Dhaka, Bangladesh — New Delhi and Dhaka had been quietly preparing for Bangladesh Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s first visit to India since he took office. However, their plans were disrupted when former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, currently in exile, held a video news conference on August 5. During this conference, she and her associates criticized the large protests that led to her removal from power.
In response, the Bangladeshi government expressed its outrage that Hasina, who has been living outside the country since her ousting in August 2024, was allowed to make statements while in India. Dhaka had previously warned India to prevent any political actions that could harm their bilateral relationship.
Following the incident, Bangladesh officials stated that a favorable environment is necessary before the planned trip could proceed and asked India to act on requests for the extradition of Hasina and other fugitives.
India has confirmed that it is reviewing the extradition requests in accordance with established procedures.
However, discussions with Bangladeshi officials and analysts indicate that the rift may be more complex than just an extradition dispute. The focus may not be so much on when India will extradite Hasina but rather on what activities she is allowed to pursue while in India.
The ‘megaphone’ issue
Faisal Mahmud, a former press minister at the Bangladesh High Commission in India, argued that the matters of extradition and Hasina’s political activities should be considered separately. He explained that the current tension stems from India allowing Hasina to speak freely while in exile, which is something Dhaka had specifically requested them not to do.
Mahmud pointed out that extradition is a complicated issue that the Rahman government understands well. He emphasized that the current delay regarding Rahman’s visit and the broader relationship with India is centered around India permitting Hasina to engage in political activities from its territory.
The concern about Hasina’s influence is not new and dates back before the current government. For example, in April 2025, during a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus, who was then leading Bangladesh’s interim government, requested India to prevent Hasina from making incendiary remarks from its territory.
Humaiun Kobir, deputy head of Bangladesh’s Foreign Ministry, stated that while Dhaka seeks a cooperative relationship based on trust, it cannot accept what it deems as destabilizing actions from Hasina, whom the government has labeled a terrorist. He stressed the importance of a meeting between the prime ministers, but only when it aligns with Bangladesh’s national interests.
The Extradition Dilemma
The distinction between limiting Hasina’s political activities and securing her extradition poses different challenges for India. Hasina was sentenced to death in absentia by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal due to convictions related to her handling of the 2024 protests, although she claims the charges are politically driven.
Bangladesh first sought Hasina’s extradition formally in December 2024 through diplomatic channels. Following the sentencing in November 2025, Dhaka reiterated its request, which India is currently reviewing.
On August 11, India’s Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that the request is under examination, but specific details were not provided in response to inquiries.
Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, a former Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh, stressed that the extradition process must adhere to legal procedures outlined in the extradition treaty between the two nations.
The Impact of Domestic Politics on Diplomacy
Some experts see a contradiction in Bangladesh’s extradition demand. Political analyst David Bergman pointed out that Bangladesh may be pushing for Hasina’s return knowing full well that India is unlikely to comply. He noted that the government might be catering to public sentiment while simultaneously hoping she remains abroad to avoid the complications her return would bring.
Returning Hasina could lead to political and legal issues for the government, as they would face the challenge of dealing with a former leader sentenced to death, raising sensitive concerns regarding the potential imprisonment or execution of such a prominent figure.
The situation with Hasina is just one element amid a broader reassessment of Bangladesh’s ties with India. Shahab Enam Khan, a professor at Jahangirnagar University, mentioned that Dhaka’s current stance should not be misread as outright anti-India. He emphasized that Bangladesh still values trade, security, and relationships with India, but it is asserting its sovereignty and responding to public sentiment influenced by India’s historical alignment with Hasina’s government.
Khan observed that India’s past support for the Awami League has made it slow to adapt to the current political landscape in Bangladesh post-2024. He indicated that while India is beginning to acknowledge these changes, Dhaka now expects tangible outcomes from those shifts.
A Mutual Interest in Maintaining Relations
Despite the ongoing political strife, both India and Bangladesh have continued practical engagements. Recently, representatives from the Confederation of Indian Industry visited Dhaka to hold discussions, highlighting the fact that bilateral trade is thriving, exceeding $12 billion annually.
Chakravarty noted that geographical realities bind the two nations together, a factor that cannot be ignored by policymakers. However, he criticized Dhaka for placing conditions on Rahman’s visit, arguing that national interests should not be compromised due to individual circumstances.
Sreeradha Datta, a professor at O P Jindal Global University, pointed out that while Bangladesh is diversifying its international relationships, India’s significance remains pivotal. She highlighted the ongoing complexities, especially with China’s expanding influence in Bangladesh, yet maintained that geographic factors ensure sustained strategic importance for India.
Ultimately, despite the current political deadlock, both nations recognize the necessity of continued engagement, with India leaving the door open for high-level discussions. The question remains as to what compromise, whether public or private, might create enough political breathing room for both parties to meet without perceived losses.
