How Many Times Are You Allowed to Use a Tram Card?

Recently, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar publicly clarified that the continued stay of former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in India is a matter of her personal decision influenced by the circumstances under which she came to India, but ultimately hers to decide.  This marks perhaps the clearest articulation yet by New Delhi of its stance: it is not committing to a timeline or blanket assurance for Hasina’s stay in India.

When asked whether she could remain “as long as she wants,” Jaishankar responded: “That’s a different issue, isn’t it?” He recalled that she came to India under “a certain circumstance,” which clearly remains relevant, and reiterated that how long she stays hinges on her own decision.

Given this, the question “Is it up to India or Bangladesh to decide whether India will keep Hasina?” is thus answered: as of now, India has consciously stepped back from making any firm commitment, leaving the “agency” with Hasina herself. In other words, India is neither guaranteeing indefinite stay nor announcing a plan to force her departure. Against this backdrop, what does this mean for contemporary India-Bangladesh relations?

Context and Recent Developments

The Hasina issue remains a sensitive flashpoint. Sheikh Hasina fled to India in August 2024, after a student-led uprising toppled her 15-year rule. Later, an International Crimes Tribunal in Dhaka convicted her in absentia for “crimes against humanity” related to the crackdown, even sentencing her to death.  In the wake of the verdict, Dhaka formally requested extradition through diplomatic channels. Yet, India has not responded with a firm commitment instead, India through Jaishankar has emphasized that her stay in India is personal and contingent on her own decision. 

New Delhi emphasizes democratic process in Bangladesh Jaishankar reiterated India’s preference for a “credible democratic process” in Bangladesh, especially with upcoming elections; a fair election, he argued, should be the first order of business.  This indicates that India is positioning itself as an advocate at least rhetorically for democratic legitimacy, rather than taking an overtly partisan stand in Bangladesh’s internal political crisis.

 Economic and long-standing ties remain central despite political strains, Bangladesh and India share deep-rooted economic, cultural, and social connections. Many analysts in Dhaka believe that Hasina’s prolonged stay will not necessarily unravel all ties: trade, migration, people-to-people contact, and strategic interdependence still offer a strong foundation for bilateral cooperation. 

Diplomatic balance and caution from New Delhi by making Hasina’s stay a matter of personal agency, India arguably maintains diplomatic flexibility avoiding being drawn directly into Bangladesh’s highly charged internal politics. At the same time, this stance allows India to preserve credibility both internationally and with other regional players, while retaining the ability to respond, negotiably, if Dhaka raises formal or legal demands in the future.

Key Challenges and Risks

Erosion of trust or goodwill in Dhaka from the viewpoint of Bangladesh’s new leadership, India’s reluctance to commit to extradition or repatriation might be seen as unacceptable leniency or even complicity. Over time, this could strain not only political relations but also cooperation in sensitive areas like security, cross-border management, and intelligence sharing. Domestic pressure and political volatility in Bangladesh, the Hasina trial and verdict, the demand for extradition, and public opinion (both pro- and anti-Hasina) mean any decision by India will be scrutinized heavily. If India appears to be sheltering a convicted leader indefinitely, domestic backlash in Bangladesh could escalate.

Precedent and international perception if India allows Hasina to stay indefinitely, it could be seen as setting a precedent for asylum or political refuge in politically motivated prosecutions. This might impact India’s image as a neutral regional power, especially in the eyes of Western democracies pushing for rule-of-law and accountability. Uncertainty over long-term stability political flux in Bangladesh, especially under an interim or transitional government, brings uncertainty. India must gauge whether aligning too closely with one faction (or leader) might backfire if power shifts again.

Opportunities and Strategic Advantages

Maintaining avenues of influence and diplomacy by not cutting off ties with Hasina completely, India retains a channel of communication with a significant political figure who still has a broad support base in Bangladesh. This could prove valuable if there is a political turnaround or if reconciliation efforts begin. Supporting democratic transition with discretion India’s emphasis on credible elections and democratic process may give Dhaka an incentive to pursue inclusive, legitimate politics. India, thus, positions itself as a stabilizing actor advocating for long-term regional stability rather than transactional politics. Safeguarding economic and people-to-people linkages given the dense socio-economic interdependence (trade, migration, border commerce, cultural bonds), India and Bangladesh have a mutual interest to keep the broader relationship functional. By temporarily easing political pressures, both sides preserve space for cooperation and rebuild trust gradually. Diplomatic flexibility without public commitment New Delhi’s neutral posture allows it to adapt to future legal or international developments (e.g., human rights reviews, extradition requests, international pressure), without being boxed into a fixed position now giving it room to negotiate, respond or even conditionally cooperate.

A Delicate Balance-but Not a Break

In my view, the current moment should be considered a transitional phase rather than a rupture. The decision by India to frame Hasina’s stay as a matter of personal choice reflects acute awareness of the diplomatic tightrope it is walking. On one hand, immediate compliance with extradition demands could provoke domestic and regional backlash; on the other, open-ended asylum could damage long-term trust with Dhaka. By choosing neutrality and emphasizing democratic process in Bangladesh rather than direct intervention India is effectively buying time. This gives both India and Bangladesh a window to recalibrate, reexamine priorities, and possibly rebuild a working relationship grounded in mutual economic, social, and strategic interests rather than personality-based politics.

However, this balance is fragile. The longer Hasina remains without resolution, the greater the pressure from multiple stakeholders: Bangladesh’s interim government, its domestic opposition, civil society, and international observers. At the same time, India will face increasing calls for consistency with international norms regarding asylum and political justice. Therefore, unless either Bangladesh or India engage in a structured, bilateral dialogue on repatriation, legal process, or transitional justice while also committing to broader cooperation in trade, security, and social exchange the risk of gradual alienation remains real.

Hence, my considered opinion is this: India and Bangladesh still have a plausible path to stabilized, mutually beneficial relations but it will require careful diplomacy, realistic acknowledgement of political sensitivities, and a shared commitment to rebuilding trust beyond personalities.


Shahidul Alam Swapan is a
financial crime specialist and
author based in Switzerland.