The Trial of Sheikh Hasina and echoes of Rawalpindi in Dhaka – Firstpost

Undoubtedly, Bangladesh is a sovereign nation, which has its own Constitution to govern itself and maintain the rule of law. However, what is disappointing is that it is fast becoming a mirror of Pakistan – a country that is globally associated with political instability, institutional decay and recurring episodes of ‘anarchy’ despite having a constitutional framework.

Therefore, Bangladesh’s current moment can be understood not only as a national crisis, but also as part of a broader regional cycle, where democratic aspirations regularly collide with political dysfunction.

The two most striking examples are Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan. Each of them rose to the pinnacle of power, reshaped their countries in profound ways, but suffered equally dramatic collapses, culminating in legal proceedings that were widely criticized for their political overtones.

Although both cases occur in different eras and national contexts, a comparative study reveals the weakness of democratic institutions and the complex role of the judiciary in moments of political change.

Background and access to power

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto emerged as one of Pakistan’s most charismatic and dynamic political leaders in the 1960s. After a prestigious legal education abroad, he entered public life and eventually founded the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in 1967 on the platform of Islamic socialism.

Following the dissolution of Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh, Bhutto became President in 1971 and later Prime Minister in 1973 under a new constitution. He initiated sweeping reforms, including major nationalization initiatives, land policies, and pursuing Pakistan’s nuclear program. His leadership redefined Pakistan, but also generated strong opposition from areas alienated by his policies or fearful of his growing personal power.

In contrast, Sheikh Hasina rose to prominence not through ideological innovation but through her pedigree and tenacity. As the daughter of Bangladesh’s founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, she became a key custodian of the Awami League tradition. His political career was shaped by personal tragedy, as most of his family was assassinated in 1975. Hasina led the Awami League alternately in government and opposition before establishing a firm grip on power after 2009.

Over the next 15 years, he oversaw rapid economic growth, ambitious infrastructure projects, and significant social development indicators. At the same time, his critics accuse him of eroding democratic freedoms, centralizing power, weakening the judiciary, and suppressing dissent. By the early 2020s she had become the most influential political figure in Bangladesh since independence, but this dominance stoked resentment and set the stage for dramatic events that ultimately led to her overthrow.

Fall and legal proceedings

Bhutto’s downfall began in 1977, when opposition parties accused her of committing electoral fraud in parliamentary elections. The protests that followed destabilized the government, and on 5 July 1977, Army Chief of Staff General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq ousted Bhutto in a military coup.

Martial law was declared, political activity was halted, and Bhutto was soon arrested. His trial on charges of authorizing the assassination of a political opponent became a defining moment in South Asian legal history. The proceedings, held in the Lahore High Court rather than the trial court, were widely considered partisan, restricted, and influenced by military rule.

Despite domestic and international criticism, Bhutto was convicted in 1978 and the Supreme Court upheld the verdict. On 4 April 1979, he was hanged in Rawalpindi Central Jail, an execution described by many as a politically motivated judicial murder. Decades later, the Supreme Court of Pakistan acknowledged that Bhutto did not receive a fair trial, reflecting the enduring controversy surrounding the case.

The fall of Hasina was caused by a large-scale student-led rebellion during the summer of 2024. The protests began with anger over job quotas and broader complaints about governance and democratic backsliding, turning into widespread unrest. Security forces responded with force, resulting in a high death toll.

Amid the chaos, Hasina’s government fell and she fled the country and eventually took refuge in India. An interim administration assumed control, and in 2025 the International Criminal Tribunal, originally created during his own tenure to prosecute 1971 war criminals, began proceedings against him.

The tribunal charged Hasina with crimes against humanity for allegedly ordering or failing to stop lethal force against protesters. Tried in absentia, he denied all charges and described the process as entirely political. On November 17, 2025, the tribunal convicted him and sentenced him to death. Since she lives outside Bangladesh, the verdict has not been implemented, but it has dramatically changed her and her party’s political legacy.

Why a parallel?

The similarities between the two cases are striking, despite them being decades apart. Both Bhutto and Hasina relied on their political positions, ruling with a mix of popular support and increasingly centralized authority. Each faced growing discontent from opposition forces who accused them of authoritarian tendencies. His removal from power was sudden and occurred during moments of acute national crisis. Most importantly, each leader became the subject of legal proceedings that were influenced by political calculations, rather than untouched by them.

Yet the differences are equally important.

Bhutto was overthrown by a direct military coup, while Hasina’s fall resulted from sustained civilian protests, although the military and security forces played important roles in both contexts. Bhutto was physically in Pakistan, arrested by the regime, tried in open court and hanged.

In contrast, Hasina was out of the country and was tried in absentia, raising questions over enforcement and international diplomacy. The nature of the allegations is also different. Bhutto faced charges of involvement in a political assassination, while Hasina faced allegations of systemic and massive human rights violations during the massive crackdown.

The judicial forums also differ as Bhutto was tried in a standard (if distorted) judicial hierarchy, while Hasina was tried before a special tribunal.

These differences shape the ways in which the respective societies interpret their destiny. Bhutto has been rehabilitated in public memory as a martyr of military injustice. His party still remains an important player in national politics, and his execution is now widely recognized as a serious miscarriage of justice.

At least for now, there is a deep controversy over Hasina’s legacy. His supporters see him as a visionary leader who has been ostracized and targeted by political enemies, while his critics disagree. The tribunal’s decision has only deepened political polarization and will continue to influence the political trajectory of Bangladesh.

Judiciary, power and institutional weakness

The trials of Bhutto and Hasina highlight a key issue in South Asian governance – the complex relationship between law and political power. In principle, accountability for state violence or abuse of office is essential to democratic health. In practice, when institutions lack independence or become instruments of political forces, trials can blur the line between justice and retribution.

Bhutto’s trial demonstrated how the judiciary can be subsumed under authoritarian rule. The Zia regime used legal means to eliminate a political opponent, undermining judicial credibility for generations. Hasina’s case raises separate but related concerns. The tribunal trying him was created under his own administration, but its use against him during a period of transitional unrest raises doubts about impartiality and due process.

Like Pakistan in the 1970s, Bangladesh’s political institutions are struggling under the burden of competing visions of legitimacy.

implications for democracy

Bhutto’s execution had a profound impact on the political development of Pakistan. It strengthened military dominance, weakened political parties, and contributed to institutional imbalance for decades.

Bangladesh is facing its uncertain future. Hasina’s conviction and the ban on her party have reshaped the political landscape. Much depends on whether institutions can claim independence and whether political competition can proceed without fear of repression or reprisal.

For now, while Bhutto’s place in history is now largely settled, Hasina’s place is in flux. However, it is clear that both cases are reminders of the need for strong institutions, independent judiciaries, and political cultures that resist the temptation to use legal systems as a means of retribution.