India Must Immediately Disclose the Secret Agreements Signed with Sri Lanka

The Indian Prime Minister Must Understand That Regional and Global Geopolitics Cannot Be Conducted Like Selling Tea on a Train    

Did Anura Kumara Betray Sri Lanka to India, or Has Narendra Modi Invaded Sri Lanka Through Other Means..?

Does the President Accept Rohana Wijeweera’s Position on Indian Hegemony and Expansionism..?

Is India Wary of Ranil Wickremesinghe Because He Is a Politically Cunning Fox Who Cannot Be Easily Used for Others’ Objectives..?

(Sujith Mangala De Silva)

In April 2025 India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Sri Lanka and signed seven memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government. These covered sectors from energy (a new HVDC power link) to health and trade; notably a Defence Cooperation Agreement was inked. The official Indian MEA press release lists each pact and project (e.g. a power interconnection and a defense MOU). The visit also included inaugurating infrastructure projects (rail upgrades, solar farms) and announcing further aid. Importantly, analysts note this deepened bilateral ties and marked a shift in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, drawing it more firmly into India’s security ambit.

Transparency and Public Reaction

Political critics in Sri Lanka immediately raised transparency concerns. Observers warned that key details of the Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and other deals have not been made public. Opposition politicians and civic groups demanded parliamentary review, arguing that citizens must know whether such agreements respect sovereignty and national interest. For example, a Sri Lankan analyst noted “the lack of consultation with parliamentarians and civil society… contributed to a perception of opacity” around the DCA. Major opposition leaders echoed this point: the Samagi Jana leader and others called for any pact longer than five years to require parliamentary approval. Their concerns reflect a broader fear that undisclosed terms might undermine Sri Lanka’s autonomy or incur hidden obligations.

Key Agreements: The signed MoUs include a Defence Cooperation MOU and energy/economic projects. Transparency Demands: Analysts warn that withholding full text erodes public trust and could “create long-term security concerns”. Domestic parties (e.g. Namal Rajapaksa, Tissa Attanayake) pressed for clear benefits to Sri Lanka. Sovereignty Issues: Some warned that new pacts risk upsetting Sri Lanka’s non-aligned tradition; questions arose about issues like Chinese naval visits and territorial disputes. India’s foreign secretary clarified the agreements only update past cooperation and do not cede control.

Historical and Ideological Context - JVP and Leaders’ Stances

Sri Lanka’s current government is led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a party that was fiercely nationalist and anti-India in the past. Its founder, Rohana Wijeweera, famously taught that Indian influence threatened Sri Lankan interests and even led an insurrection against the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord. Thus many expected that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (Wijeweera’s onetime comrade) would reject closer ties with India.

However, Dissanayake has taken a pragmatic turn. He openly stated his intention to balance relations with India and China, while insisting Sri Lanka will never become a subordinate pawn in their rivalry. During his campaign he promised not to allow Sri Lankan territory or resources to be used in ways inimical to the nation. As one foreign analyst observed, the JVP under Dissanayake has “toned down” its earlier anti-India rhetoric and adopted a “pragmatic” stance. In his recent visits he even conferred Sri Lanka’s highest civilian honor on PM Modi as a goodwill gesture. Yet this latitude is conditional: the JVP’s reformist youth base demands transparency and protection of sovereignty. Dissanayake himself warned that if MoUs like the DCA are not clearly aligned with public interest, it could “reignite anti-India sentiment” among nationalists.

Change in JVP’s stance: Once violently opposed to Indian ties (1987 insurrection), the JVP now accepts engagement with India to address Sri Lanka’s crises. But both analysts and voters emphasize that any deal must honor Sri Lanka’s independence – echoing Wijeweera’s legacy that no foreign power should dominate the island.

Conspiracy Claims vs. Fact-based Analysis

In the wake of these developments, social media and some fringe outlets churned out sensational claims. Headlines like “Modi bought our President and Sri Lanka” or accusations that Dissanayake “sold the country to India” have circulated widely. These are unverified conspiracy theories, not supported by official records or credible reporting. By contrast, the publicly released list of MoUs and multiple news analyses show a standard diplomatic engagement – large aid packages and infrastructure deals, but no transfer of sovereignty or “purchase” of political leaders. Similarly, internet memes calling former President Ranil Wickremesinghe a “cunning fox” afraid of India appear to be political attacks without evidence. In reality, Ranil’s administration did seek Indian assistance (for example, in debt relief and fuel supplies) as part of coping with Sri Lanka’s crisis.

Official record: The Indian Ministry’s press release plainly lists each agreement – there is no mention of anything secretive being “bought”. Opposition rhetoric: Accusations that leaders are compromised by foreign funds are common in polarized politics, but analysts stress evaluating policies on merit. Observers note that democratic accountability requires evidence and debate, not rumor.

