After the recent presidential victory of Anura Kumara Dissanayake in Sri Lanka, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was one of the first world leaders to congratulate him, expressing the hope of working together to enhance the multifaceted cooperation between the two nations. Connectivity is one of these areas and has been the cornerstone of the bilateral relationship in recent years. During former Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s July 2023 visit to India, the two countries adopted a vision document that encouraged a more focused partnership and a promise to renew stalled projects. It also provided a roadmap for connectivity in the maritime, air, energy, trade, economic, and people-to-people domains.
However, a closer examination reveals that some of these proposed projects clash with practical realities. One of the first major connectivity projects confirmed by the new government is the land connectivity bridge, which was exclusively mentioned in the vision document. India and Sri Lanka are naturally connected by the Ram Setu, a 48-kilometer limestone shoal trail that links Pamban Island in Tamil Nadu to Mannar Island in Sri Lanka. Now a new Ram Setu is being considered, which would include rail and road bridge links to connect both sides of the Palk Strait via land. While large-scale infrastructure projects may showcase technological prowess, they risk becoming vanity projects unless they are grounded in genuine local needs and environmental considerations. Perhaps this is why, according to reports, Colombo has decided to review all connectivity projects with India, including the Adani power projects in the north. As the new Sri Lankan government undertakes this review of planned large-scale projects in the country, can India and Sri Lanka address the complexities of connectivity without losing sight of the communities they aim to serve? As the case of the Ram Setu bridge exemplifies, both countries must address the disconnect between their ambitious visions of connectivity and the actual needs of the local population.
What is Ram Setu?
The Ram Setu Bridge – also known as Adam’s Bridge – has been a source of political, religious, and ecological controversy for decades. Having great significance in Hindu culture, Ram Setu is claimed to have been entirely above sea level until 1480 BCE, according to temple records, before natural disasters buried it under shallow waters.
As the case of the Ram Setu bridge exemplifies, both countries must address the disconnect between their ambitious visions of connectivity and the actual needs of the local population.
In line with this historical link between the two countries, Sri Lanka proposed the construction of an over-sea land bridge to link Dhanushkodi in Tamil Nadu and Trincomalee in Sri Lanka (initially till Talaimannar in Sri Lanka) – an idea that had been under discussion for almost two decades. The plan had previously stalled in the 2000s as former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha had national security concerns about the bridge due to potential Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam activity, and because Sinhala nationalists feared Tamil migration from India. In 2015, India’s Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari revived the proposal, but Sri Lanka rejected it due to local opposition. With renewed efforts, the Sri Lankan government launched a feasibility study to analyze the technical, economic and environmental aspects of the project, which has completed its preliminary work and is reportedly in the final stage. The estimated cost of the bridge is USD $5 billion and was expected to be fully funded by the Asian Development Bank. Recent reports suggest that India may also be interested in covering the complete costs of this strategic project.
Economic Potential Clashes With Sovereignty Concerns
Land connectivity with India would allow Sri Lanka to gain access to a market of 1.4 billion people, reducing transport costs by 50 percent, cutting waiting times for customs clearance, and creating thousands of direct and indirect jobs. 13 out of the top 15 products exported from India to Sri Lanka can be delivered through land, which includes sugar, pharmaceutical products, cotton, vegetables, coffee, tea, and plastic. The bridge would also boost tourism and direct international trade between Sri Lanka and India, particularly southern India. New Delhi is also looking to compete with China’s influence in the island by utilizing both public corporations, such as IRCON in the railway sector, and private entities, like the Adani Group in ports and wind farms, to invest in Sri Lanka’s infrastructure development. These investments are viewed as strategic rather than mere commercial assets.
However, Sri Lanka’s anxieties over India’s perceived hegemonic presence in the country cannot be ignored. Sinhala nationalists and economic experts have repeatedly pressured the Sri Lankan government to consider the potential dangers of physical connectivity with India. According to these groups, Sri Lanka may become overwhelmed by India’s power patterns and demography, leading to an Indian tilt in Colombo’s domestic geopolitics and a shift in economic gravity. Prominent Sri Lankan academic Dayan Jayatilleka notes that with the increasing trade volume, Sri Lanka could become a peripheral unit of the Indian economy and lose autonomy. Cynics also argue that in exchange for a comprehensive partnership, India could press for the full implementation of the 13th amendment, which aims to ensure greater devolution of power to Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority — a critical aspect of the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987. This would be perceived as a potential erosion of sovereignty in many Sri Lankan quarters, heightening concerns about India’s growing influence in the country.
