---

In April 2025, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka resulted in the signing of seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) between New Delhi and Colombo. These agreements, particularly the Defence Cooperation MoU, have sparked significant debate about transparency, sovereignty, and the historical context of Indo-Lanka relations.

The Recent MoUs and Their Significance

Among the seven agreements signed during Modi’s visit, three stand out as especially consequential: the MoU on implementing HVDC Interconnection for power import/export, the MoU on cooperation between India, Sri Lanka, and the UAE to develop Trincomalee as an energy hub, and most controversially, the MoU on defence cooperation. The defence cooperation agreement has drawn particular scrutiny because neither the Sri Lankan public nor Parliament has been informed about its contents. President Dissanayake justified this cooperation by stating: “We need security in this region... We should secure the assistance of those who have greater technological capacities in defence... We must secure the assistance of states which have accepted new science and technology.”

Past Events and Their Ironies

 The timing of these agreements carries deep historical irony. The Defence Cooperation MoU was signed on April 5th, the anniversary of the JVP’s first attempted insurrection in 1971. At the time, the JVP indoctrinated its recruits with warnings about “Indian expansionism” before sending them into what became a failed revolutionary effort. Even more striking is the transformation of the JVP from a fiercely anti-Indian movement into a political party now willingly entering strategic agreements with India. In the late 1980s, the JVP resorted to violence to oppose the Indo-Lanka Accord, which it viewed as a threat to national sovereignty. Now, as the leading party in the ruling NPP coalition, it has signed a defence pact with the very nation it once depicted as an existential threat.

The present situation echoes the circumstances surrounding the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987, signed under curfew on July 29 in Colombo after 137 demonstrators—mostly JVPers—were shot dead. That agreement followed India’s direct interference, including the dramatic airdrop of supplies to LTTE-held areas on June 4, 1987, under the guise of “humanitarian assistance.” President Jayewardene condemned this as “a naked violation of our sovereignty,” but found no international backing. During the Vadamarachchi Operation, Indian High Commissioner Dixit bluntly told Jayewardene, “India will not allow you to take over Jaffna.” Isolated and without Western support, Jayewardene had little choice but to capitulate. In hindsight, he admitted: “It is a lack of courage on my part, a lack of intelligence on my part, a lack of foresight on my part.”

The historical record shows that the accord failed to bring peace when the LTTE turned against the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). After losing over 1,200 personnel, India withdrew prematurely at President Premadasa’s request, allowing the LTTE to redirect Indian-supplied weapons against Sri Lankan forces. This ultimately led to Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination by the LTTE in 1991.

One of the fundamental issues raised by the current Defence Cooperation MoU is the apparent abandonment of the principle of self-reliance, which has been central to Sri Lanka’s identity for centuries. Throughout its nearly 2,500-year history, Sri Lanka has relied primarily on its own strengths and abilities to create a unique civilization.

Previous experiences teach a sobering lesson: whenever Sri Lankan rulers sought external military assistance, it often led to prolonged foreign domination. When rulers sought Dutch assistance against the Portuguese, it resulted in nearly 150 years of Dutch colonisation, followed by 150 years of British rule. The current defence cooperation agreement risks repeating this pattern, potentially compromising Sri Lanka’s autonomy.

The Transparency Deficit

The NPP government has violated one of the fundamental tenets of good governance – transparency. When in opposition, the JVP/NPP routinely criticised previous governments for signing important agreements without public disclosure. Now in power, they have kept Parliament in the dark about these significant international commitments.

President Dissanayake’s statement about “safeguarding regional security” raises critical questions about Sri Lanka’s role in this arrangement. Given the power disparity, India would likely dictate how regional security is exercised, potentially forcing Sri Lanka under Indian influence. This could severely compromise Sri Lanka’s strategic autonomy and ability to pursue its interests independently.

India has demonstrated remarkable skill in transforming Sri Lankan political forces. Prime Minister Modi can rightfully claim success in bringing the once staunchly anti-Indian JVP into a cooperative relationship. During 2024, the Modi administration provided crucial diplomatic support to the JVP/NPP, facilitating its emergence as a nationally recognised political entity with international backing.

The transformation in the JVP’s stance is particularly striking when viewed in light of past statements by its leadership. In October 2015, the current President, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, alleged in Parliament that Jaffna had become a center for RAW operatives, claiming that attempts were being made to create political instability in the region and that such efforts should be halted. Similarly, notable is the case of Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, who in 2021 suggested that India was behind the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. Dr. Jayatissa now serves as the media minister in the present government.

For a small nation like Sri Lanka, developing superior military capabilities to match global powers is unrealistic. As Sun Tzu noted in “The Art of War”: “To overcome others’ armies without fighting is the best of skills.” Effective intelligence gathering and appropriate strategy are far more relevant for Sri Lanka’s security than unrealistic reliance on military technology.

Rather than binding itself exclusively to India through secretive agreements, Sri Lanka would be better served by developing its intelligence and strategic capabilities while maintaining a balanced foreign policy. The wisdom of the ages suggests that “efficiency of knowledge and strategy” is more effective than hardware-dependent approaches, as demonstrated by the failure of America’s superior military technology in Vietnam.

The Imperative of Transparency

The ongoing controversy over the Indo-Lanka MoUs underscores the vital need for transparency in international agreements. When decisions affecting national sovereignty and security are made behind closed doors—without parliamentary oversight or public engagement—they weaken democratic governance and risk compromising national interests.

The secrecy surrounding the recent Defence Cooperation MoU has raised concern among civil society, legal experts, and political observers. Citizens deserve clarity on military agreements with foreign powers, particularly when national security is involved.

Sri Lanka’s experience with the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord remains a stark reminder. That agreement, signed under pressure and in secrecy, sparked unrest, foreign military presence, and deepened conflict instead of resolving it. The lessons from that era remain painfully relevant. What is especially troubling is the shift in position by the current NPP government. 

Once vocal critics of opaque deals and champions of transparency in opposition, they now face similar criticism for the very practices they condemned. This reversal casts doubt on their consistency and commitment to democratic values. If the government is to regain public confidence and ensure that Sri Lanka’s democratic traditions remain intact, it must uphold the principles of transparency, consultation, and accountability in all international engagements.

For Indo-Lanka relations to develop in a manner that respects both countries’ interests, transparency must be the guiding principle. Only through open dialogue, parliamentary oversight, and public awareness can Sri Lanka ensure that its relationships with regional powers enhance rather than diminish its sovereignty and autonomy.

KKS Perera, Freelance Columnist.

This article was originally published on Daily Miror Online.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.