political climate in Bangladesh is once again at a decisive moment. Sheikh Hasina’s unusually prolonged stay in India has triggered widespread suspicion among Bangladeshis, who believe her political survival has long been orchestrated from New Delhi. The demand for her return is not just about her absence but about accountability: accountability for authoritarian crackdowns, for human rights violations, for the controversial Digital Security Act, and above all, for undermining the democratic aspirations of her own people with foreign backing.

For ordinary Bangladeshis, Hasina’s continued stay in India is a sign of weakness, not strength. Reports that she was received in New Delhi by Ajit Doval—India’s security chief and overseer of RAW, an agency often accused of meddling in the domestic politics of Bangladesh and its neighbors—only deepened public skepticism. In the eyes of many, this reception symbolized the long-standing partnership that enabled her survival as Prime Minister for more than a decade, even as democratic space in Bangladesh shrank. While India officially frames its relationship with Hasina’s government as one of mutual cooperation, Bangladeshis increasingly see it as one-sided—India reaping strategic and economic benefits while shielding Hasina from domestic and international scrutiny.

Hasina’s rule was marked by systematic suppression of opposition voices. Before the 2018 elections, thousands of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) activists were arrested, while Khaleda Zia, Hasina’s main political rival, remained sidelined. The elections themselves were marred by widespread accusations of fraud and intimidation. Yet India, instead of calling for transparency, was among the first to congratulate Hasina, which many Bangladeshis interpreted as an endorsement of authoritarianism.

International organizations also raised red flags. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in its June 2022 review of Hasina’s Digital Security Act, concluded that the law—while framed as a tool against cybercrime—was in practice used to silence critics, journalists, and political opponents. Human rights defenders within Bangladesh argued that this law became one of the most draconian instruments in South Asia, criminalizing free expression and consolidating one-party control.

Critics maintain that India’s political establishment not only tolerated but actively supported Hasina’s authoritarian excesses. Hannah Ellis-Petersen of The Guardian wrote that New Delhi was perceived as Hasina’s “greatest ally,” one that lent her legitimacy both regionally and internationally. By quickly recognizing her disputed electoral victories and facilitating economic deals, India signaled that it valued a compliant government in Dhaka more than the democratic will of Bangladesh’s people. During both her terms, 1996–2001 and after 2009, Hasina granted India significant influence over Bangladesh’s economy and security. Waterways were opened, transit routes were expanded, and lucrative contracts were awarded to Indian firms. For many Bangladeshis, this was evidence that their sovereignty was being traded away in exchange for regime security.

As Hasina’s absence drags on, the calls for her return to face justice are becoming louder. The demand is not simply political revenge by her rivals but a cry for accountability from ordinary citizens who endured years of repression. Civil society groups highlight the enforced disappearances, the suppression of media freedom, and the brutal crackdowns on opposition rallies. These actions, they argue, were carried out with tacit approval from India, which benefited strategically while Bangladesh’s democracy eroded.

The symbolism of Hasina seeking shelter in India is not lost on the people. It reinforces the widespread belief that her political career has been shaped, protected, and prolonged by New Delhi, often at the expense of Bangladesh’s own democratic progress. For India, Hasina’s downfall and the subsequent demand for her accountability pose a serious diplomatic dilemma. New Delhi, having invested so heavily in Hasina’s government, now faces a new political landscape in Dhaka that is far less accommodating. The Guardian notes that India must now “reckon with a new government that wants accountability” for her regime’s actions.

This raises questions about the sustainability of India’s regional approach. By prioritizing pliant leadership over democratic legitimacy, New Delhi may have secured short-term strategic gains, but it risks long-term estrangement from the Bangladeshi people. The image of India as a partner in democratic development is being replaced with one of interference and complicity.

Sheikh Hasina’s prolonged stay in India has become a symbol of everything that went wrong with her leadership: authoritarian crackdowns, suppression of dissent, controversial laws, and a dangerous dependence on foreign backing. The demand for her return is not merely about politics—it is about restoring accountability, sovereignty, and democracy in Bangladesh. As protests intensify and the call for justice grows louder, both Hasina and India face a stark choice: continue down the path of denial and complicity, or allow accountability to take its course. For Bangladeshis, the answer is clear—Sheikh Hasina must return home to face justice.