South Asian politics have been shaped by family dynasties, from the Nehru clan in India to the Sheikh family in Bangladesh, from the Bhuttos in Pakistan to the Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka. In most cases, they have relied on legacies and centralized authorities. Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Hasina were two rulers strengthened by the political legacy of their parents.
Indira Gandhi was a world-class leader and one of the most powerful women leaders of her time. Widely recognized for her influence on the national and international stage, she was ranked the ninth most powerful woman of the 20th century by Time magazine. Nicknamed the “Iron Lady,” Indira Gandhi came to power when India was reeling from food crises and political instability. Her ambitious reforms, the Green Revolution, the nationalization of banks and her strong position in foreign policy during the Cold War defined her as a decisive leader.
Sheikh Hasina focused on growth and development, often promoting large infrastructure projects and steady economic progress as signs of national advancement. Bangladesh’s GDP per capita rose from about $800 in 2009 to more than $2,800 in 2023, placing it among Asia’s fastest-growing economies. Combat religious extremism, militancy and terrorism, most visibly during the attack on Holey Artisan Bakery in 2016, which restored a sense of security and curbed large-scale extremist violence in the years that followed. However, his heavy-handed approach extended beyond counterterrorism and led to democratic backsliding, the suppression of political opposition, widespread corruption, and the muzzling of the press. Hasina’s eventual departure has left Bangladesh at a crossroads between authoritarian relapse and democratic renewal.
Both Indira Gandhi and Hasina faced political upheavals that tested the limits of their authority. Ultimately, their dominant styles shaped not only their legacies but also their destinies. During the Emergency of 1975 and the Monsoon Revolution of 2024, Gandhi and Hasina, respectively, responded with repression, convinced that state force would silence dissent and ensure their hold on power. However, later, their paths diverged in very different directions.
In 1975, civil liberties were suspended, the press was censored, and thousands of political opponents were imprisoned in India when Indira Gandhi declared the Emergency.
For almost two years, the State enforced his will. More than 100,000 people were arrested, including prominent political opponents, journalists and dissidents. 34,988 people were arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and 75,818 under the Defense of India Rules.
Despite her repressive rule, Indira Gandhi finally lifted the state of emergency in 1977 and held free and fair elections, in which she lost both her government and her own parliamentary seat. His government followed democratic principles and “accepted the verdict of the people with total humility.” Shortly afterwards, on January 24, 1978, he publicly acknowledged that he had made mistakes during the Emergency. For many, this humiliation seemed to be the end of his political career. History would prove the opposite.
By contrast, Sheikh Hasina oversaw three controversial and largely non-participatory elections in 2014, 2018 and 2023, mostly boycotted by the opposition with widespread accusations of rigging. He openly boasted of wanting “absolute power,” and his suppression of democratic rights and dissent fueled public anger toward more than a decade and a half of heavy-handed rule. Hasina’s overthrow was the inevitable consequence of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and imprisonment through the Digital Security Law, which had placed her in an authoritarian framework.
Even a leader of the stature of Indira Gandhi, who ruled India with a firm hand, was humble enough to apologize when she was wrong. As well as repenting, he spent three years in opposition as he focused on reflection and left room for the electorate to reimagine his return. That recognition reflected the recognition that political authority is not above accountability. Indira Gandhi promised to take “full responsibility” for the errors and excesses of the state of emergency, even if others did not. His willingness to admit mistakes restored public respect when, in 1980, voters welcomed his return to power.
On the contrary, to this day, even after being forced to flee the country, Sheikh Hasina has shown very little remorse and has offered no apology despite the deaths, injuries, suffering and widespread unrest under her watch. He tried in vain to divert attention to the damage caused by protesters and resorted to a brutal repression that left at least 1,400 dead and more than 20,000 injured. When Hasina intensified the repression, she compressed the demise of her power into a few weeks. Had I better understood how a leader’s behavior in a crisis can shift the balance of power, things might have been different. His departure on August 5, 2024, after weeks of escalating protests, marked the end of one of the longest uninterrupted civilian governments in South Asia.
History teaches that those who know when to bow down can rise again, and those who refuse are swept away by the same people who elected them in the first place. Indira Gandhi’s eventual redemption came not from her power but from her humility. For Sheikh Hasina, and indeed for her political allies and followers as well, the lesson is clear: accountability and humility are not weaknesses but the essence of true leadership and political sagacity.
The author is senior director of the international think tank IPAG India, with a presence in Dhaka, Melbourne, Dubai and Vienna.