The political terrain of South Asia is widely renowned for its Byzantine intricacy and combustible explosiveness. However, the recent developments around Sheikh Hasina, the Bangladesh leader in exile, have pushed these regional dynamics to an entirely new dimension. Hasina’s situation was not a concern for India until she fell under charges of autocracy and human rights abuse. This has caused shockwaves not just in diplomatic and moral circles but also landed India bang in the center of a geopolitical maelstrom. The incident clearly demonstrates how delicate a tightrope country must walk in state-to-state relations, and this fact was precisely captured by John F. Kennedy when he stated, “Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.”
The ousted leader of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina’s sojourn in India has been the most serious diplomatic puzzle amid a spate of accusations against her regime—evoking a long tradition of controversial asylum cases including that of Idi Amin in Saudi Arabia and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the US. The moot question behind the comparison goes right back to an essentially philosophical debate over the place of asylum per se in international politics when exile is as contentious as the supposed crimes that precede it.
This article essentially analyses the various dimensions of Hasina’s asylum in India, the challenges it poses to India’s foreign policy, reactions within Bangladesh and the larger South Asian region, and the shift in regional power dynamics. Most importantly, it looks at the extent to which this tricky development could reset ties with Bangladesh and its neighbourhood, as well as how New Delhi will negotiate it with its mighty friends. The geopolitics associated with Hasina’s asylum is both a stimulus for current events and a force shaping South Asia’s political trajectory.
Controversial asylum
Hasina’s asylum in India has intensified regional tensions, transforming her presence into a significant diplomatic imbroglio. More than merely residing in India, Hasina has been actively engaging in political manoeuvres, delivering incendiary speeches and allegedly issuing commands to orchestrate violence, all of which are broadcast directly to her supporters back in Bangladesh—a nation already grappling with political instability. The Bangladesh government has vehemently criticized Hasina’s remarks as misleading and provocative. This controversy reached a crescendo when demonstrators in Dhaka forcefully entered and set fire to the residence of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the revered founding father of Bangladesh, precisely during Hasina’s speech. This violent episode prompted the Bangladeshi authorities to lodge a formal protest with the Indian government, demanding an immediate cessation of what they perceived as Hasina’s subversive acts on Indian soil.
India’s decision to shelter Hasina is viewed by many, both within and beyond Bangladesh, as a pragmatic yet ethically questionable choice. It has exacerbated the bilateral tensions, portraying India as a sanctuary for autocratic leadership—an image that starkly contrasts with its democratic ideals. MK Gandhi’s poignant observation resonates deeply in this context: “The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires a change of heart.” As pressure mounts from Bangladesh’s interim government for Hasina’s extradition, India finds itself at a diplomatic crossroads. The choices made in the coming days will not only redefine its international relations but also test its commitment to democratic principles, potentially setting a precedent for how it engages with exiled leaders in the future.
The razing of the historic residence of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on Dhanmondi Road 32, a very strong symbol of Bangladesh’s fight for independence and subsequent political difficulties, has resulted in national outrage. This goes beyond an act of vandalism, it’s a touching rejection of the extended rule of Hasina, marked by accusations of electoral fraud and autocratic governance. What it says about the acute frustrations of a nation on the edge is that this iconic building was reduced to rubble in such a short time by the immediate and forceful response of the populace. As French diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “The most dangerous moment for a bad government is when it begins to reform.”
Disapproval in Bangladesh
India’s sheltering of Sheikh Hasina directly contradicts the will of the people of Bangladesh—and this view is shared across the political divide of the country, from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to Jamaat-e-Islami. India’s motivations are not seen as humanitarian but rather a strategic calculus aimed at keeping the Awami League and Hasina in office, a situation that presumably serves India’s more extensive geopolitical and economic interests.
Critics also say that India’s support for Hasina enables a regime in Dhaka that is amenable to Indian interests, mainly on bilateral projects. Indeed, several key agreements enhancing India’s energy security and connectivity infrastructure have been signed during her tenure. These include the Rampal Power Project, a joint venture to build a massive coal-fired power plant near the Sundarbans. It has received considerable environmental criticism. Then there is the inauguration of the India-Bangladesh Friendship Pipeline, allowing the export of refined petroleum products from India to Bangladesh; and agreements on the use of Chittagong and Mongla Ports for transporting goods to and from India, significantly reducing logistic hassles for Indian businesses.
Additionally, Hasina’s administration has fully cooperated with India on security-related issues, reassuring the latter of putting a halt to anti-India insurgent activities on Bangladeshi soil. The cooperation ranges from counterterrorism to strategic intelligence sharing, which is very close to India’s regional security imperatives.
While rewarding for India, this alignment is viewed in Bangladesh as a set of concessions that erode national sovereignty and place Indian interests above Bangladeshi self-determination. The general understanding among Bangladeshi political agents and the ordinary people is that such policies are being implemented at the expense of Bangladesh’s development priorities and environmental concerns, making India a hegemon rather than a partner. As political analyst Dr. Afsan Chowdhury said: “When you lie down with elephants, the risk isn’t that they might think you’re equal—it’s that they might not notice you at all.”
In navigating these complex, often contentious dynamics, Bangladesh has amplified its call for Hasina’s repatriation into a demand for legal redress and a plea to restore national dignity and sovereignty. This diplomatic impasse is likely to have an outcome that would resound beyond the borders of Bangladesh and India and affect perceptions and policies across South Asia.
Implications
These events have contributed to increased strain in India-Bangladesh relations and cast a long shadow over the broader canvas of bilateral cooperation. It places India not merely as a passive observer in the developments that are taking place within Bangladesh’s borders but, indeed, as an active participant. This is geopolitically risky, akin to other exiles such as Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor and the Chilian dictator Augusto Pinochet, who, from their bases in exile, created perpetual insecurity in their native countries. The emergence of such parallels whips up a debate over international norms of asylum and the accountability of host countries, placing India’s position at the front of diplomatic scrutiny.
Call for diplomatic prudence
The larger implications of Hasina’s activities go beyond the bilateral perspective. An inevitable consequence might be increased tensions in an already complex web of political and security interests across South Asia. Countries in South Asia, facing internal political imperatives and diasporic influences, may also review their diplomacy in light of the outcome of this case. The perceived support for a reported autocratic leader may rebalance regional relations by affecting how these countries relate among themselves and to major powers from outside the region.
India plays an important role in this controversy. It needs to balance its asylum policy without appearing to interfere in the sovereign affairs of a neighbouring country. This is not only significant for healthy bilateral relations but also for India’s image as a promoter of democracy and stability in South Asia. Today’s decisions will no doubt shape the geopolitical landscape of the region—it demands a cautious, high-on-principle approach with respect for both the sanctity of asylum and the imperative of non-interference. As events unfold, India must demonstrate diplomatic prudence to ensure its actions are in line with long-term regional peace and cooperation.
The question is fundamental: Should India continue sheltering Sheikh Hasina at the risk of perpetuating instability in Bangladesh and tarnishing its image as a protector of democratic values? Or will India acquiesce to the request for her extradition by the interim Bangladeshi government, thereby upholding respect for national sovereignty and the rule of law?
This is not a policy challenge but one of philosophical alignment.
As former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee once said, “You can change friends but not neighbours.” India’s decision will define whether it stands as a sanctuary for exiled leaders or as a champion of democratic integrity and international norms.
Author: Serajul I. Bhuiyan