Being an outcast in politics is not unusual. Political parties rise and fall; leaders become heroes one day and footnotes the next. But what Bangladesh is witnessing today is something more dramatic: the sudden evaporation of political relevance from a party that once seemed untouchable. Two years ago, few would have dared to imagine the ousting of Sheikh Hasina, the region’s most entrenched political figure. Today, Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League stand precariously at the edge of irrelevance.

The fall did not happen overnight, but the moment of collapse was unmistakable. When the government refused to accept the legitimate demands of students in 2024 and responded instead with killings, force, and intimidation, it triggered a nationwide backlash. That refusal became the final blow to Hasina’s long and controversial rule. On 5 August 2024, the prime minister fled to India, the Awami League’s most trusted geopolitical ally. Since then, she has operated from an undisclosed location, sending audio instructions to her dwindling network of supporters.

India’s decision to let fugitive Sheikh Hasina use New Delhi as a platform to attack Bangladesh’s political process is seen as a blatant breach of sovereignty and a direct interference in Bangladesh’s democratic transition. By ignoring extradition obligations and enabling inflammatory rhetoric, India risks destabilising bilateral relations and undermining trust with any future elected government in Dhaka.

Months earlier, she had granted a full-length interview to The Week, an Indian magazine. The most striking feature of that interview, as in others, was the complete absence of remorse. There was no self-reflection, no acknowledgment of the authoritarian excesses that defined her tenure, and no indication that she understood why millions of young Bangladeshis turned against her.

The Delhi Conference: A Missed Moment of Redemption

On 23 January 2026, the “Save Democracy in Bangladesh” conference held at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) in New Delhi generated enormous anticipation. This was the first major event linked to Hasina in more than a year. For her supporters and observers alike, it raised one question: what would she say after 18 months of exile?

The audience numbers reflected this curiosity. Before the event even began at 6pm (India time), thousands waited on the YouTube livestream. Within the first 20 minutes, 13,809 viewers had joined. Within 33 minutes, the number had climbed to 54,000. By 6:40pm, viewership reached 92,525, a remarkable figure for a leader no longer in power.

Had Sheikh Hasina appeared live either physically or via video, the impact would likely have been far greater. Instead, attendees heard yet another pre-recorded audio message. The lack of direct engagement disappointed many who had expected a more personal and politically significant moment from a former head of government.

In her message, Hasina laid out five demands – removal of the “illegal Yunus administration” to create conditions for a free and fair election; an immediate end to daily violence and the restoration of public safety; protection for minorities, women, and vulnerable groups; an end to politically motivated cases against journalists and Awami League leaders, along with restoration of judicial neutrality; and a new, neutral United Nations investigation into the events of the past year.

While these demands appeared administrative on the surface, the tone of her speech told another story. It was sharp, accusatory, and deeply personal. The rhetoric was familiar to Bangladeshis: a mix of bitterness and vindictiveness. It felt less like a vision for national recovery and more like a continuation of the politics of resentment that marked her final years in office.

Expert opinion holds that the incident revealed a stark reality: Hasina’s exit from office did not soften her stance. She remained authoritarian and unyielding, refusing to recognise the grievances that brought down her rule.

The Global and Regional Media Lens

Perhaps most telling is the response, or lack thereof, from Western media. No major Western newspaper or broadcaster covered the event. This silence speaks volumes about the diminished relevance of a party that once dominated Bangladesh’s relations with the international community. Global attention has shifted elsewhere, and the Awami League no longer appears central to the region’s political future. Indian media, however, offered a window into how different political camps viewed Hasina’s message.

The Print released an email interview with Hasina earlier that day. Their analysis was more balanced, framing Hasina as trying to recast herself as a victim of authoritarianism following the ban on her party. They noted that her narrative now centres around blaming Professor Muhammad Yunus and challenging the legitimacy of the interim administration. The Print argued that, at its core, the conflict is about who gets to define “democracy” in Bangladesh.

The Hindu, known for its relatively neutral reporting on South Asian affairs, ran a headline that captured Hasina’s central message: “Allow Awami League to contest in Bangladesh election, says Sheikh Hasina.” This headline avoided sensationalism and focused on her primary political demand. It reflected what she genuinely sought through the audio message: a path back into Bangladesh’s electoral politics.

