Modi’s two-day visit to Sri Lanka is ill-timed

The timing of Narendra Modi’s two-day visit to Sri Lanka — the first by an Indian Prime Minister in more than 25 years — appears to be inopportune in the context of recent developments. Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe’s remark that Indian fishermen entering his country’s waters will be shot is certainly not the kind of statement that contributes to an atmosphere for bilateral exchanges at the highest level. Although Wickramasinghe was stating the obvious — of how security forces deal with intruders in the normal course — the exaggerated emphasis was markedly unfriendly. Worse, his choice of words and combative tone in an interview to a Tamil television channel last week came when external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj was in Colombo to prepare for Prime Minister Modi’s visit on March 13 and 14.

Last month, during his four-day visit to Delhi, President Maithripala Sirisena held out hope of a new chapter in India-Sri Lanka relations. In the aftermath of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s exit from the helm, Sirisena making India his first foreign destination perceivably reflected the urge for a closer, warmer relationship on both sides — provided challenges were faced squarely while exploring new opportunities for cooperation.

India’s immediate concerns included: increased Chinese economic activity in Sri Lanka; foreign (meaning, Chinese) submarines docking in Colombo; ensuring Tamil minority’s rights and aspirations including devolution of powers to the Northeast; pursuing the alleged war crimes during the Tamil-Sinhala conflict; and resolving the issue of intruding Indian fishermen and their boats being captured.

Sirisena made all the right noises when India flagged these issues. But, there is no progress on the ground so far. With the UN, the US, the UK and the West in general having backed off on Tamil rights and issues, especially war crimes, the Sirisena regime does not need to worry about delivering to Delhi’s expectations.  On the Tamil issue, including the constitutional amendment, both Sirisena and Wickramasinghe would move — if at all — only after the parliamentary elections in July, which may more accurately indicate Rajapaksa’s political hold on the Sinhala majority.

Indian expectations of the Sirisena regime “balancing” its ties with New Delhi and Colombo are yet to be met in any reassuring manner. However, India cites Sri Lanka “freezing” the China-financed, $1.34-billion port project in Colombo as being in deference to New Delhi’s concern.  The project has been suspended for two weeks. Colombo’s decision to suspend the Chinese port project and bar Chinese military activity, such as docking of a submarine (in November last), may be showed as evidence of addressing Indian concerns. The fact, however, is that the Sirisena government is doing these to oblige the Western powers that aided and abetted the regime change in Sri Lanka. While New Delhi’s objection to Chinese activity in Sri Lanka with a bearing on India’s security is understandable, it is hard to justify “concerns” over China’s infrastructure projects, investments and loans.

China has ongoing commercial projects and enterprises in India, and the two countries are striving to increase both trade and economic cooperation. In the event, it is ridiculous to object to China’s investment in the neighbourhood. 

The China-related development and the absence of any upswing in ties since Sirisena’s visit makes it hard to see what purpose would be served by Modi going to Sri Lanka now. The new government’s direction and policies may be clearer by the month-end when Sirisena returns from his visit to China and Pakistan. Moreover, New Delhi is on the defensive on the fishermen’s issue; and, Wickramasinghe’s remark may have been calculated to underscore the weakness of India’s position on the issue. 

The author is a political commentator