Unit II - India’s Foreign Policy

(a) Non-Aligned Movement

(b) Indo-Pak Relations, Conflicts and the birth of Bangladesh
(c) Indo-Sino Relations, Conflicts
(d) Indo-Sri Lanka Relations
**********************************************************************
India’s Foreign Policy:
Introduction: The noble ideals that inspired India’s struggle for freedom influenced the making of its
foreign policy. The foreign policy of independent India vigorously chased the dream of a peaceful
world by advocating the policy of non-alignment, to reduce Cold War tensions and to contribute
human resources to the UN peacekeeping operations. The principle of non-alignment kept India away
from the military alliances led by US and Soviet Union against each other.
India and Pakistan have a long series of issues since the time of partition. Though some of them have
been resolved, there are still many issues that remain unresolved. The most serious among all is the
issue of Kashmir. That is discussed in this unit. In reference to China, a border war took place in
1962. India suffered heavy losses, and the Chinese occupied whatever territories they chose to.
Relations were spoilt, trade badly affected, and hostile atmosphere prevailed for many years as
ambassadors were withdrawn. Normalization began to happen only in the 1990s. India’s relations
with Sri Lanka are discussed in the unit as well.
(a) Non-Aligned Movement: The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was created and founded
during the collapse of the colonial system and the independence struggles of the peoples of Africa,
Asia, Latin America and other regions of the world and at the height of the Cold War. During the
early days of the Movement, its actions were a key factor in the decolonization process, which led
later to the attainment of freedom and independence by many countries and peoples and to the
founding of tens of new sovereign States. Throughout its history, the Movement of Non-Aligned
Countries has played a fundamental role in the preservation of world peace and security.
While some meetings with a third-world perspective were held before 1955, historians consider that
the Bandung Asian-African Conference is the most immediate antecedent to the creation of the Non-
Aligned Movement. This Conference was held in Bandung on April 18-24, 1955 and gathered 29
Heads of States belonging to the first post-colonial generation of leaders from the two continents with
the aim of identifying and assessing world issues at the time and pursuing out joint policies in
international relations.
The primary of objectives of the non-aligned countries focused on the support of self-determination,
national independence and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States; opposition to apartheid;
non-adherence to multilateral military pacts and the independence of non-aligned countries from great
power or block influences and rivalries; the struggle against imperialism in all its forms and
manifestations; the struggle against colonialism, neocolonialism, racism, foreign occupation and
domination; disarmament; non-interference into the internal affairs of States and peaceful coexistence
among all nations; rejection of the use or threat of use of force in international relations; the
strengthening of the United Nations; the democratization of international relations; socioeconomic
development and the restructuring of the international economic system; as well as international
cooperation on an equal footing.
Since its inception, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries has waged a ceaseless battle to ensure
that peoples being oppressed by foreign occupation and domination can exercise their inalienable
right to self-determination and independence.
The first Afro-Asian conference was held in Apri1, 1955 in the Indonesian capital Bandung, in which
29 nations participated. The objectives of the Bandung Conference, 1955 were to (1) promote
goodwill and cooperation among the Third World Countries, (2) consider social, economic and
cultural problems of the Asian and African people; (3) view the position of Asia and Africa in their
contribution to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.
1
Importance: President Sukarno of the Indonesian Republic hosted the conference and Nehru,
Chouen-Lai and Nasser of Egypt were some of the dignitaries who actively participated in the
conference. Nehru highlighted the relevance of Non-alignment in the contemporary world and pointed
out that the strength of the developing countries was in industrial development not of stockpiling
weapons of war.
In the late 1940s a bi-polar political world emerged. The two big world powers, the U.S.A and Russia
had developed nuclear weapons and demonstrated their military might over weaker states. In Eastern
Europe the pan-Slav movement gained popularity and Soviet influence over Hungry, Rumania and
Bulgaria became paramount. To counter Russian influence in the north-east the U.S.A. extended
liberal economic and military assistance to Greece and Turkey and kept them out of the orbit of Soviet
Union. In Western Europe, both greater and lesser states turned their eyes towards the U.S.A.
Nehru’s main contribution to the evolution of India’s foreign policy was the acceptance and
implementation of the concept of Non-alignment. Non-alignment meant taking independent decisions
on international issues without being tied to any particular country or a group of countries. Thus,
Nehru and India’s subsequent foreign policy has been in favour of peace and disarmament, racial
equality and international cooperation for the peaceful resolution of international disputes.
