Will India Hand Over Sheikh Hasina? History of Asylum Shows Why It’s Unlikely

India’s long-standing civilisational tradition of protecting those who seek refuge is at the heart of the debate over whether New Delhi will hand over former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has been in India since August 2024. While legal frameworks, extradition treaties and diplomatic considerations apply, historical precedent suggests that India has consistently prioritised the moral obligation of offering asylum.

Indian history is replete with examples where communities and rulers chose sacrifice over betraying those who sought protection. One of the most striking instances dates back to 15th-century Gujarat’s Muli region, where over a hundred people reportedly laid down their lives to protect an injured partridge that had taken refuge from hunters. The episode remains a symbol of abhaya daan — the duty to grant protection without fear.

Similar values appear across India’s historical and cultural landscape. Rajput ruler Jam Sataji fought Mughal forces in 1591 rather than surrender a refugee sultan, while Hammir Dev Chauhan of Ranthambore chose death over violating the sanctity of asylum. Ancient texts such as the Ramcharitmanas reinforce this principle, portraying the protection of a refuge-seeker as a moral imperative.

In modern times, India’s decision to grant asylum to the Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetan refugees in 1959, despite Chinese opposition, further underlines this approach. Sheikh Hasina herself had earlier lived in India for several years after the assassination of her father, Bangladesh’s founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

Against this backdrop, demands from sections in Bangladesh for Hasina’s extradition face not only legal scrutiny but also a deeply embedded ethical tradition. While diplomatic processes will follow established law, India’s historical conduct suggests that the protection of a refuge-seeker is viewed as a matter of principle, not convenience.