-By LeN Defense Correspondent
(Lanka-e-News -06.April.2025, 11.00 PM) When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Colombo last month for his high-profile diplomatic visit, many expected symbolic gestures and routine bilateral pledges. What emerged, however, was a defense agreement with far-reaching strategic consequences for the region.
The pact—hailed by Indian officials as a milestone in Indo-Lankan relations—was signed with the stated aim of ensuring that Sri Lankan territory will not be used in any manner that could threaten India’s national security interests. In simple terms, Sri Lanka has formally guaranteed that no third power, implicitly or explicitly referring to China, will be allowed to use its soil against India.
While India views this agreement as a safeguard against potential geopolitical threats emerging from the Indian Ocean, particularly those involving the growing Chinese presence in South Asia, the deal has sparked significant public debate and political concern within Sri Lanka.
India’s pursuit of a deeper defense partnership with Sri Lanka stems from the broader context of regional security. As China continues to assert itself across the Indo-Pacific, India has increasingly sought to secure its periphery by tightening defense links with neighboring countries, especially those with strategic maritime value.
Sri Lanka, located at the heart of major Indian Ocean shipping routes, is central to India’s regional defense architecture. New Delhi has long been wary of China’s presence on the island, particularly after the controversial leasing of Hambantota Port to a Chinese state-owned company for 99 years in 2017. Despite Colombo’s repeated assurances of neutrality, India remains concerned that Chinese military assets could one day operate under the guise of civilian infrastructure.
For India, then, the recent defense pact serves a dual purpose: it formalizes Sri Lanka’s non-alignment in conflicts involving Indian interests, and it provides a framework for ongoing surveillance and engagement to ensure compliance.
For decades, Sri Lanka has prided itself on maintaining a careful balance in its foreign policy. The island nation has pursued cordial ties with India, China, the United States, and even Middle Eastern and European powers such as the UAE, Turkey, and France. This neutrality allowed Colombo to attract economic investment from all sides while avoiding entanglement in major power rivalries.
The new defense pact with India, however, has raised fears among many Sri Lankans that this long-standing neutrality is under threat.
“What happens if India and China go into open confrontation?” asked a Colombo-based political analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Where does Sri Lanka stand then? We cannot afford to become a pawn in their chessboard.”
Public discourse has also highlighted the risk of Sri Lanka losing its bargaining power. Some analysts argue that by assuring India it will not allow foreign military use of its territory, Sri Lanka may have given away a critical piece of its geopolitical leverage—without securing substantial reciprocal benefits.
This is especially sensitive given India’s historical involvement in Sri Lanka’s internal conflicts. Critics recall India’s support for Tamil militants in the 1980s and its controversial military intervention under the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987, which many in the island nation still view with suspicion.
At the heart of the matter is the increasing strategic value of the Indian Ocean itself. As the world’s trade arteries flow through its waters, major powers have begun to reconfigure their maritime strategies to secure access and influence.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and its “String of Pearls” strategy involving ports and infrastructure across South Asia, have made nations like Sri Lanka, Maldives, and even Pakistan key nodes in Beijing’s maritime ambitions. Sri Lanka, with its deepwater ports and proximity to key sea lanes, has emerged as a particularly vital asset.
Beyond China, other countries are also quietly making moves in the region. France, with its overseas territories, considers itself a resident Indo-Pacific power. The UAE and Turkey are investing in naval infrastructure across the region, and the UK has maintained a sustained interest, especially through its military presence in Diego Garcia (a base shared with the U.S.).
Against this backdrop, India is racing to consolidate its regional role. Its naval exercises, defense deals, and strategic infrastructure projects signal its intent to lead security cooperation in the Indian Ocean—both as a counterweight to China and as a partner to Western powers in maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific.
Despite government reassurances, the Indo-Lankan defense agreement has become a polarizing issue in Sri Lanka’s domestic politics. Critics from opposition parties, civil society organizations, and even former diplomats have voiced concerns about sovereignty, transparency, and long-term implications.
“How much say did Parliament have in this deal?” asked Dr. Shalini Jayaratne, a former Sri Lankan diplomat. “Was the public consulted? Or is this a backdoor military alignment with India?”
Some citizens have expressed concern that such agreements might open the door to an unwanted foreign military presence—possibly under the guise of “joint exercises” or “technical assistance.” Others worry that aligning too closely with India could provoke retaliatory measures or reduced investment from China, which remains Sri Lanka’s largest foreign investor.
The political left has also raised historical grievances, pointing out that India has previously acted against Sri Lanka’s interests, including during the civil war. For them, entering a defense pact with India seems not only risky but hypocritical.
In contrast, proponents argue that the agreement is a pragmatic step in securing national security in an increasingly volatile global environment. They contend that Sri Lanka cannot isolate itself in a multipolar world and must choose strategic partners carefully.
A central question emerging from this debate is whether Sri Lanka can continue to claim neutrality in the years ahead. While the current agreement stops short of forming a full-fledged military alliance with India, its implications suggest a tilt in that direction—at least in perception.
This shift could complicate Colombo’s relations with China, especially if India seeks to monitor compliance through intelligence sharing, joint patrols, or installation of surveillance systems. China, which has invested billions in Sri Lankan ports, highways, and real estate, may interpret such developments as unfriendly or even provocative.
It’s also unclear whether Sri Lanka’s other defense relationships—with countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, or regional blocs—will be affected. Smaller nations often rely on a delicate balance of partnerships to maintain autonomy, and a pivot towards one major power may require recalibrations elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the Indian government is likely to push for further integration. Recent reports suggest India may seek access to Sri Lankan naval facilities for logistics and refueling purposes, although officials deny any plans for a permanent base.
The India–Sri Lanka defense agreement marks a significant milestone, but also a moment of introspection for the island nation. Is it a step toward strategic security or a slip into dependent alignment? Can Sri Lanka maintain its identity as a non-aligned, sovereign player while entering formal defense agreements with a regional giant?
The answer may lie not in the ink of the agreement itself but in how both countries choose to implement and interpret its clauses. For now, the public discourse in Sri Lanka remains vibrant and skeptical—a healthy reminder that even in matters of defense, democratic accountability matters.
As regional tensions simmer and global powers jostle for influence in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka must tread carefully. The choices made today will shape the island’s strategic destiny for decades to come.
-By LeN Defense Correspondent
---------------------------
by (2025-04-06 19:16:53)
Read 19428 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news