Overall, the factual picture is that both sides aim to manage Sri Lanka’s economic recovery. Modi’s outreach has been described as reinforcing partnership, not as an “invasion”. At the same time, Sri Lanka’s nationalists remain vigilant: historical grievances about sovereignty still fuel suspicion whenever Indian proposals appear in parliament or media.

Philosophical and Ethical Perspectives on Leadership

This situation can be illuminated by classical wisdom. Aristotle taught that the purpose of politics is to cultivate virtue in citizens and leaders alike. In his view, the end of politics is the good life for the polity – “to engender a certain character in the citizens and to make them good and disposed to do noble acts”. By extension, a leader who conceals information or acts for narrow interests fails this goal. Aristotle also stressed that law must govern society, not the arbitrary will of rulers. When those in power let personal desire override law and ethics, he warned, their rule becomes despotic (“an element of the beast” overrides reason).

Plato likewise emphasized wisdom in leadership. In The Republic, Plato held that the best state is one ruled by philosopher-kings – leaders who love wisdom and truth. He famously concluded that “until philosophers are kings … cities will never have rest from their evils”. He also noted that in a free city the best rulers are often the least eager to seize power. In other words, if Sri Lanka’s leaders were guided by philosophical insight rather than ambition or personal gain, mistrust would lessen. Conversely, Plato warned that excessive liberty without order invites demagoguery and tyranny. The pattern of today’s politicized rumors – appealing to emotion and nationalist pride – is exactly what Plato feared when laws and wisdom give way to slogans.

Kautilya (Arthashastra) in ancient Indian tradition prescribes that a king must be a raja-rishi, a sage-king devoted to his people’s welfare. The text insists the ideal ruler lives simply, controls senses (greed, lust, arrogance), and continuously promotes public welfare. Kautilya warns that neglecting dharma (duty) brings disaffection: if “good people are snubbed and evil people embraced… disaffection grows” among the populace. He explicitly states that when a king abandons righteousness or overturns justice, social disorder follows. Thus, from the Arthashastra’s viewpoint, secretive or unjust governance – such as unseen foreign commitments or favoring hidden interest groups – would undermine the kingdom’s stability.

Buddhist-Jataka lesson: The Ummagga Jātaka (story of Mahosadha) illustrates the power of wisdom. In the tale, a boy born wise (Mahosadha) becomes king’s advisor and prevents conspiracies through wit and intelligence. He uses spies and even a trained parrot to overhear enemies’ plans, thwarting a war. The moral is that a country needs astute, ethical counselors; without them, it can be taken by surprise. Applied to today’s Sri Lanka, the lesson is that competent, farsighted leadership – not hidden deals or populist bluster – safeguards the nation. Mahosadha’s vigilance contrasts with any leader who ignores unrest or withholds truth, which invites ruin.

In sum, all these perspectives converge: virtuous, transparent leadership is crucial, while secretive or self-serving rulers imperil the state. A leader “with political, social, cultural and economic deficiencies” (i.e. lacking necessary virtues or vision) dooms the people to hardship. As Plato and Aristotle warn, when power serves narrow ambition instead of the common good, the state inevitably suffers (tyranny or chaos ensues). Likewise, Kautilya and Buddhist sages teach that justice, moral integrity and open counsel are the foundations of prosperity.

Conclusion - Lessons for Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s recent engagements with India highlight a crucial tension: the need for foreign partnerships to rebuild the economy versus the public’s demand for sovereign agency and openness. The government’s decision to sign multiple pacts with India appears aimed at national recovery. Yet the reluctance to fully publicize these deals risks fueling exactly the nationalist suspicions the country cannot afford – especially when past leaders sacrificed little for short-term gain. History and philosophy remind us that when leaders fall short of virtue or hide their actions, the whole nation pays the price. Whether in ancient Athens or medieval Lanka, the pattern is the same: unchecked ambition and secrecy corrupt the polity, while wise, accountable governance secures its future.

Sri Lanka’s path forward, therefore, depends on bridging this divide. If agreements with India are indeed meant for mutual benefit, making them transparent (as Asanga Abeyagoonasekera recommends) will build trust. Conversely, pandering to rumor without evidence will only deepen divisions. In the spirit of Aristotle and Kautilya, the nation’s best hope is leaders who prioritize dharma (duty) over personal gain, practice wisdom over demagoguery, and uphold the rule of law above all. Only then can Sri Lanka avoid the fate Plato foretold for states ruled by ignorance and mistrust – perpetual turmoil instead of peace.

Sources - Contemporary reporting of Modi’s Sri Lanka visit and MoUs; analyses by foreign policy experts; Times of India profile of President Dissanayake; classical texts as discussed in scholarly summaries.