ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, explaining the reason for the disagreement with India over land connectivity, said economic and political disparity led to the decision amid concerns over possible division in the country.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government declined the land connectivity decision the previous Sri Lanka government had agreed with India in the past. The plan was to have a bridge between South Indian Rameshwaram and Sri Lanka’s North Western Mannar, where Indian firm Adani had been planning to build a wind power plant.
Foreign Minister Herath in a TV interview last week said the current government has rejected the proposal to build the bridge between the two Asian nations.
“India has not requested this from us, but previous governments had agreed for this,” Minister Herath told a weekly television programme Rathu Ira on April 25.
“If India and Sri Lanka are economically and politically at the same level, then there is no issue,” he said.
“For instance, Singapore and Malaysia – they are both at par economically and politically. There is no issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity with a bridge between those countries.”
“But we are different from them. We are a small country. Our economical and political situations are different to that of India. In that backdrop, a project like this is not appropriate and we are not ready at this moment.”
India has long expressed interest in building a physical link between Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu and Mannar in northern Sri Lanka. The proposed project, which spans the shallow Palk Strait, aims to enhance regional connectivity, boost trade, and strengthen people-to-people ties between the two countries.
Indian policymakers have argued that such infrastructure would revitalize ancient cultural and economic ties, reduce shipping costs, and position Sri Lanka as a key transit hub in the Bay of Bengal.
The plan has occasionally surfaced in bilateral discussions and regional development proposals, with India suggesting that it could fund or co-develop the project.
However, the proposal has met with significant opposition in Sri Lanka due to economic, environmental, and national security concerns. Critics argue that such a bridge could open the floodgates to unchecked migration and smuggling, potentially threatening local employment and cultural identity in northern Sri Lanka.
Environmentalists have raised alarms about the potential damage to sensitive marine ecosystems in the Palk Strait, while nationalists fear increased Indian influence over domestic affairs.
Additionally, there is deep-rooted skepticism among Sri Lankans stemming from perceived imbalances in bilateral relations, particularly concerns that the project could serve India’s strategic or economic interests more than Sri Lanka’s.
“The previous Ranil Wickremesinghe government had agreed to connect Sri Lanka and India. But we never agreed to that. We told them we don’t agree with that. We only proceeded with whatever we agreed as a government.” Herath said.
“Not only the bridge, there was a plan to construct an express highway from Mannar to Trincomalee which…. could lead to physically separating a portion of the country. We are not ready for that,” referring to Sri Lanka’s Eastern port district of Trincomalee where India is eying for a strategic energy hub.
“We agree on Trincomalee (energy) hub. Ships can be used to access such a hub. We need to consider territorial integrity more than the cost,” he said when asked why Sri Lanka is not considering cost reduction benefits from an express highway and bridge between the two nations.
“It is not purely an economic advantage. This express road comes along with the bridge that connects India and Sri Lanka. So there is an issue,” he said.
President Dissanayake-led Marxists Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has consistently opposed Indian projects in Sri Lanka since 1987, largely due to its strong nationalist stance and resistance to foreign intervention in domestic affairs.
This opposition intensified after the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987, which the JVP saw as a violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty, especially with the deployment of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in the North and East.
The party perceived India’s involvement as an attempt to dictate political solutions, particularly devolution through a constitutional amendment along with the Indo-Lanka Accord.
The party, which is involved with two militarily defeated insurrections, feared the Accord would lead to the fragmentation of the state.
Since then, the JVP has remained wary of Indian investments and infrastructure projects, often viewing them as neocolonial in nature and driven by strategic motives rather than genuine bilateral cooperation, especially when they involve critical sectors like ports, energy, or telecommunications.
However, analysts and diplomats say JVP after coming to power has been largely neutral on Indian projects though its ruling coalition has been stubborn on higher tariff in Adani’s wind power project and land connectivity deal. (Colombo/April 30/2025)