Nehru’s policy of Non-alignment was amply demonstrated during the Korean Crisis. During World
War II, U.S.A. occupied South Korea and Russia occupied North Korea. At the Postdam Conference,
the 38th parallel of latitude was recognized as the line of control between North Korea and South
Korea. In 1950 India warned against the danger of expansion of conflict if the armies of one side were
moved closer to the northern border of other. India’s impartial approach received recognition when an
Indian was chosen the chairman of the United Nations Repatriation Commission to deal with the issue
of prisoners of war. Again, India struck to the policy of Nonalignment during the prolonged political
crisis in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. However, India opposed the aggressive attitude and action of
the colonial powers. India took a courageous stand when in 1856 the Anglo-French forces invaded
Egypt over the Suez Canal crisis. India’s moral support to Egypt, both within and outside the UNO,
greatly helped in the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Egyptian territory and recognition of
Egypt’s sovereignty over the Suez Canal.
The first Non-aligned conference was held at Belgrade in Yugoslavia in 1961 in which 25 countries
took part. The assembled delegates emphasized the need for periodical consultations among Non-
aligned countries. The popularity of the Non-aligned movement attracted more and more countries
and at one time about 100 countries were actively associated with it. All along, the main focus of the
movement was on independence, peace, disarmament and economic development.
Leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana,
Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia played a vital role in the formation of
the Non-Alignment Movement.
(b) Indo-Pak Relations, Conflicts and the birth of Bangladesh:
India and Pakistan were created by a law that was enacted by the British Parliament to grant
independence to British India and further divide it into two different countries. The Indian
Independence Act, 1947 provided for the lapse of prominence in respect of native states. The rulers of
the native states were given the power to decide whether their states would merge in India or Pakistan,
or by implication would remain independent. Although for centuries, Hindus and Muslims lived
together peacefully in the sub-continent; the partition created unprecedented hostility between secular
India and Islamic Pakistan. The Indo-Pak hostility is the outgrowth of political, cultural, social and
economic factors deeply rooted in history. The hostile stance on the part of Pakistan is the legacy of
pre-partition congress league rivalry.
In 1947, India was partitioned on the basis of the two-nation theory and Muslims who wanted to
migrate to Pakistan left India. India, however, decided to be a secular state in which the Muslims as
well as all other religious communities have as much freedom to live and worship. In fact, in India
there are more Muslims living than in Pakistan. However, unfortunately, Pakistan has always tried to
be the champion of the interests of Indian Muslims.
2
India and Pakistan have a long series of issues since the time of partition. Though some of them have
been resolved, there are still many issues that remain unresolved. The most serious among all is the
issue of Kashmir. Other serious issues pertain to division of assets and liabilities, evacuee property,
accession of native states and allocation of water resources. Pakistan had ceded to China a large area
of occupied Kashmir, carried out an aggression on Rann of Kutch followed by a full fledged war in
1965. Pakistan still feels sore at the liberation of Bangladesh, which took place with the help of India
in 1971. Pakistan has been providing clandestine support to terrorists and had unleashed a full scale
war in Kargil. All these issues have strained the Indo-Pak ties to a great extent. However, at the same
time, there have been some bright spots in the Indo-Pak relations like Nehru-Liaquat Minority Pact
(1950), the Indo-Pak Canal Agreement (1960), the Tashkent Agreement (1966), the Shimla Pact
(1972), the Salal Agreement (1978), the Indo-Pak Agreement (1980) and Vajpayee’s Bus Diplomacy
(1999), etc. Yet, the impact of these agreements has not been very significant in improving Indo-Pak
ties as the most persistent issue since the partition of India has been the Kashmir issue.
India and Pakistan both came into existence in August 1947. Muslims of the subcontinent had gained
Pakistan after a lot of sacrifices. On the other hand people of India considered independence as an
assault on their nationalism. Even today most Indians consider that the Muslims of Pakistan divided
the country on the basis that India is the land of Hindus (Hindustan). Therefore, the entire nation was
against the formation of Pakistan right from the day of independence. There is a huge communication
gap between the people of India and Pakistan and the relationship between the two countries has thus
suffered.
All types of relationships between India and Pakistan, whether it is political or economic, cultural or
social, have been controversial. Pakistan and India are the inheritors of two of the richest cultures and
civilizations of the world. However, along with other countries of South Asia, they are also among the
poorest segments of mankind. Despite enjoying independence for over sixty years, they remain
afflicted with mass poverty and all its concomitant ills. It is a tragedy of their short history as
independent states and their mutual antagonism plunged them into three wars and when not engaged
in fighting, has kept them close to the brink.
After the partition of the country both the Hindus and the Muslims were forced to leave their native
place and migrate to either India or Pakistan, according to the religion they followed, leaving behind
vast properties. After the migration of the Hindus from the newly-formed Pakistan to India, the Indian
government impressed upon the Pakistani government to amicably settle property claims of the
Hindus. Due to this, the relations between the two countries also became very strained.