BJP-aligned Media, Highly Adversarial

In contrast, news portals aligned with India’s ruling BJP government (Firstpost, News18, India Today, and The Economic Times) adopted a far more combative tone. Their coverage centred not on democratic norms or governance but on Hasina’s animosity toward Nobel laureate Professor Yunus and the interim leadership. Their headlines used inflammatory terms such as “Radicals”, “Murderous fascist”, “Puppet regime”, “Money launderer”, “Power hungry”, “Traitor”, etc.

This framing turned a political message into a personal feud, reducing the complexity of Bangladesh’s political transition into a binary struggle between two individuals. It also suggested that Hasina’s speech was driven more by personal anger than national interest.

India Has Crossed a Line

India’s decision to allow fugitive Sheikh Hasina, convicted for crimes against humanity and wanted under Bangladesh’s extradition agreement, to speak at a public event in New Delhi is not just diplomatically irresponsible. It is a direct intervention in Bangladesh’s domestic affairs at a critical moment of democratic transition.

For Bangladesh, the shock is justified. A nation rebuilding its political institutions after the fall of a fifteen-year autocratic regime has every right to expect its closest neighbour to uphold basic norms of inter-state conduct: respect for sovereignty, support for stability, and non-interference. Instead, Delhi permitted a convicted fugitive to make inflammatory political statements targeting a legitimate government. That is not neutrality – it is political signaling, and dangerous signalling at that.

Hasina’s speech did not stay within personal commentary. She called for overthrowing the Bangladesh government, urged loyalists to resist the electoral process, and effectively incited unrest ahead of general elections. Allowing such rhetoric from Indian soil places India in a position where it appears to be encouraging instability in a neighbouring country. No responsible regional power behaves this way.

It also highlights a troubling contradiction. India has ignored repeated formal requests to extradite Hasina under the bilateral treaty. Yet the same person is granted a platform in New Delhi to attack Bangladesh’s internal political process. This raises unavoidable questions: Is India selectively applying international agreements? Does India prefer to retain Hasina as a political asset rather than respect Bangladesh’s legal and democratic processes?

The consequences go far beyond one event. Such indulgence towards a convicted mass-abuser sets a terrible diplomatic precedent. It undermines trust between the two nations and risks poisoning future engagement with any elected government in Dhaka. Even India’s friends in Bangladesh will find it difficult to defend this interference.

Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is correct to stress that this episode “endangers democratic transition and peace and security.” At a time when Bangladesh is striving to conduct free and fair elections, the last thing the region needs is an unstable diplomatic environment where foreign capitals become safe havens for incitement.

Good neighbours do not host platforms for fugitives to destabilise their own countries. Good neighbours do not selectively ignore extradition treaties. And good neighbours certainly do not risk the long-term health of bilateral relations for the sake of one disgraced political figure.

A Party Drifting Toward Irrelevance

Despite the enormous viewership and diverse coverage, the conference failed to produce the political momentum the Awami League desperately needed. A live appearance might have changed the emotional tone of the event, perhaps even reigniting some sympathy. Instead, the pre-recorded audio reinforced Hasina’s detachment from a rapidly evolving political landscape.

What is clear is that Bangladesh has changed, and the Awami League has not kept pace. The youth-led uprising of 2024 signalled a generational rejection of dynastic politics, authoritarian governance, and a culture of impunity. Citizens are exhausted by state control, extrajudicial violence, manipulated elections, and the centralisation of power within one family.

The political vacuum created by Awami League’s fall has been filled by new voices from students, civil society groups, and emerging leaders who articulate a different vision for Bangladesh’s future.

Awami League’s loss of relevance is not just a political shift; it is the collapse of a political order built over 15 years. Sheikh Hasina’s exile has not softened her rhetoric, nor has it produced self-reflection. Instead, her recent statements show a leader still locked in the politics of confrontation.

Bangladesh’s future will be shaped by new actors and new aspirations. The Awami League, once the architect of national politics, now finds itself struggling for space in a transformed landscape. Whether the party can reinvent itself or whether it continues to fade is uncertain.

Bangladesh has turned the page, and the Awami League is no longer at the centre of its political story.

The writer is a political analyst