The region has grown accustomed to political storms, but few moments have been as symbolically charged as the downfall of Sheikh Hasina Wajid. Her sudden collapse—triggered by a youth-led uprising, solidified by a court verdict, and intensified by India’s controversial decision to shelter her—has reshaped South Asia’s balance of power in ways that New Delhi did not anticipate.
The spectacle is almost poetic: a leader who long projected herself as the guardian of stability now stands convicted of crimes against humanity, while the state that nurtured her political confidence finds itself exposed for selectively invoking principles of justice.
This convergence of judicial accountability, popular revolt, and diplomatic hypocrisy has created an inflection point not only for Bangladesh but for the region’s future political architecture. The verdict against Hasina is more than a domestic correction; it is a decisive rejection of India’s longstanding strategy of crafting obedient leadership in its neighborhood.
For fifteen uninterrupted years, Sheikh Hasina presided over Bangladesh with a grip defined by coercion, patronage, and relentless persecution of political opponents. Her government engineered an ecosystem in which dissent was criminalized, fundamental rights were hollowed out, and state institutions were systematically compromised.
The crackdown on the 2024 student movement, during which the UN estimates recorded nearly 1,400 deaths—the highest toll of political violence in Bangladesh since 1971—became the final chapter of a deeply authoritarian era. The tribunal’s judgment, delivered after a full year of investigation and testimony, underscores precisely this: the lethal force was neither spontaneous nor accidental, but ordered.
For Bangladeshis who endured disappearances, torture, and partisan trials, the ruling marks a historical rupture with the past. It signals, perhaps for the first time in decades, that Bangladesh’s judiciary is willing to reclaim its independence, and that the country may finally turn the page on weaponized justice that targeted political rivals, including Jamaat-e-Islami leaders who were executed on the basis of widely criticized and politically motivated trials.
Yet what has amplified this moment’s geopolitical significance is India’s response. Instead of respecting the judicial outcome of a sovereign neighbor, New Delhi rushed to provide Hasina safe harbor—an act that contradicts its own diplomatic rhetoric, legal commitments, and moral posturing.
Under the 2013 India–Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, both states pledged full cooperation in the return of individuals accused or convicted of serious crimes. Bangladesh honored this agreement when it handed over high-profile Indian fugitives, such as ULFA leader Anup Chetia, at India’s request.
India itself repeatedly demands the extradition of figures like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi from the UK, passionately invoking the rule of law and victims’ rights. It celebrated the repatriation of Tahawwur Rana from the United States and frequently issues red notices when its interests are touched.
Yet today, when confronted with a partner’s lawful request regarding a leader convicted of orchestrating mass violence against unarmed students, India suddenly abandons its own moral vocabulary. This selective commitment exposes a fundamental hypocrisy: when justice serves Indian interests, it is sacred; when it does not, it is dispensable.
This political sheltering also reveals how deeply Hasina served India’s strategic ambitions. For over a decade, she functioned as New Delhi’s most valuable political asset in the region. Her policies consistently synchronized with Indian preferences—whether in transit corridors, security cooperation, or the suppression of groups viewed unfavorably by New Delhi.
In exchange, India enjoyed unprecedented influence over Bangladesh’s internal and external orientation, often at the expense of Dhaka’s sovereignty. With Hasina’s fall, India has lost not merely a friendly government but a compliant architecture that guaranteed its dominance in the Bay of Bengal and the northeastern frontier.
The anger displayed by Indian politicians and media outlets after the verdict is telling; it reflects the frustration of a state whose preferred order has collapsed. Bangladesh’s political reawakening has shown that an entire country cannot be held hostage to the anxieties of a neighbor seeking regional hegemony under the guise of partnership.
The new leadership in Dhaka now has the opportunity—after years of imbalance—to craft a foreign policy grounded in equality rather than subordination and to rebuild relationships with all neighbors, including Pakistan, without external diktats.
The student-led uprising that ultimately dismantled Hasina’s government also deserves recognition as one of the most organic and courageous democratic movements in contemporary South Asian history.
What began as campus-level demonstrations swiftly evolved into a nationwide revolt against repression, fueled by generational anger and decades of suppressed political aspirations. The state’s reaction—live ammunition, arbitrary detentions, blackout of information—only accelerated its own demise.
Thousands of young Bangladeshis risked their lives to restore accountability, and their resistance undermined the legitimacy of a government that had grown accustomed to ruling without consent. It is this grassroots defiance that delivered Hasina to the courtroom, not elite maneuvering.
And it is this moral force that India now undermines by harboring a leader who stands convicted of directing lethal violence against the very youth who revitalized Bangladesh’s democratic spirit.
If New Delhi genuinely respected human rights and regional stability, it would acknowledge the tribunal’s authority, engage Dhaka in good faith, and avoid repeating the geopolitical arrogance that has long alienated its neighbors.
India cannot escape a simple truth: it cannot demand extraditions from the world while simultaneously shielding a convicted former prime minister whose orders led to mass killings. Its refusal to cooperate weakens not Bangladesh’s sovereignty, but India’s own credibility.
The region has changed; compliant regimes will no longer guarantee influence. By giving asylum to Hasina, India has chosen a path that isolates it morally, diplomatically, and strategically.
Bangladesh, meanwhile, stands at the threshold of renewal—freer to define its own path, reengage with neighbors on the basis of respect rather than dependence, and reclaim its democratic foundations.
The fall of Hasina is more than a political shift; it is a regional reckoning, a rejection of imposed hierarchies, and a reminder that even the most entrenched power arrangements crumble when a nation’s people decide they have had enough.
