Beyond Rajapaksa’s Visit, Are India and Sri Lanka Really on the Same Page? - The Diplomat, 13 February 2020

Once again, I am running behind in updating my blog. In February, on the occasion of the Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa's visit, I examined the relationship in detail to see if India and Sri Lanka are really on the same page, for The Diplomat. While the trip offered a chance to build on cooperation, it also reinforced existing differences between the two countries.

For the full essay, click here.



Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa just completed a five-day trip to India, making it his first foreign trip since his appointment as prime minister in late November 2019. While the trip highlighted some areas for collaboration between the two sides, it also left broader questions lingering about the future direction of ties.

By all accounts, Rajapaksa’s visit appears to have been a successful one. For instance, Mahinda touched the right cords in New Delhi even on sensitive issues by stating that developments relating to Jammu and Kashmir and Article 370 were India’s internal affairs. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for his part, said in his press statement that he appreciated Sri Lanka’s importance not only to India but to the entire Indian Ocean Region. He added that “stability, security and prosperity in Sri Lanka” is an essential element in ushering peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.

In line with the “Neighborhood First” approach and the “Sagar” doctrine, Modi went on to say that New Delhi attaches “a special priority” to its relations with Colombo, which will no doubt be welcome. Sri Lanka also appears to be satisfied with the comfort level that exists between Modi and Rajapaksa and the pace of the relationship.

But there may be some disagreements that remain. For instance, according to reports citing diplomatic sources, Sri Lanka wants to see “cooperation and progress in SAARC,” whereas India believes that all efforts to strengthen regional cooperation should be channeled to the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). Even though Rajapaksa is not thought to have raised the SAARC issue with Modi, he made a case for the regional body in an interview with The Hindu, saying “we have already gone a considerable distance with building SAARC and that should be continued.”

Sri Lanka pushing the SAARC is understandable – a Sri Lankan diplomat, Esala Weerakoon, has been appointed to be the next Secretary General of the SAARC Secretariat, and Sri Lanka would like to show some progress in the association. On March 1, 2020, Weerakoon will be taking charge of SAARC from Amjad Hussain B. Sial, his Pakistani predecessor, who has held the post since 2017. Given this development, Sri Lanka is believed to have urged the Indian leadership to “at least restart the process of discussion on SAARC” but clearly it will be difficult getting India on board.

In addition to official meetings, Rajapaksa also reached out to the media and aired the Sri Lankan interest in some of the infrastructure projects on the bilateral agenda. Rajapaksa was categorical that Sri Lanka will no longer grant important projects such as the Mattala airport to other countries. Mahinda added that projects already approved by former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe will be stopped. He also said that “his government has a firm policy on not allowing any national resources to be given to foreign control.” However, at the same time, Rajapaksa seemed upbeat about the LNG project as well as the Eastern Container Terminal in Colombo, which will see joint investment by India and Japan.

On the debt repayment issue with China, Rajapaksa defended the Chinese by saying Beijing helped Colombo in Sri Lanka’s post-war reconstruction and development efforts. He went on to note that the debt toward China is only 12 percent of the overall external debt and that the funds from China were used for developing infrastructure. He faulted the previous government for giving away strategic real estate in the Indian Ocean such as Hambantota port to ease the debt. Defending China of course probably earned Rajapaksa some brownie points with Beijing and gave some balance to Sri Lanka’s external alignments.

To be sure, Rajapaksa also stated India is a “relation” whereas others are friends. But he was uncomfortable with concepts like the “Indo-Pacific,” which he did not use though it was used by Modi, as well as with groupings like the Quad. Colombo clearly does not want to takes sides against China.

Of course, the thorny Tamil issue was also highlighted during Rajapaksa’s visit. In fact, Modi in his press statement said, “I am confident that the Government of Sri Lanka will realize the expectations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace, and respect within a united Sri Lanka. For this, it will be necessary to carry forward the process of reconciliation with the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka.”

However, during the media interview with the Hindu, Rajapaksa made no commitment on how the 13th amendment will be implemented, except to say no solution to the problem will happen without it being acceptable to the majority community. He elaborated on the point, saying, “We want to go forward, but we need to have someone to discuss, who can take responsibility for the [Tamil] areas. So the best thing is to hold elections, and then ask for their representatives to come and discuss the future with us.” Rajapaksa is hoping for a win in the upcoming parliamentary elections in April and thereafter to hold provincial elections that could pave the way for greater engagement with the Tamil population.