It is commonly known that the most important cause of dispute between India and Pakistan is the
Kashmir issue, which still remains unresolved. After partition pakistan sent soldiers to occupy
Kashmir, which had a large Muslim population but was ruled by a Hindu King, Hari Singh. When
Pakistan armies invaded Kashmir the Maharaja found himself helpless to control the advancing
Pakistani forces and tried to push them back. In order to protect himself and his land, the King agreed
to take help from India and therefore gave Kashmir to India.
After the partition of India, the Nawab of Junagarh, who ruled over a vast majority of Hindu
population showed an inclination to join Pakistan. However, his subjects opposed this decision.
Ultimately, a plebiscite was held in the state and a vast majority voted in favour of merger with India.
Like Junagarh, the Nizam of Hyderabad, who ruled over the Hindu population, wanted to merge with
Pakistan. It became a matter of concern for India as the state was located in the heart of the country.
Not only this, but the population of the state also opposed to a merger with Pakistan. In order to avoid
any untoward happening, India decided to take police action in Hyderabad and with the support and
cooperation of the people brought the state under its control. Pakistan took the matter to the United
Nations Security Council but without any effect.
For quite some time canal water dispute strained the ties between the two nations. India had been
permitting Pakistan to use water, till certain alternative arrangements were made. However, in 1954
when India decided to construct Bhakhra Dam, Pakistan objected to it as in its opinion this would
result in shortage of water in Pakistan. The dispute continued for years and was settled with the help
3
of World Bank and an agreement between the two nations was signed. Again, in 1968 Pakistan
objected to India’s constructing Farakka Barrage to control waters of the River Ganga.
The problem of refugees migrating from Pakistan to India and those going from India to Pakistan was
directly related to the minorities of both the states. Right after the partition of British India, large-scale
riots broke out in Pakistan and both Hindus and Sikhs started migrating to India leaving behind all
their property. As a result of this, in India anti-Muslim riots broke out. The Indian government then
had to take strong measures to check violence in sensitive areas and gave maximum protection to the
Muslims in the country.
The Inter-Dominion Agreement of April 1948 had clearly stated that the responsibility rested on the
governments of both states for the protection of minorities in their respective jurisdictions. However,
both India and Pakistan accused each other of deliberately causing communal riots. The charge of
Pakistan certainly could not be supported against India. The Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal
Nehru invited Pakistani Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan to Delhi to discuss the problem of
minorities. An agreement between the two leaders was then signed on 8 April 1950, known as the
Nehru-Liaquat Agreement. This Agreement affirmed the rights of minorities and their protections in
their respective states. Meanwhile, in view of this agreement, India sincerely tried to protect the
minorities in its state. Furthermore, two members Shyama Prasad Mukherji and K.C. Neogi resigned
from the Indian Cabinet to protest against the agreement. The only Hindu member of Cabinet,
Jogendra Nath Mandai resigned from the cabinet as a protest against ill-treatment of Hindus in
Pakistan.
The undivided Punjab was called ‘the land of five rivers’. The irrigation network of Punjab had made
the province the ‘Granary of India’. After partition, the three rivers Ravi, Sutlej and Beas, which were
mainly flowing in India, were called the eastern rivers; while the other rivers, Indus, Jhelum and
Chenab mostly flowing in Pakistan, were called the western rivers. Out of 25 canals, 20 canals
received water from eastern rivers, which irrigated the territory of India. Under a stoppage agreement
India agreed to supply water to the canals in Pakistan from the headwork in India against payment.
After the lapse of this agreement on 31 March 1948, Pakistan failed to renew it. In this regard, a fresh
agreement on 4 May 1948 was concluded by the two countries.
Kashmir: The Kashmir issue refers to the territorial dispute between India and China over Kashmir,
the north western part of South Asia. The disputant to the dispute are India, Pakistan, China and the
people of Kashmir. The former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir is claimed by India and it
presently administers about 43 per cent of the region including Jammu and Kashmir Valley, Ladakh
and the Siachin Glacier. Pakistan controls about 37 per cent of Kashmir, mainly Azad Kashmir and
the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. The remaining 20 per cent of Kashmir including Aksai Chin
was occupied during SinoIndia War of 1962 by China and the Trans-Karakoram Tract, also called the
Shaksam Valley, which was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1963. The government of India has
officially declared its position that Kashmir is an ‘integral part’ of India. However, Pakistan’s official
position is that Kashmir is a disputed territory, and the final status must be chosen by the Kashmiri
people. Some independent sections of Kashmir are of the opinion that Kashmir should be independent
from both India as well as Pakistan.
