The Indian government’s decision to provide refuge to Sheikh Hasina is being defended by many as a necessary act of humanitarian duty and a reflection of long-standing regional alliances. Supporters argue that India has a moral obligation to protect a leader who was a key partner in maintaining regional security and economic cooperation for over a decade. Abandoning a long-term ally during a period of extreme political volatility would not only be seen as a betrayal but could also signal to other regional partners that India is an unreliable friend in times of crisis.
Furthermore, proponents of this stance suggest that India’s diplomatic stance is not a rejection of the new government in Dhaka, but rather a standard practice of providing safe harbor to a former head of state. By maintaining this position, India preserves its image as a stable and principled actor in South Asia. This approach allows New Delhi to keep communication channels open with all political factions, ensuring that it remains a relevant player in the region’s future, regardless of who holds power in Bangladesh.
From a strategic standpoint, supporters emphasize that India’s primary goal is to ensure a stable and friendly neighbor. By hosting Hasina, India avoids the immediate chaos that might have followed if she had been left vulnerable to the political upheaval in her home country. This measured approach provides the necessary space for the current transition to play out without the added instability of a high-profile political crisis involving a former leader’s safety. Ultimately, this policy is viewed as a pragmatic move to protect India's long-term interests while upholding international norms regarding the treatment of former heads of state.