Bangladesh on Wednesday summoned India’s deputy high commissioner in Dhaka, Pawan Badhe, registering a strong protest against former prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s recent interviews with Indian media outlets. The move underscores the sharply deteriorated ties between New Delhi and Dhaka since the fall of Hasina’s government in August 2024 and signals a new phase of diplomatic friction between the two neighbours.

The Bangladeshi foreign ministry conveyed its “serious concern” over the Indian government allegedly allowing Hasina, who has been living in self-exile in India since the collapse of her administration, to engage with prominent Indian news organisations. The protest was triggered by Hasina’s interactions with several Indian media houses, including her first interview with Indian journalists since she left Bangladesh.

According to the state-owned Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS), the foreign ministry communicated that Hasina’s interviews amounted to granting a public platform to a “fugitive” accused of serious offences under Bangladeshi law. Officials in Dhaka described her as someone “currently under trial for committing crimes against humanity”, and accused her of using the Indian media to “spew hatred” at the interim government and its leadership.

The ministry demanded that India immediately discontinue Hasina’s access to journalists. The request was formally handed to Badhe, who was instructed to convey Dhaka’s expectations directly to New Delhi. The Bangladeshi side asserted that permitting these interviews was “unhelpful” to maintaining a constructive bilateral environment.

Notably, this is the first time Dhaka has summoned an Indian diplomat over media activities involving Hasina, although she has also given interviews in recent weeks to British and French outlets without similar retaliatory diplomatic measures from Bangladesh toward those countries. This discrepancy did not go unnoticed in New Delhi.

Officials familiar with the matter indicated that India responded by reiterating a long-standing principle: Indian media operates independently and cannot be controlled or censored by the government. They emphasised that Hasina’s ability to speak to journalists falls squarely within the domain of press freedom, and not governmental regulation.

The diplomatic tension was further amplified by remarks from Shafiqul Alam, spokesperson for interim government chief Muhammad Yunus. Alam referred to Indian journalists who interviewed Hasina as “Indian bootlicking” reporters. His comments, widely circulated on social media, drew sharp criticism in India and were described as insulting to the journalistic fraternity.

The Press Club of India issued a strong statement condemning Alam’s language as “especially reprehensible”. The organisation argued that characterising professional journalists as “bootlicking” for conducting legitimate news interviews was unacceptable and unbecoming of someone holding a government position. The Press Club demanded an apology from Alam and stressed that such rhetoric could damage bilateral goodwill and violate norms of civil diplomatic communication.

The diplomatic storm comes at a time when India–Bangladesh relations are at their lowest point in over a decade. The caretaker government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus took office after mass protests and street violence toppled Hasina’s long-standing administration in 2024, ending her 15-year rule. Since then, the two countries have exchanged increasingly sharp statements.

New Delhi has been critical of the new administration’s alleged failure to curb the persecution of minorities, including Hindus, who constitute a vulnerable population within Bangladesh. Reports of communal attacks and the displacement of minority families have been raised repeatedly by Indian officials, although Dhaka has accused New Delhi of exaggerating such incidents for political mileage.

For its part, Dhaka has been pressing India to extradite Hasina to face trial in Bangladesh. She faces multiple charges, including corruption, abuse of power, and the more severe accusation of “crimes against humanity” — charges that her supporters and many rights groups describe as politically motivated and aimed at eliminating her permanently from public life.

India, however, has taken no action on Bangladesh’s extradition request. While New Delhi has not confirmed Hasina’s formal legal status, it has offered her refuge and allowed her freedom of movement within the country. Her access to media and political figures has therefore emerged as a flashpoint in Dhaka’s view, particularly as she remains a major political force with a network of supporters across Bangladesh.

The latest summoning of an Indian diplomat marks a significant escalation, as it signals that Dhaka views Hasina’s public visibility as a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the interim administration. It also reflects the Yunus government’s sensitivity to international narratives, especially those that could influence opinion among Bangladeshi citizens or the diaspora.

The diplomatic dynamics are further complicated by the fact that Hasina’s interviews with international media outlets outside India — including British and French organisations — did not prompt the Bangladeshi foreign ministry to summon diplomats from those countries. This selective response suggests that the issue may be less about Hasina’s media presence and more about the political undertones of her continued stay in India.

For New Delhi, the situation presents a delicate balancing act. On one hand, India has historically had deep ties with the Awami League and Hasina, whose tenure saw major strategic cooperation between the two nations, including security partnerships, connectivity initiatives, and counterterrorism cooperation. On the other hand, India must manage its relationship with the current administration in Dhaka, which remains in charge of a key neighbour with significant geopolitical relevance.

The coming weeks are likely to determine whether the diplomatic tensions escalate further or whether quiet backchannel diplomacy can stabilise the situation. Much will depend on whether Hasina continues to engage with the media in India, how Dhaka responds to future interviews, and how firmly New Delhi chooses to stand by its stated position on media independence.

For now, the summoning of the Indian deputy high commissioner marks another chapter in a rapidly deteriorating cross-border relationship — one shaped by political shifts in Dhaka, concerns over minority rights, and the unresolved question of Sheikh Hasina’s political future.