Three wars have been fought between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The three wars took place in
1947, 1965 and 1999. Only one war was fought over Aksai Chin and north east state of India,
Arunachal Pradesh between India and China in 1962. The erstwhile native state of Jammu and
Kashmir, having total area of 86,024 square miles is known as ‘heaven on earth’. Unfortunately since
the partition, it has been the cause of hostile ties between the two countries. This state was
predominated by a Muslim population and ruled by a Hindu King, Hari Singh. However, the King
before and after 15 August 1947, could not decide regarding the accession of the state. The then
Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten visited Kashmir in July for four days. During his visit, he discussed with
the King to quickly take a bold decision regarding acceding, either to India or Pakistan. However, the
king did not realize the gravity of the situation and hence could not take any decision. Later,
Mountbatten regretted the indecision of the King and said that even if he decided to accede to
4
Pakistan, India would have no objections, but he should decide before 14 August 1947. Even the
Home Minister of India, Sardar Patel told Lord Mountbatten that if Kashmir voluntarily decides to
join Pakistan, India would have no objection. However, the King’s indecision created a dispute
between the two countries, which is the gravest of international disputes in which India has ever been
involved.
Before the attack on Kashmir by Pakistan, a senior official of Pakistan’s Foreign Office visited
Kashmir and tried to convince the King to join Pakistan, but the King refused to decide hastily. The
tribesmen from North Western Frontier Province attacked on 22 October 1947 in a number of sectors.
In order to save himself and his province, the King requested India to accept the accession and send
armed forces immediately to repulse the attack and save the states of Jammu and Kashmir. This
accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was finalized on 27 October and the army was airlifted to
clear the aggression. However, Pakistan refused to accept the accession and India did not want to go
on a war with Pakistan. The matter of Kashmir issue was presented before the United Nations
Security Council under Article 35 of the Charter on 1 January 1948 by India. In this regard, India
sought the help of United Nations to vacate the Pakistan supported aggression.
After careful consideration, a three-member Commission on 20 January 1948 was appointed by the
Security Council, in which the Commission had one nominee each of Pakistan and India and the third
nominee had to be chosen by both the countries. Pakistan nominated Argentina and Czechoslovakia
was nominated by India, and thus both failed to agree on a third nominee; then the Security Council
intervened and nominated the US as the third member. The Commission had to investigate and
mediate the dispute. On 21 April 1948 by a resolution, two more members—Colombia and Belgium
were added by the Security Council. That Commission was then called the United Nations
Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). It was also resolved by the UN Security Council that
the Indian troops as well as tribesmen should be withdrawn and an interim government, which
represented major political groups, be set up in Jammu and Kashmir and the UNCIP should be visited
there to exercise its good offices in helping both the countries to restore peace as well as arrange a fair
plebiscite. This resolution did not please either of the two countries.
The UNCIP conducted an enquiry and met with the representatives of both the countries and on 11
December 1948 submitted a final report. This report contained the following recommendations which
aimed at ending the hostilities hold of a plebiscite.
 First, Pakistan should withdraw its troops as early as possible after the ceasefire from Jammu and
Kashmir and Pakistan should also withdraw the tribesmen and Pakistani citizens who are not ordinary
residents of Kashmir.
 Second, the vacated territory by Pakistani troops should be administered by local officials under the
Commission’s supervision.
 Third, after fulfilling these two conditions, India is to be informed about their compliance by the
UNCIP, and India should also withdraw substantial strength of its troops.
 Fourth, as a final pending agreement, India should maintain only such limited troops which are
essential for law and order.
Pakistan accepted the proposals and a ceasefire agreement was signed between the two countries’
commanders and also implemented by them on 1 January 1949 and thus, the war ended and a
ceasefire became effective. The ceasefire line, which is now called the Line of Control, was drawn
when the war ended. However, the UNCIP recommendation displeased both India and Pakistan over
the implementation of ceasefire agreement which was brought to the notice of the Plebiscite
Administrator, Admiral Chester Nimitz. This compliance of UN resolution regarding withdrawal of
Pakistani troops could not be ensured by Nimitz and therefore he resigned. India also refused it and
the whole issue fell back on the Security Council.
McNaughton Plan: By the end of 1949, it was obvious that Pakistan was not willing to pull out its
troops from the occupied territory so that the holding of a plebiscite could be facilitated. General
McNaughton of Canada who was the President of the Security Council submitted a plan for the
solution of Kashmir issue in the month of December 1949. The plan prepared by McNaughton, who
5
was the informal mediator, suggested that both Indian as well as Pakistani troops should be withdrawn
from Kashmir. Thus, he proposed complete demilitarization of Kashmir to make grounds for a
plebiscite. This plan did not differentiate between the aggressor like Pakistan and the victim like
India. Pakistan sponsored and directly supported the aggression, though Indian troops were sent only
on request of Maharaja after the State’s formal accession to India. Therefore, India rejected this plan.
