ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s International Minister Vijitha Herath, explaining the rationale for the disagreement with India over land connectivity, stated financial and political disparity led to the choice amid issues over doable division within the nation.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s authorities declined the land connectivity resolution the earlier Sri Lanka authorities had agreed with India up to now. The plan was to have a bridge between South Indian Rameshwaram and Sri Lanka’s North Western Mannar, the place Indian agency Adani had been planning to construct a wind energy plant.
International Minister Herath in a TV interview final week stated the present authorities has rejected the proposal to construct the bridge between the 2 Asian nations.
“India has not requested this from us, however earlier governments had agreed for this,” Minister Herath instructed a weekly tv programme Rathu Ira on April 25.
“If India and Sri Lanka are economically and politically on the similar degree, then there isn’t any problem,” he stated.
“For example, Singapore and Malaysia – they’re each at par economically and politically. There isn’t a problem of sovereignty and territorial integrity with a bridge between these international locations.”
“However we’re completely different from them. We’re a small nation. Our economical and political conditions are completely different to that of India. In that backdrop, a undertaking like this isn’t acceptable and we aren’t prepared at this second.”
India has lengthy expressed curiosity in constructing a bodily hyperlink between Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu and Mannar in northern Sri Lanka. The proposed undertaking, which spans the shallow Palk Strait, goals to boost regional connectivity, enhance commerce, and strengthen people-to-people ties between the 2 international locations.
Indian policymakers have argued that such infrastructure would revitalize historical cultural and financial ties, cut back delivery prices, and place Sri Lanka as a key transit hub within the Bay of Bengal.
The plan has sometimes surfaced in bilateral discussions and regional improvement proposals, with India suggesting that it may fund or co-develop the undertaking.
Nevertheless, the proposal has met with vital opposition in Sri Lanka on account of financial, environmental, and nationwide safety issues. Critics argue that such a bridge may open the floodgates to unchecked migration and smuggling, doubtlessly threatening native employment and cultural id in northern Sri Lanka.
Environmentalists have raised alarms concerning the potential injury to delicate marine ecosystems within the Palk Strait, whereas nationalists concern elevated Indian affect over home affairs.
Moreover, there’s deep-rooted skepticism amongst Sri Lankans stemming from perceived imbalances in bilateral relations, significantly issues that the undertaking may serve India’s strategic or financial pursuits greater than Sri Lanka’s.
“The earlier Ranil Wickremesinghe authorities had agreed to attach Sri Lanka and India. However we by no means agreed to that. We instructed them we don’t agree with that. We solely proceeded with no matter we agreed as a authorities.” Herath stated.
“Not solely the bridge, there was a plan to assemble an categorical freeway from Mannar to Trincomalee which…. may result in bodily separating a portion of the nation. We’re not prepared for that,” referring to Sri Lanka’s Jap port district of Trincomalee the place India is eying for a strategic power hub.
“We agree on Trincomalee (power) hub. Ships can be utilized to entry such a hub. We have to contemplate territorial integrity greater than the price,” he stated when requested why Sri Lanka is just not contemplating value discount advantages from an categorical freeway and bridge between the 2 nations.
“It isn’t purely an financial benefit. This categorical street comes together with the bridge that connects India and Sri Lanka. So there is a matter,” he stated.
President Dissanayake-led Marxists Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has constantly opposed Indian initiatives in Sri Lanka since 1987, largely on account of its robust nationalist stance and resistance to international intervention in home affairs.
This opposition intensified after the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987, which the JVP noticed as a violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty, particularly with the deployment of the Indian Peace Preserving Drive (IPKF) within the North and East.
The occasion perceived India’s involvement as an try and dictate political options, significantly devolution by a constitutional modification together with the Indo-Lanka Accord.
The occasion, which is concerned with two militarily defeated insurrections, feared the Accord would result in the fragmentation of the state.
Since then, the JVP has remained cautious of Indian investments and infrastructure initiatives, usually viewing them as neocolonial in nature and pushed by strategic motives quite than real bilateral cooperation, particularly after they contain important sectors like ports, power, or telecommunications.
Nevertheless, analysts and diplomats say JVP after coming to energy has been largely impartial on Indian initiatives although its ruling coalition has been cussed on increased tariff in Adani’s wind energy undertaking and land connectivity deal. (Colombo/April 30/2025)
