India’s High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Dinesh Trivedi, has turned the tables on Dhaka over Sheikh Hasina’s extradition, shifting attention from New Delhi’s refusal to return the former prime minister to the Bangladesh Army’s role in sending her to India.
In a recent article for ThePrint, titled “Dinesh Trivedi has done what India’s Bangladesh policy needed—put Dhaka on the backfoot”, journalist and author Deep Halder argues that Trivedi has achieved what Indian diplomacy had struggled to do for two years.
Instead of defending India's decision to shelter Hasina, the envoy has raised a more uncomfortable question for Bangladesh: who arranged her departure, and why?
“Bangladesh seems to be asking more questions of its own army now and less of India regarding Hasina’s extradition date,” Halder writes.
The intervention, he argues, has vindicated Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to appoint a politician rather than a career diplomat as India's envoy to Dhaka in April 2026.
The appointment initially raised eyebrows within India's diplomatic establishment. But Halder believes the gamble has paid off.
The diplomatic shift began on October 3, during the Bay of Bengal Conversation 2026 in Dhaka.
Speaking after a panel discussion titled “Power and Prudence”, Trivedi said India had “hardly any choice” but to allow the military aircraft carrying Hasina to land on Indian territory in August 2024.
“Hasina ji was not brought to India by Indian Air Force or Indian Army,” he said.
Trivedi insisted that New Delhi had neither invited Hasina nor prepared for her arrival.
The aircraft had reached India amid what he described as “tragic circumstances” in Bangladesh.
Accepting the aircraft, he said, was India's “duty as a neighbour to accept the reality of life”.
He also maintained that the legal process concerning Hasina's possible return was under way.
Halder argues that these remarks changed the direction of the debate.
For two years, Bangladesh has pressed India to return Hasina to face charges arising from the deadly crackdown on the 2024 uprising.
Dhaka formally renewed its extradition demand in November 2025, following her conviction and death sentence by the International Crimes Tribunal.
The BNP government, which took office in February 2026, has maintained that position.
“We always press for her extradition according to the law,” senior BNP leader Salahuddin Ahmed said.
“We also asked the government of India to please send her back to face trial in Bangladesh.”
Tensions intensified after Hasina addressed a virtual press conference from New Delhi on August 5, 2026.
Bangladesh's Foreign Ministry condemned India's decision to allow the event, calling it an “affront to the sovereignty of Bangladesh”.
But Trivedi's October intervention offered a different account of India's involvement.
As Halder sees it, India did not engineer Hasina's arrival. Bangladesh's own military facilitated her departure.
That distinction has become the centrepiece of his argument.
Halder's article goes further, drawing on allegations made by former Bangladesh Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal.
In a June 2025 interview for Halder's book, Inshallah Bangladesh: The Story of an Unfinished Revolution, Kamal accused Army Chief General Waker-uz Zaman of betraying Hasina during the final days of her government.
Kamal alleged that Waker instructed troops not to prevent protesters from entering Hasina's official residence on August 5, 2024.
He also claimed that the general, a distant relative of Hasina who had been appointed by her, arranged her departure to India.
According to Kamal, Waker effectively played both sides.
He facilitated Hasina's escape while allowing protesters to bring down her government.
These are allegations from a former minister in the ousted government. Halder's account does not establish them as independently verified facts.
Kamal also alleged that shooters linked to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence were involved in killing Bangladeshi police officers during the uprising.
He claimed to have informed Waker about the threat.
“The General had told me his men would handle the situation. They didn’t,” Kamal told Halder.
The allegation of ISI involvement remains unsubstantiated in the material cited.
Halder also quotes Bangladeshi Awami-league affiliated barrister Tania Amir, who questions the military's continued involvement in internal security.
“It has been more than two years since the tumultuous events of July 2024. Why is the army not going back to the barracks?” Amir asked.
“The civilian government should understand that the army can backstab it anytime.”
Amir argued that Bangladesh's police force had yet to recover its institutional authority following the uprising.
She pointed to attacks on police stations and the killing of 44 police officers during the unrest.
“No civilian government will be in charge of law and order unless the full dignity of its police force is restored in Bangladesh,” she said.
–