Dixon Proposal: After the failure of the McNaughton Plan, again on 24 February 1950 it was
resolved by the Security Council that both Indian and Pakistani troops should be withdrawn from
Kashmir within five months so that the holding of a plebiscite could be facilitated. To ensure
compliance of the Security Council Resolution, Sir Owen Dixon, a judge of the High Court of
Australia was appointed for this proposal by the UN Security Council. On 27 May 1950, Dixon also
suggested that both the countries should pull out all the troops from Kashmir; however, a final
agreement could not be reached again as India refused to withdraw her troops. Dixon proposed the
partition of Jammu and Kashmir along the ceasefire line and also suggested a plebiscite in the valley
to determine its future. This proposal was totally rejected by India. Dixon further suggested direct
talks between India and Pakistan.
Graham Mission: After the failure of the Dixon Proposal as well, the member states of the
Commonwealth Conference at London attempted to find a solution to the Kashmir issue in which
demilitarization was proposed once again and followed by arbitration. India was against such a
proposal. Meanwhile, Sheikh Abdullah decided to frame a Constitution for Jammu and Kashmir so
that the elections could be held at the Constituent Assembly. Pakistan was against this decision and
again raised the Kashmir issue in the Security Council in February 1951. This time the Security
Council adopted a joint Anglo-American resolution and sought to appoint troops and arrange
plebiscite in Kashmir. For this purpose, Frank P. Graham of the United States was appointed to enact
the decision. In June 1951, Graham began to initiate negotiations with both India and Pakistan. A
series of proposals offered by Graham aimed at demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir prior to
holding the plebiscite. His efforts were not successful because no agreement was reached. According
to Graham’s recommendations, it was suggested that a negotiated settlement would be resolved by the
Prime Ministers of both countries. The leaders of the two countries held a number of meetings and
decided to hold plebiscite in 1954 but no agreement could be reached and thus no plebiscite could be
held.
In 1957, the representative of United Nations, Gunnar Jarring, reported to the Security Council after
visiting both India and Pakistan. He said that its implementation was not possible because the
plebiscite resolution of 1948 had been ‘overtaken by events’. With this, the UNSC efforts to solve the
Kashmir issue were suspended. Even after more than five decades, the United Nations has not been
able to secure withdrawal of Pakistani troops, which was the first condition of ceasefire agreement.
India-China-Pakistan: India has all along adopted a friendly attitude towards China. However, the
relations between the two countries became strained in 1959 when India decided to give shelter to
Dalai Lama and subsequently when China attacked India in 1962. Since Sino-India ties became
strained, China developed friendly ties with Pakistan. This in turn worsened the relations between
India and Pakistan. In order to get military and economic aid from China, Pakistan had every right to
forge a friendship with China but what further strained relations between India and Pakistan is the fact
that Pakistan agreed to give a part of Kashmir to China which legitimately belonged to India and over
which Pakistan had no right.
After independence, India decided to pursue the policy of non-alignment which meant that it would
not form any military alliance or become a part of any military pact. Pakistan, on the other hand,
decided to join western military alliances and became a part of the Baghdad Pact, SEATO, etc. This
enabled Pakistan to get massive military aid from the United States and other alliance countries,
which resulted in arm race in the region and irritated India because it had to invest huge amounts in
defence preparedness at the cost of development. Moreover, these arms were basically provided for
checking the spread of communism in the region but were used by Pakistan against India in all the
three wars which Pakistan had forced on India.
6
Indus Water Disputes: Many issues arose after the Partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, including
one over the sharing of the Indus River system. After the Partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, an
understanding on the sharing of water of Indus River between the two countries became necessary to
facilitate the development of water resources of this basin. The Indus Water Treaty was signed in
September after prolonged talks between the two governments. After this treaty was signed, the
waters of the three western rivers – the Jhelum, the Chenab, and the Indus were allocated to Pakistan,
and those of the three eastern rivers –the Ravi, the Beas and the Sutlej were allocated to India.
The Indus Water Treaty consists of three parts which include the preamble, twelve articles and
annexure A to H. The principal subjects covered in the treaty’s annexure are: the exchange of notes
between the governments of India and Pakistan, India’s agricultural use of certain tributaries of the
Ravi, India’s agricultural use of the upper reaches of the western rivers, India’s generation of
hydroelectric power and the storage of water from the western rivers, a procedure to solve disputes
and differences through a commission, a neutral court of arbitration, and allocation to Pakistan of
some waters from the eastern rivers during the period of transition.
