Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads where history is remembered, not relived, and partnership with India is shaped by strategy, not submission.
Debate within Sri Lanka about India’s role in the island’s recent past and present is neither new nor unusual. As India has emerged as one of Sri Lanka’s most consequential partners during moments of economic distress and humanitarian crisis, public discussion has intensified across political, academic, and public spheres. This debate reflects a complex mix of appreciation, caution, and lived historical memory.
That caution is deeply rooted in history. Sri Lankans remember India’s early involvement in Sri Lanka’s internal conflict and its initial support, direct or indirect, for Tamil separatist movements. These experiences left lasting political and institutional scars. They form part of Sri Lanka’s strategic memory and cannot be ignored in contemporary foreign policy deliberation, especially when national sovereignty and internal stability are at stake.
Yet foreign policy cannot be governed by history alone. Nearly four to five decades have passed since those turbulent events. The regional and global environments have changed fundamentally, and India has evolved alongside them. The India of today is not the India of the late Cold War era, just as Sri Lanka itself has changed in structure, expectations, and global engagement.
India today is a major regional power with a rapidly expanding economy and a strategic outlook shaped by stability in the Indian Ocean, secure sea lanes, energy security, regional connectivity, and a rules based international order. Within this framework, Sri Lanka is increasingly viewed not through the narrow prism of domestic ethnic politics, but as a strategically located maritime neighbour whose stability and orientation matter directly to India’s own security and economic interests.
This evolution has been demonstrated through action rather than rhetoric. During Sri Lanka’s most severe economic crisis, India extended timely financial assistance, fuel supplies, credit lines, and diplomatic support when options were limited and confidence was low. More recently, following the devastating Dithwa cyclone, India was among the first to respond with humanitarian assistance and sustained engagement during recovery. Such responses reflect a pragmatic approach that prioritises stability, resilience, and continuity in Sri Lanka, particularly in a region where uncertainty carries wider consequences.
At the same time, partnership must not be confused with dependence. For Sri Lanka, the central challenge is to engage India constructively while preserving strategic autonomy. This requires a clear and realistic assessment of Sri Lanka’s strengths and vulnerabilities, avoiding both exaggerated self confidence and unnecessary insecurity. Strategic maturity lies in recognising asymmetry without surrendering agency.
Sri Lanka is a small state in terms of economic and military capacity, but it occupies a location of exceptional strategic value in the Indian Ocean. Positioned along vital east west maritime routes and adjacent to some of the world’s busiest sea lanes, Sri Lanka’s ports and maritime domain are of relevance not only to India but to all major trading nations. Strategic independence, therefore, does not lie in isolation or equidistance, but in the ability to manage relationships prudently, diversify partnerships, and ensure that no single external actor dominates Sri Lanka’s strategic space.
Historical comparisons are useful when applied with restraint. Sri Lanka does not need, nor should it attempt, to replicate Europe’s post war integration model. The European Union emerged from unique historical circumstances and broadly comparable economic capacities. Yet Europe’s experience remains instructive. France and Germany fought three major wars within seventy years. The United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and much of Europe were locked in two catastrophic world wars. Despite this, these states chose reconciliation over resentment, built institutions of cooperation, deepened trade relations, and ultimately forged a shared European project that transformed conflict into stability and prosperity.
They did not forget their history. They exercised political maturity in choosing to move beyond it.
For Sri Lanka, the lesson is not institutional imitation but strategic maturity. Cooperation must be grounded in clearly articulated national interests, mutual respect, and transparent engagement. It must be guided by a long term national strategy rather than short term political rhetoric calibrated to domestic audiences or electoral cycles.
This is where domestic leadership becomes decisive. Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, particularly in relation to India and the Indian Ocean region, must be anchored in clarity, consistency, and bipartisan understanding. Populist slogans, reactive nationalism, or opportunistic alignment may serve immediate political objectives, but they weaken the country’s credibility and negotiating position over time.
The choice before Sri Lanka is not between trust and distrust, nor between alignment and resistance. It is whether the country chooses to remain a prisoner of its past or act as an architect of its future. Nations that succeed are those that acknowledge history without being constrained by it, and that convert geography and experience into strategy rather than grievance.
In an increasingly contested Indian Ocean, where maritime security, energy flows, undersea cables, and supply chains intersect, Sri Lanka’s choices carry consequences beyond its borders. Responsible statecraft requires political leaders to communicate honestly with the public, to explain both opportunities and constraints, and to place long term national interest above short term political gain.
Handled with care, a balanced and strategically independent partnership with India offers Sri Lanka tangible opportunities, including cooperation in maritime security, disaster response, energy connectivity, trade, and people to people engagement. These benefits, however, can only be realised within a broader foreign policy that remains open, diversified, and firmly sovereign.
In an increasingly multipolar world, Sri Lanka’s enduring strength lies in a foreign policy that remains balanced and non aligned in spirit. Strategic independence today does not mean standing apart from regional powers, but engaging all partners without becoming captive to any single axis of influence. By maintaining principled autonomy, diversifying external relationships, and acting with consistency and restraint, Sri Lanka can navigate great power competition in the Indian Ocean while safeguarding its sovereignty and advancing its long term national interests.
History should inform Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, but it should never confine it.
