Unusual media synchronisation surrounding Sheikh Hasina’s interviews in India triggers debate over journalistic ethics, political messaging, and the shifting dynamics of regional power before her sentencing. SNM Abdi, now an independent journalist and a former deputy editor of Outlook India, in an article analysed the media scenario. We are producing summery of the article.
A coordinated wave of interviews with former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in India’s mainstream media – released just days before she was sentenced to death in absentia by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Dhaka – has triggered significant scrutiny, debate, and diplomatic reaction.
Sheikh Hasina, now 78, has been living discreetly in India since August 2024 after being forced from office amid widespread protests and civil unrest. She was convicted on November 17, 2025 for her alleged direct role in ordering the killing of 1,400 protesters during the final months of her government – an event that ultimately led to her political downfall.
However, it is not the verdict alone that has put Hasina back into headlines, but the manner in which several prestigious Indian news organisations simultaneously platformed her voice.
Eight ‘exclusive’ interviews – all identical
In just 12 days, between November 7 and 17, eight of India’s most influential media outlets published lengthy question-and-answer format interviews with Hasina. The publications included:
The Indian Express
The Hindu
The Hindustan Times
The Times of India
The New Indian Express
Anandabazar Patrika
Press Trust of India
NDTV Online
Each outlet claimed the interview was “exclusive” – despite the fact that both the questions and Hasina’s written responses appeared almost identical across platforms.
Veteran journalist and analyst SNM Abdi, writing on the phenomenon, noted that the messaging was “cut from the same cloth”, arguing the rollout resembled a centrally planned publicity campaign rather than independent journalism. The repeated claim that Hasina was speaking from an “undisclosed location” added another layer of intrigue.
According to Abdi, the uniformity and timing strongly suggest the involvement of a professional public relations and lobbying operation – an expensive one.
“I am not suggesting reporters were bribed. But the orchestration clearly reflects a well-funded PR push designed to shape a narrative ahead of the verdict,” Abdi observed.
Narrative framing but missing questions
In the interviews, Hasina rejected accusations of ordering violence, instead shifting responsibility to security forces. She accused the interim administration led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus of orchestrating a political vendetta with support from Western governments.
She also warned of a resurgence of Islamist extremism, claimed Hindus in Bangladesh were now “orphaned”, and reiterated that next year’s parliamentary elections would be a “sham” because her party had been banned.
While the messaging aligned seamlessly across media outlets, Abdi argues that what was absent was far more telling than what was published.
He listed several key questions – questions that any serious political reporter would be expected to ask – including:
Who authorised her entry into India on August 5, 2024?
Has she privately met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi or the country’s security leadership?
Why has her “temporary stay” now extended beyond 15 months?
Did she seek asylum elsewhere, including in the United Kingdom?
What advice did New Delhi give while her government was collapsing?
Abdi described the missed opportunity as “a journalistic failure of staggering proportions.”
Diplomatic ripples in Dhaka
The sudden surge of media appearances provoked an immediate diplomatic reaction in Bangladesh.
On November 12, the interim government summoned India’s Deputy High Commissioner in Dhaka, Pawan Badhe, formally protesting India’s facilitation of Hasina’s communication with journalists while she remains a convicted fugitive.
Tensions escalated when interim government spokesperson and former journalist Shafiqul Alam accused the interviewers of being “boot-licking Indian journalists.” The Press Club of India denounced his remark and demanded an apology, igniting a heated public exchange.
A larger geopolitical reading
The episode, according to Abdi, reveals deeper strategic calculations rather than mere media curiosity. He argues that Hasina, long regarded as India’s closest ally in South Asia, now sits at the intersection of shifting regional influence involving India, China, the United States, and Gulf actors.
“Hasina is no ordinary political exile — she is a geopolitical asset, and her fate is entwined with regional power balances,” Abdi writes.
He references the work of Nicaraguan journalist Fabrice Le Lous – an advocate for rigorous, interrogative Q&A journalism – noting that interviews of this kind should become historical records, not public relations exercises.
Journalism or narrative management?
For Abdi, the coordinated interviews do not represent journalism in its democratic role – speaking truth to power – but rather a form of narrative conditioning intended to frame Hasina sympathetically at a critical political and legal moment.
“These interviews were not public scrutiny – they were public relations,” he concludes, arguing they should be “filed away as an aberration rather than celebrated as journalism.”
As Bangladesh heads toward a volatile election year, the extraordinary media choreography surrounding Hasina underscores not only her continued relevance but also the contested narratives still swirling around one of South Asia’s most polarising political figures.