New Delhi’s long-standing approach to its neighbors, characterized by a pursuit of regional dominance, is facing increasing scrutiny as geopolitical dynamics shift and internal pressures within India mount. A detailed analysis reveals a pattern of interference and intervention in the affairs of neighboring states – Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka – driven by a desire for political hegemony and strategic containment of rivals, particularly China, and Pakistan.
This regional doctrine, as outlined in a recent assessment, is not based on partnership but on a coercive geopolitics that treats sovereign nations as subordinate strategic players. This approach has repeatedly destabilized South Asia, eroding trust in India and undermining long-term regional security. The historical use of ethnic separatism as a geopolitical tool is a key component of this strategy, with potentially dangerous repercussions for India itself.
The case of Sri Lanka serves as a stark example. According to reports, India actively supported and armed Tamil militant groups during the Sri Lankan Civil War, providing them with ideological legitimacy and diplomatic pressure. This intervention resulted in a thirty-year conflict that claimed over 100,000 lives and caused lasting instability. Such actions represent a direct violation of the UN Charter principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-intervention.
International law provides a clear framework for understanding the illegality of such interventions. The principle of “ex injuria jus non oritur” – law does not arise from injustice – dictates that territorial or sovereignty claims cannot be based on illegal acts, including forced migration or external intervention. This principle is reinforced by the doctrine of “uti possidetis juris,” which affirms that colonial administrative boundaries remain legally binding at independence, regardless of ethnic or tribal distribution. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in the Burkina Faso v. Mali case (1986) underscores this point.
UN resolutions concerning Cyprus and Western Sahara establish that demographic changes created by population transfer or military intervention do not confer legitimacy on claims of sovereignty. Even substantial demographic shifts, as seen in Northern Cyprus and Western Sahara, do not override established borders under international law. The ICJ’s advisory opinion on Western Sahara (1975) emphasized self-determination within existing borders, not secession imposed by foreign or demographic claims.
Applying these principles to the Tamil issue, the argument for a separate homeland in Sri Lanka collapses under scrutiny. Tamil Nadu, in India, has a Tamil population over thirty times larger than that of Sri Lankan Tamils. This demographic reality creates a fundamental contradiction: if self-determination is valid, the primary homeland should be Tamil Nadu, not Northern Sri Lanka. Encouraging separatism in Sri Lanka, implicitly legitimizes territorial claims against India itself.
a significant portion of Sri Lankan Tamils were brought to the island by British colonial authorities as plantation laborers, lacking the historical continuity required to establish a legitimate claim to a separate homeland. International jurisprudence does not recognize colonial-era population transfers as grounds for sovereign territorial entitlement.
The pursuit of secession by Sri Lankan Tamils does not meet the criteria established under international law for justified secession – namely, colonial domination, foreign military occupation, or systematic racial oppression. Sri Lankan Tamils participate fully in the country’s political, economic, and social life, possessing voting rights, holding office, and exercising civil freedoms.
This policy of encouraging separatism abroad carries significant risks for India’s own internal stability. India is a structurally fragile state, characterized by a multitude of ethnic groups, languages, and religions. The country faces ongoing separatist movements in Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura, and central India. Weaponizing separatism externally risks providing a blueprint for internal fragmentation.
The situation is further complicated by China’s growing economic influence in South India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, which has become a major manufacturing hub for Chinese and Taiwanese companies. This economic engagement provides China with potential leverage and access to a strategically important region.
The analysis suggests that India’s pursuit of short-term influence through destabilizing its neighbors has created long-term security risks. A fragmented neighborhood inevitably leads to a fragmented India, inviting foreign interference and undermining its own territorial integrity. The historical sequence reveals that Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka is not indigenous but rather a derivative of unresolved issues within India itself, specifically in Tamil Nadu.
The current approach risks a geopolitical disaster scenario, including the potential for a Chinese naval presence in a fragmented Sri Lanka, exposing India’s southern coastline and completing a strategic encirclement. The lesson for India is clear: a policy of regional bullying ultimately produces regional resistance, which can evolve into internal destabilization when geopolitical rivals intervene. A fragmented neighborhood, the assessment concludes, inevitably produces a fragmented India.