As mentioned above, the Treaty gave India exclusive use of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers. Pakistan
was given access to the western rivers – the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. Under the agreement, India
has to allow these rivers to flow to Pakistan without any hindrance or interference, except as
specifically allowed by the Treaty. This includes the use of water for domestic and other non-
consumptive purposes, as well as the generation of hydroelectric power.
The highlights of the Treaty are:
 India cannot build storages on the rivers where allocated to Pakistan.
 The extension of irrigation development is also restricted in India. Less significant restrictions have
been placed on Pakistan, being the lower riparian.
 The Treaty contains provisions regarding the exchange of data on project operation, extent of
irrigated agriculture, etc.
 A permanent Indus Commission consisting of a Commissioner each for India and for Pakistan has
been set up and there are periodical meetings and exchanges of visits between the two sides. These
institutional arrangements have proved beneficial.
 Several guidelines have been included in the Treaty for conflict-resolution. The Indus Commission
is the first step for conflict resolution. If an agreement cannot be reached at the Commission level, the
dispute is to be referred to the two governments. If the governments too fail to reach an agreement,
the Treaty provides an arbitration mechanism.
The Indus Water Treaty is a successful instance of conflict-resolution. It has been working reasonably
well despite the strained political relationship between India and Pakistan. It is important to note that
it has been honoured even during wars between the two countries. Undoubtedly differences do arise
from time to time, but these usually get resolved within the framework of the Treaty. Minor
differences are settled within the Commission, and major disputes go to the two Governments.
Indo-Pak War of 1965 and 1971 and the Birth of Bangladesh: In August 1965, Indian forces
crossed the ceasefire line and launched an attack on the region referred to by the disputants as either
‘Azad Kashmir’ or ‘Pakistan-occupied Kashmir’. Pakistan reported this attack as unprovoked, while
India said that the attack was a response to massive armed infiltrations of Kashmir by Pakistan. At
first, the only Indian Army achieved considerable success and captured three important mountain
positions after a prolonged artillery barrage. However, by the end of August, both sides had
experienced success; Pakistan had captured areas like Tithwal, Uri and Punch and India had captured
the Haji Pir Pass, 8 kilometres inside Pakistani-occupied territory.
On 1 September 1965, Pakistan launched a counterattack, called ‘Operation Grand Slam’, with the
purpose of capturing the big town of Akhnoor in Jammu, which would disunite communications and
cut off supply routes to Indian troops. Attacking with an overwhelming ratio of troops and technically
superior tanks, Pakistani forces initially progressed against Indian forces, which were unprepared and
thus suffered heavy losses. Indian forces then responded by calling in its air force to blunt the
Pakistani attack. The next day, Pakistani forces retaliated, its air force attacked Indian forces and air
7
bases in both Kashmir and Punjab. Although Operation Grand Slam ultimately failed, as the Pakistan
Army was unable to capture Akhnoor, it became one of the turning points in the war when India
decided to relieve pressure on its troops in Kashmir by attacking Pakistan further south.
Indian forces crossed the International Border on 6 September on the western front marking an
official beginning of the war. On the same day, the 15th Infantry Division of the Indian Army, under
Second World War veteran Major General Prasad fought a massive counter attack by Pakistan near
the west bank of the Ichogil Canal, which was a de facto border of India and Pakistan. The General’s
entourage itself was ambushed and he was forced to flee his vehicle. The second time, a successful
attempt to cross the Ichogil Canal was made over the bridge in the village of Barki, just east of
Lahore. These developments brought the Indian Army within the range of Lahore International
Airport. As a result, the United States requested a temporary ceasefire to allow it to evacuate its
citizens in Lahore. However, the Pakistani counter attack took Khem Karan from Indian forces, which
was made possible due to the help of the Pakistani infiltrators.
After this, a number of proposals were considered and resolutions were adopted by the Security
Council on 20 September 1965, which called upon India and Pakistan to ceasefire and withdraw all
their ‘armed personnel’ back to the position held by the two countries before 5 August 1965.
Tashkent Agreement: A meeting between the Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and
Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan was held from 3 January to 10 January 1966 to formalize
peace between the two countries. At the invitation of the Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin, both Shastri
and Khan met in the city of Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan and signed the agreement known as the
Tashkent Declaration. On 10 January 1966, the agreement was formalized and the hostilities ended
followed by the withdrawal of the Indo-Pakistani forces to the previous cease-fire lines. Public in
India generally welcomed the Tashkent Agreement in the hope that it would lead to normalization of
relation between the two countries. G.L. Nanda, who temporarily succeeded Shastri as Prime Minister
of India promptly declared that Indian Government would stand by the Declaration and implement it
completely and faithfully. However, there was a lot of criticism of the Tashkent Agreement in
Pakistan as people felt that it meant surrender to Indian demands and Soviet pressures.
