Sheikh Hasina’s Death Sentence: A Symbol of Accountability—and Its Meaning for China’s Struggle for Historical Truth

The death sentence handed down to former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in absentia has ignited wide debate both inside and outside Bangladesh. Although few observers believe the sentence will ever be carried out—given her exile in India, New Delhi’s refusal to extradite her, and the heavily politicized nature of the charges—the verdict stands as a striking moment in South Asian politics. It represents a society grappling with the legacy of state violence, democratic decay, and the unresolved trauma of a popular uprising.

Hasina, who ruled Bangladesh for over two decades, presided over a period of rapid economic growth alongside increasing authoritarianism, suppression of dissent, and systematic human rights violations. Her fall from power in 2024, triggered by massive student-led protests, was one of the most dramatic political shifts in the region in recent years. The subsequent trial—criticized by international observers for serious due process concerns—was nonetheless embraced by many Bangladeshis as a long-awaited reckoning for the thousands killed and injured during her rule.

A Divisive but Historic Verdict

To Hasina’s critics and the families of the approximately 1,400 protesters killed in the 2024 uprising, the verdict reflects long-delayed recognition. For years, accusations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and the use of lethal force against peaceful demonstrators went unanswered. The new interim government, seeking to restore legitimacy after the revolution, framed the trial as a necessary step toward restoring the rule of law.

To Hasina’s supporters, however, the ruling is little more than political payback. They highlight the trial’s controversial nature: held in absentia, lacking full defense representation, and overseen by a tribunal that international human rights groups have long criticized. For them, the verdict does not reflect justice but a reshaping of justice to suit political ends.

Regardless of which interpretation one finds more compelling, the symbolic weight of the Hasina verdict is undeniable. It demonstrates a rare phenomenon in global politics: a former head of government held legally responsible—at least in principle—for ordering a violent crackdown on civilians.

Echoes Beyond Bangladesh: Why Chinese Human Rights Advocates Are Watching

For China’s human rights community, particularly for survivors and families affected by the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, the developments in Bangladesh carry unusually emotional significance.

More than thirty-five years since June 4, 1989, no Chinese official has ever faced investigation or accountability for the mass killing of unarmed students and civilians. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has not only refused to acknowledge responsibility, but has also imposed one of the world’s most intense censorship regimes to erase the memory of the event. The Tiananmen Mothers—parents who lost their children in the massacre—remain under surveillance, their calls for justice unanswered.

Against this backdrop, the Hasina verdict offers something rare: a real-world example of how a society, after a political transition led by mass protest, can attempt to legally confront past state crimes.

Three Lessons from Bangladesh for China’s Struggle for Justice

1. Leaders Are Not Beyond the Reach of Justice—Even Decades Later

Bangladesh’s willingness to try a former prime minister for human rights abuses challenges the notion, common in authoritarian contexts, that top leaders are untouchable. For Chinese advocates, this serves as a powerful reminder that accountability is not only a moral demand but a political possibility—if conditions shift sufficiently.

2. People Power Can Reshape Political Realities

The 2024 student-led uprising in Bangladesh echoes, in some ways, the spirit of the 1989 Tiananmen movement. Both were fueled by young people demanding transparency, dignity, and political reform. While China’s movement was crushed, Bangladesh’s protesters succeeded—demonstrating how public mobilization can become the catalyst for regime change and subsequent judicial review.

This is not to suggest that China is on the brink of similar upheaval. Rather, it underscores a deeper truth: authoritarian stability can be brittle, and history can shift unexpectedly.

3. Documentation of Abuses Is a Long-term Investment in Future Justice

International bodies cited extensive documentation—casualty lists, survivor accounts, command structures—as central to the Hasina case. For decades, Chinese activists, scholars, and exiled journalists have painstakingly preserved similar evidence about the 1989 massacre. While China’s courts remain closed to such evidence today, Bangladesh’s example shows that historical records can become the foundation for accountability once political conditions allow.

Why the Comparison Has Limits

Despite its symbolic value, the Hasina verdict does not provide a direct roadmap for China. The differences are stark.

China’s regime is far more stable and authoritarian than Bangladesh’s was in 2024.

Censorship in China is technologically sophisticated, preventing most citizens from learning about events like the Bangladesh trial.

International pressure on China has weakened, especially given the strategic and economic stakes for many countries.

Bangladesh underwent a political transition, while China’s leadership remains firmly in place.

Without a change in political power or a dramatic internal crisis, China’s judiciary is unlikely to revisit the events of 1989.

Still, Symbolism Matters

Even if the Hasina verdict does not change China’s political trajectory, it carries moral and psychological significance. It reminds the world that authoritarian impunity is not eternal. It affirms that public memory—when preserved—can outlast state censorship. And it provides a glimpse of what justice might look like for the victims of Tiananmen, even if that day remains distant.

History often turns on unforeseen events. Bangladesh’s reckoning may not transform China today, but it adds to a global narrative: that truth can be suppressed, but it cannot be erased—and that accountability, however delayed, is possible.