Given the need to balance economic aspirations of boosting trade and connectivity alongside Sri Lanka’s concerns about security and sovereignty, how realistic is the proposed Ram Setu bridge?
Ideal Vision Challenged by Practical Realities
The multi-billion-dollar Ram Setu Bridge project is being hailed as a major initiative between India and Sri Lanka, but the two countries have demonstrated limited success with undertaking even smaller-scale projects. One example of this problem is the underdeveloped ferry service between the two countries, which was launched with great promise but has stalled due to logistical and economic reasons. This service was designed to facilitate local trade and travel for Tamil traders in northern Sri Lanka — an area devastated by years of conflict — and could have fostered economic recovery. Yet, despite India’s offer to cover project costs and provide tax relief, the ferry service never gained traction. Currently, a single cruise ship, Sivaganga, operates between Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu and Kankesanturai in Sri Lanka. The service was initially scheduled to start in October 2023 after 41 years but was halted within a week of its launch and restarted in late August this year, still with a lone ferry operating. The failure of this relatively simple project, likely due to bureaucratic inertia and logistical challenges, raises questions over whether India and Sri Lanka would be able to successfully implement more complex infrastructure projects such as the Ram Setu bridge.
Additionally, the land bridge’s feasibility depends on more than just economic investment; it requires the balancing of environmental factors and broad public support, particularly from local fishing communities in India and Sri Lanka. Ecological implications have previously contributed to the abandonment of the Sethusamudram Project. The project proposed dredging a shipping canal through the Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannar, which are home to rich marine biodiversity, including endangered species. The continuous digging caused extensive ecological damage, destroying habitats, disrupting delicate marine ecosystems, and severely affecting the livelihoods of local fishermen. The local economy depends on the health of the marine ecosystem, and large infrastructure projects disrupt this fragile balance.
Dialogue is Key
The recent elections in Sri Lanka present an opportunity for the new government under President Dissanayake to build a deeper partnership with the Modi government in India. Dissanayake has approached the relationship with New Delhi pragmatically. Considering Dissanayake’s ideological leanings as a self-described communist and his party’s past anti-India stance, New Delhi might have had concerns about his possible pro-China tilt. But his statements signal a clear intention to prioritize Sri Lanka’s national interest through competitive bargaining, using relations with both India and China as strategic tools.
Both governments should launch a political dialogue to take a fresh look at the relationship, explore investing in mutually beneficial initiatives that take into account both strategic imperatives and local needs, and create a bridge between the past and the future.
The real question is whether large-scale infrastructure projects can gain meaningful buy-in from local communities or if they too will be hindered by the same issues that have plagued smaller-scale initiatives like the ferry service. If the goal is to connect people across nations, the focus should be on solving the immediate, on-the-ground challenges that have gone unaddressed so far. For instance, India should first address the concerns of local fishermen affected by the ongoing maritime disputes with Sri Lanka. The recent surge in arrests of Indian fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy highlights the strain on bilateral relations. With new leadership in Colombo, there is potential for a renewed focus on addressing the fishing issue, building on the efforts of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who advocated joint patrols to combat illegal fishing in northern waters.
Meaningfully responding to Sri Lankan concerns is vital for India to enhance its engagement in the region and counter China’s growing presence. A stable and prosperous Sri Lanka can serve as a valuable partner in trade, security, and regional stability, ensuring that India’s strategic interests are upheld. New Delhi has already generated some goodwill by helping Colombo navigate its recent economic crisis, providing over USD $4 billion in assistance – significantly more than the International Monetary Fund’s 48-month bailout of about USD $3 billion. Conversely, Sri Lanka will benefit significantly from partnering with India, utilizing New Delhi’s economic expertise, technological advancements, and regional access to boost its own development. Hence, both governments should launch a political dialogue to take a fresh look at the relationship, explore investing in mutually beneficial initiatives that take into account both strategic imperatives and local needs, and create a bridge between the past and the future.
Also Read: A New Era in Sri Lanka? Implications of Dissanayake’s Presidency
***
Image 1: Anura Kumara Dissanayake via X
Image 2: Anura Kumara Dissanayake via X