Indo-Pak War of 1971: In 1971, Bangladesh war broke out because of the decision of the people of
the erstwhile East Pakistan to break away from Pakistan, which they alleged was ill-treating East
Bengal and treating it as its colony. The popular uprising of East Pakistan under Mujibur Rehman was
supported by India. Due to this, Pakistan decided to invade India and in December 1971, a massive air
attack was launched on India. However, in the war that followed, Pakistani armies surrendered before
Indian armies. This also resulted in the defeat of Pakistani armies in East Pakistan. A new
independent state of Bangladesh was born. This further deteriorated ties between the two countries. It
appears that Pakistan could not get over the fact that Bangladesh was now a reality. Thus, the relations
between the two countries remained strained. The net result of the war was the division of Pakistan
and the creation of the sovereign state of Bangladesh which was recognized by India in December
1971. Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was released from Pakistani jail, but only after power was transferred
in Pakistan from Yahya Khan to Z. A. Bhutto. While leaving for Dhaka, Mujibur Rehman stopped in
Delhi and thanked India for its role in the independence of Bangladesh.
East-Bengal Crisis: India’s Foreign Policy The partition of Bengal in the 20 century has created a
great schism in the psyche of the people of Bengal. The first partition occurred in 1905 and the second
partition was in 1947. Because of the Hindu and Muslim dominions, Bengal again was divided into
the state of West Bengal of India and the province of East Bengal under Pakistan, renamed East
Pakistan in 1958. It separated the eastern areas with a Muslim majority from the western areas with a
Hindu majority.
The greatest exodus of people in human history was witnessed during the partition of Bengal.
Millions of Hindus migrated from East Pakistan to India and thousands of Muslims too went across
the borders to East Pakistan. Due to the coming of the refugees, there occurred the crisis of land and
food in West Bengal; and such condition continued for more than three decades. The present-day
Bangladesh, was a provincial state of Pakistan that existed in the Bengal region of the northeast of
8
South Asia from 1955 until 1971.
The partition of Bengal saw the mainstream revival of Hindu–Muslim riots that drove both Bengali
Muslims and Hindus further apart, leading to more unrest in Bengal. The districts of Bengal with a
Muslim majority favoured the division after approving the 3 June Plan presented by the Viceroy of
India Lord Mountbatten. It then merged with the new province of East Bengal of the Dominion of
Pakistan. During the years 1947-1954, East Bengal was an independent administrative unit which was
governed by the Pakistan Muslim League led by Nurul Amin. In 1955, the Bengali Prime minister
Muhammad Ali Bogra devolved the province of East Bengal and established the state as East Pakistan
with Dhaka its state capital. During the 1954 elections the Pakistan Muslim League led by the United
Front coalition of the Awami League, the Krishak Praja Party, the Democratic Party and Nizam-e-
Islam was completely defeated. The period between 1958 to 1971 is often regarded as a period of
mass repression, resentment, and political neglect and ignorance. Siding with the population of West,
the people of East Bengal unanimously voted for Fatima Jinnah during the 1965 presidential elections
against Ayub Khan. The economic disparity, impression that West Pakistan despite being less
populated than East Pakistan was ruling and prospering at its cost further popularized the Bengali
nationalism. In the 1970 general elections, the Awami League had won and secured the exclusive
mandate of East-Pakistan.
East Pakistan had an area of 147,570 square km, bordering India on three sides – East, North, and
West, and the Bay of Bengal to the South. It was one of the largest provincial states of Pakistan, with
the largest population, political representation, and economic share. The nine-month long war ended
on 16 December 1971, when the Pakistan Armed Forces were overrun in Dhaka. They ultimately
signed the instrument of surrender which resulted in the largest number of prisoners of war since
World War II. Finally on 16 December 1971, East Pakistan (East Bengal) was officially
disestablished and was succeeded as the independent state of Bangladesh.
