of a credible and stable democracy.

Voice from Exile: Hasina’s Strategic Gambit

Sheikh Hasina’s position in New Delhi, confirmed by her statement to $\text{NDTV}$ where she noted she was "Living Freely in Delhi, But Would Love To Return Home," is not one of political defeat but of strategic recalibration. Her threat to boycott the election is a calculated geopolitical move.

Maintaining Internal Cohesion: By portraying the $\text{AL}$ as a victim of political persecution, Hasina mobilises her grassroots support base, preventing internal fragmentation and ensuring the party remains a potent, though currently silenced, force

The Legitimacy Bomb: The primary goal is to strip the future elected government of international legitimacy. An election without the participation of the $\text{AL}$—a party that has historically dominated the political landscape—will be viewed by many Western powers and international bodies as inherently flawed and unrepresentative. This would undermine the new government's stability, its ability to attract vital Foreign Direct Investment ($\text{FDI}$), and its diplomatic standing.

Challenging Authority: Hasina continually uses her platform to challenge the constitutional mandate of the Yunus-led council, asserting that as the former elected representative, her authority remains legally paramount. This narrative fuels internal opposition to the interim government.

The Geopolitical Chessboard: India’s Dilemma and China’s Opportunity

The Bangladeshi crisis has directly impacted the delicate strategic balance of South Asia, forcing neighbouring powers to navigate a dangerous diplomatic minefield.

India's Precarious Position

India, which historically benefited immensely from Hasina’s government for reasons of counter-terrorism, strategic connectivity, and geopolitical alignment, now faces a severe dilemma (ISAS (NUS), 2024–2025).

Security vs. Democracy: New Delhi’s priority is a stable Bangladesh that ensures the security of its northeastern border. The AL ban, however, creates a volatile, radicalised environment, precisely what India seeks to avoid.

The Diplomatic Tightrope: India cannot afford to be seen as interfering in Bangladesh's transition towards democracy and accountability, yet it is deeply uncomfortable with the political exclusion of its long-term strategic ally. Indian policymakers are now under pressure to engage the interim government to promote electoral inclusivity without appearing to dictate the judicial process against the AL.

China's Strategic Window

In contrast, China views the instability and India’s caution as a significant strategic opportunity. Beijing has steadily increased its economic engagement through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and a politically destabilised Bangladesh, hungry for foreign investment, may be more inclined to deepen financial and infrastructural ties with China. This geopolitical vacuum could lead to a strategic shift in the Bay of Bengal, challenging India's regional influence. The future security and economic stability of South Asia hinge on how this delicate power struggle is resolved.

The Humanitarian Price and Security Risk

The political and legal actions in Dhaka have deep-reaching humanitarian consequences

Social Fragmentation and Economic Shock: The pervasive political tension has led to a sharp contraction in $\text{FDI}$ and heightened economic uncertainty, impacting the livelihoods of millions of Bangladeshis, from factory workers to farmers. The severe political divide risks escalating into long-term social fragmentation, making the task of national reconciliation immensely difficult

Security Sector Reform (SSR): The role of the armed forces and security agencies remains central. The Human Rights Watch report (2025) explicitly calls for a Roadmap to Lasting Security Sector Reform, emphasising the need to limit the military’s domestic role and ensure greater civilian oversight. Without genuine SSR, the impartiality of the security apparatus in overseeing a post-ban election will remain highly suspect, creating a persistent risk of future military intervention or manipulation.

Policy Imperatives for Legitimate Transition

The interim government must navigate the path between delivering justice and ensuring democratic credibility. Analysts propose the following policy interventions:

Judicial Process Transparency: The prosecutions, particularly those under the ICT Act, must be conducted with maximum transparency and adherence to international human rights standards (OHCHR, 2025). This requires the inclusion of international legal observers and robust, guaranteed appeal mechanisms to counter the narrative of political vengeance.

Conditional Electoral Participation: The electoral commission should explore a model of conditional political participation. While leaders directly implicated in mass abuses should face trials, the wholesale exclusion of all $\text{AL}$ members—who represent a significant voter base—must be revisited. An election with a major political stream excluded is merely a selection, not a democratic mandate (AP News, 2025)

Diplomatic Mediation: Regional powers, led by India but supported by Western partners, must jointly advocate for neutral dialogue between all major political factions. This diplomatic pressure is essential to foster an environment of genuine inclusion and stability, simultaneously mitigating the risk of Chinese overreach (NUS ISAS, 2024–2025)

Community-Centric Reconciliation: Beyond political settlements, there is an urgent need for social rehabilitation programs for victims of the 2024 violence and the communities affected by the subsequent arrests. Justice must be coupled with programs that encourage long-term peace-building and national unity.

Conclusion: The Test of South Asian Democracy

Bangladesh's crisis is a stark reminder that democracy's foundation rests not solely on legal statutes, but on popular trust, participation, and perceived fairness. The pursuit of justice for the horrific abuses of 2024 is morally imperative, yet the chosen instrument—the political exclusion of the $\text{Awami League}$—has thrown the legitimacy of the entire democratic future into question.

The exiled Sheikh Hasina has cast a shadow over the forthcoming polls. Unless the interim government can successfully reconcile its commitment to judicial accountability with a verifiable, internationally credible commitment to inclusive politics and transparent legal processes, the "legitimacy of the election" will remain a hollow phrase. The outcome of this delicate balancing act will determine not only the future of Bangladesh but also the enduring stability and democratic principles of the wider South Asian region

References

NDTV. “Living Freely In Delhi, But Would Love To Return Home: Sheikh Hasina.” Oct 29, 2025.

www.ndtv.com

OHCHR. “Fact-Finding Report: Human Rights Violations and Abuses related to the Protests of July and August 2024 in Bangladesh.” Feb 12, 2025.

OHCHR

Amnesty International. “Thousands of protesters arrested arbitrarily.” 2024.

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch. “After the Monsoon Revolution: A Roadmap to Lasting Security Sector Reform in Bangladesh.” Jan 27, 2025.

Human Rights Watch

Reuters / AP reporting on Awami League ban and interim government decisions (May 2025).

Reuters

+1

ISAS (NUS). “Precarious Bangladesh and Indian Indifference” / “India's Options in Post-Hasina Bangladesh.” 2024–2025 analyses.

NUS ISAS

+1

By: Tuhin Sarwar — investigative feature and policy analysis for Article Insight