The formal request from Bangladesh’s caretaker government to extradite former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has stirred an intriguing debate in India. Should New Delhi comply with Dhaka’s demands, or does prudence suggest a more calculated approach? The issue not only tests the resilience of India’s diplomatic strategies but also highlights the broader geopolitical undercurrents shaping South Asia.
Sheikh Hasina’s sudden departure from Bangladesh under military direction in the face of mounting protests raises critical questions about the circumstances leading to her ouster. It is widely speculated that her flight was engineered by a combination of military pressure and political intrigue, designed to dismantle her democratically elected government. The fact that the army facilitated her escape instead of protecting her underlines the depth of the conspiracy.
For India, this scenario evokes memories of its historic role in Bangladesh’s liberation. Without India’s intervention in 1971, the country’s independence might never have materialized. Yet, Dhaka’s latest maneuver reflects a significant shift, possibly influenced by external powers aiming to diminish India’s regional influence and economic ascent.
The interim government led by Muhammad Yunus, seen by some as a U.S.-backed administration, faces a ticking clock as American political dynamics shift with Donald Trump’s anticipated return to the White House. The Yunus government’s request for Hasina’s extradition appears to be a strategic gambit, aiming to either compel India into a misstep or solidify its own tenuous legitimacy.
However, India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership has displayed a penchant for pragmatism over reactionary policies. Given the precedent of refusing politically motivated extradition requests under its treaty with Bangladesh, India is unlikely to comply. As Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Center noted, Hasina has been one of India’s closest allies in the region, and turning her over would risk alienating a friendly faction within Bangladesh.
India’s decision-making on this matter is deeply entwined with its broader strategic interests. A strong relationship with Bangladesh is crucial to maintaining stability along their shared 4,096-kilometer border. Yet, Dhaka’s recent reports of violence against Hindus, coupled with accusations of India’s support for Hasina’s alleged authoritarianism, have strained bilateral ties.
For Modi’s government, safeguarding India’s northeastern states from cross-border instability takes precedence. Strengthened security measures along the border reflect India’s preparedness for any fallout from political turmoil in Bangladesh.
India’s refusal to extradite Hasina may initially strain relations, but it is unlikely to derail long-term cooperation. The Yunus government’s credibility faces serious challenges, including potential domestic backlash and shifting geopolitical dynamics. Analysts believe that the Yunus administration, lacking substantial public support, could face significant upheaval, especially if global power equations shift after 2025.
India’s calibrated approach will likely emphasize dialogue and de-escalation rather than military or coercive strategies. By maintaining its stance as a regional stabilizer, New Delhi can strengthen its diplomatic leverage while avoiding unnecessary entanglements.
India is no stranger to navigating complex regional relationships. While the extradition request for Sheikh Hasina tests its diplomatic finesse, the Modi government appears well-equipped to manage the situation without compromising its strategic interests. By leveraging its historical ties, security apparatus, and geopolitical acumen, India can ensure that its response reinforces its role as a mature and pragmatic power in South Asia.
As tensions persist, both nations must prioritize long-term stability over short-term political gains. The road ahead may be fraught with challenges, but India’s commitment to balancing diplomacy with strategic imperatives remains its greatest strength.