While the Rajapaksa visit has ended successfully, among the tricky issues, one that New Delhi needs to focus on is to find a balance between Sri Lanka’s interest in SAARC and the Indian preference for BIMSTEC. Given India’s larger strategic footprint across the Indo-Pacific and India’s Act East policy, BIMSTEC makes sense. But Sri Lanka is not keen. India needs to work on building support for it in other capitals in South Asia. Also, New Delhi has to be able to offer economic opportunities for these countries to make BIMSTEC attractive. Otherwise it will be seen as just empty anti-Pakistan rhetoric with no real worth for the small countries in the region. More generally, India should also be careful not to alienate the smaller countries who might not want to antagonize China.

Does eliminating the LTTE solve the problem?

This analysis on the Sri Lankan situation appeared first on the ORF website.

Sri Lanka is on the verge of defeating the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), or so the Rajapakse Government claims. The key question, however, is whether militarily crushing the LTTE solves the island-nation’s ethnic conflict. The Rajapakse government has so far not proposed any political package in dealing with the problem. Military victory, not backed by political package for Tamils, can prove disastrous for Sri Lanka. Such a situation could in fact lead to the birth of many more LTTEs in the future.



While majority of Sri Lankan Tamils may not want a separate state of Eelam, they do want to live well and live with dignity. How can this be assured by the Rajapakse government? While it is clear that there will not be a separate state of Tamil Eelam, the existing unitary set up also remains unacceptable. From the time he took over power in 2005, Rajapakse has been of the view that he is for maximum devolution of power within a unitary state. But it is not clear what that means. There has to be dramatic changes made in the political architecture of Sri Lanka in which the Tamils are able to find a political space for themselves. The aspect that needs to be kept in mind in understanding the Sri Lankan ethnic problem is the Sinhalese allergy to the word “federalism.” One must though admit that the Sinhala government has come a long way, when in December 2002, the Joint Communiqué after the end of the bilateral talks with India, noted that the idea of federal structures would be examined. This was again reiterated in the Tokyo meeting. During Rajapakse’s visit to India in December 2005, the Joint Statement said that more devolution of powers would be undertaken. However, President Mahinda Rajapakse is yet to do anything to live up to this commitment.
In today’s situation, there is only a small miniscule representation of Tamils in various bodies, including in the Sri Lankan Army, where Sinhalas represent 99.4% of total strength and the Sri Lankan Police, where the figure is 96%. In the case of civil administration, one or two Tamils are selected each year. The government will have to undertake to undo several of its legislative measures of the past that established the discrimination and alienation of the Tamils. In fact, successive legislations brought upon the Tamils by the Sinhala governments, including the enactment of “Sinhala Only language policy” in 1961, brought down Tamil representation in civil administration, armed forces and police services. Similarly, the government will have to revisit the 13th amendment (which established Provincial Councils) and bring all Tamils under a permanent merger of the North and East Provinces, done originally under the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987. India, however, having burnt its finger once, remains wary of getting involved in the conflict. In such a scenario, India’s recent actions appear designed more to soothe the anger of the regional parties in Tamil Nadu than a genuine expression of concern.
What are India’s challenges? India, being a neighbour, should keep in mind that unity of Sri Lanka is of utmost importance to India in the sense that any disintegration of the country can create problems for India. In that sense, it is in India’s interest to ensure that Sri Lanka remains united. India, entrenched in coalition politics, is tied down by several constraints. However, India can contribute significantly in ensuring a political package for the Tamils. India needs to start talking to the major parties -- SLFP, UNP -- on a political package. After reaching a consensus with these two major parties, they can convince JVP and other democratic Tamil parties and thereby start a political process and see how best to implement the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment is critical since it devolves some authority to the provinces and in essence, the provincial councils will enjoy statute power with regard to items in the provincial list, including local infrastructure (roads and bridges), education, health, land, irrigation, agriculture.
Military solution unaccompanied by a political package will give birth to new problems.