The political maelstrom that has engulfed Bangladesh, culminating in the dramatic ouster and flight of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, has sent shockwaves across the region. With reports suggesting she has found refuge in India, a pressing question now hangs heavy in the diplomatic air: Will New Delhi extradite her to face a potential trial and even the death penalty in her home country?
While the new interim government in Dhaka may eventually demand her return, the calculus in South Block points overwhelmingly in one direction. For a confluence of deep-seated strategic, legal, and political reasons, India is almost certain to refuse any such request. This isn’t about one individual; it’s about decades of carefully cultivated regional policy and national interest.
A Steadfast Strategic Ally: Hasina’s Security Dividend for India
First and foremost is the undeniable strategic reality. For the past 15 years, Sheikh Hasina has been more than just a neighbouring leader; she has been India’s most steadfast and crucial ally in the region. Under her watch, Bangladesh transformed from a country that provided tacit sanctuary to anti-India insurgent groups into a partner that actively dismantled them.
The security and relative peace in India’s volatile Northeast are a direct dividend of the security cooperation fostered by the Hasina government. Her administration cracked down hard on groups like ULFA, delivering a strategic victory that New Delhi has not forgotten. Handing her over would be seen as a betrayal of a critical partnership, sending a chilling message to other allies: India’s friendship is conditional and fleeting.
India’s Legal Firewall: A Stand Against Capital Punishment
Secondly, India’s own legal and ethical framework presents a formidable barrier. New Delhi has a long-standing, principled position against extraditing individuals to countries where they could face capital punishment. This policy is a cornerstone of its extradition treaties and judicial pronouncements.
Furthermore, any charges levelled against Hasina would inevitably be viewed by India as politically motivated. Extradition laws globally, including India’s, typically have exemptions for “political offences.” The process would be mired in a legal quagmire, allowing New Delhi to indefinitely delay or deny the request on solid legal grounds, all while maintaining a stance of upholding the rule of law.
The Domestic Political Calculus: Protecting a ‘Friend’
Third, there is the domestic political dimension. The Modi government has built its foreign policy on the image of a strong, assertive India—a “Vishwa Guru” (world leader) that protects its friends. Forcibly returning a long-time ally, particularly one who championed secularism against rising Islamist forces, would be politically untenable. It would be portrayed as weakness and a betrayal of a leader who stood against the very forces that sections of the Indian political establishment view with deep suspicion. The optics of abandoning Hasina to a new regime, whose long-term ideological leanings are still unclear, would be disastrous.
Realpolitik and a Fluid Future: Keeping a Key Card in Play
Finally, this is a classic case of realpolitik. The situation in Bangladesh remains fluid. The interim government’s hold on power is yet to be consolidated, and the future political landscape is uncertain. By providing safe haven to Hasina, India retains a significant card. It avoids legitimising a transfer of power that occurred outside the constitutional process and keeps its options open. While New Delhi will undoubtedly engage with the new leadership in Dhaka to protect its core interests—connectivity, trade, and border stability—it will not burn all its bridges with the past.
For India, Sheikh Hasina in exile is a known entity and a symbol of a past partnership. Handing her over to an uncertain fate would not only be a moral and legal compromise but a strategic blunder of epic proportions. New Delhi will choose stability over retribution, and pragmatism over pressure. The message from India will be clear: asylum is on the table; the gallows are not.