Post-1971 Developments: On 20 December 1971, Z.A. Bhutto took over the charge of Chief Marshal
Law as well as President of Pakistan. After diplomatic level talks for several months, IndiaPakistan
Summit was held at Shimla in June 1972. Both Indira Gandhi and Z.A. Bhutto, assisted by their high
level delegation, discussed various issues arising out of the war and on general bilateral ties. After
prolonged negotiations, Bhutto agreed on essentially a bilateral approach to Indo-Pak relations. By the
end of the Shimla Summit, the accord was signed between the two nations which provided that both
the states would work to end the conflicts as well as disputes between them and pledged to work for
lasting friendship in the subcontinent. With these objectives in view, Indira Gandhi and Bhutto agreed
to (i) seek peaceful solutions to disputes and problems through bilateral negotiations and neither India
nor Pakistan would unilaterally change the existing situation; and (ii) not to use force against each
other, nor violate the territorial integrity, nor interfere in political freedom of each other.
Both the governments would discourage all propaganda against each other and encourage such news
items as would promote friendly ties. In order to normalize the relations between the two countries: (i)
all communication links would be re-established; (ii) transit facilities would be provided to enable the
people of two countries to have closure contacts; (iii) as far as possible, trade and economic
cooperation would be reestablished; and (iv) mutual exchange in the fields of science and culture
would be promoted.
The Summit meeting held in 1972 at Shimla between the two states also stated that both the countries
would not interfere in each other’s affairs, respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and
above all shall settle their disputes mutually without the intervention of a third party. Pakistan has
tried several times to raise the Kashmir issue in the UNO and Commonwealth Heads of the States and
Governments Conference. Pakistan also raised the issue in the Conference of Islamic Organization
held in 1991 where it got a resolution passed in its favour. Similar attempt was made by Pakistan at
the Organisation of Islamic Countries Conference, which was held in Islamabad in 1994, in which
almost a similar type of resolution was passed. Violation of Shimla Agreement, every time, strains the
relations between the two countries. It is primarily because India feels that such attempts mean
interference in India’s internal affairs.
9
The relations between the two countries became extremely bitter when India conducted its first
nuclear test in May 1974 at Pokhran in the deserts of Rajasthan. It was an explosion of a device for
peaceful use of nuclear energy, but it established India’s capability to acquire a nuclear bomb. The
tests shocked Bhutto and he said that Pakistan would never succumb to India’s ‘nuclear blackmail’. In
1977, Z.A. Bhutto was thrown out of power in a military coup led by General Ziaul Haq. Zia became
the President of Pakistan, held the office for over a decade and was killed in an air crash in 1988.
During the Janata government regime, Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai tried to improve India’s
relations with all its neighbours especially Pakistan. Several indications were made by both sides.
Foreign Minister A.B. Vajpayee’s visit to Pakistan was proved fruitful and the ice was broken in
1978. Again, in the second tenure of Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi’s period, several
initiatives were taken during the Zia regime in Pakistan, yet Zia avoided building confidence.
After Zia, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Indian counterpart Rajiv Gandhi initiated
direct negotiations in accordance with the Shimla Agreement and its commitment to bilateral ties. In
July 1985, a Joint Commission headed by the foreign ministers of the two countries reached an
agreement on various aspects of economic cooperation including agriculture, visas, tourism, telephone
communication, etc. In December the same year, the two states took up the issues of trade and
security and also agreed not to attack each other’s nuclear installations. The two nations also agreed to
hold negotiations to resolve the dispute over Siachin Glacier through talks. However, no decision
could be reached.
In 1988, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited Islamabad and signed three agreements, which again
pledged the two nations not to attack each other’s nuclear installations, developed ties in the field of
art, culture, archaeology, education, mass media and sports, and avoided double taxation on income
derived from international air transport to facilitate operations of airlines of two states. India also
facilitated reentry of Pakistan on the Commonwealth. In May 1989, a welcome development in Indo-
Pak ties took place, when a series of new and concrete measures to contain terrorism, drug trafficking,
smuggling and illicit border crossing was agreed by the two countries.
Lahore Declaration: The Lahore Declaration emphasized that the two Prime Ministers, A.B.
Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif shared ‘a vision of peace and stability between their countries and of
progress and prosperity for their peoples’. The two countries agreed to implement the Shimla Accord
‘in letter and spirit’, their commitment to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, and their
commitment to the objective of universal nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The two Prime
Ministers agreed that their governments, ‘shall intensify their efforts, to resolve all issues including
the issue of Jammu and Kashmir’; ‘shall refrain from intervention and interference in each other’s
internal affairs’. Thus, this declaration contained all noble ideals of friendship, cooperation, non-
interference, curbing terrorism and of good neighbours. The Lahore process was generally welcomed
in India as well as in the international community.
Nuclear Tests Developments: India’s ties with Pakistan were put under a strain again, after the two
countries conducted their nuclear tests in May 1998. Both states were subjected to economic sanctions
particularly by the United States. However, the two Prime Ministers met in September 1998 in New
York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and it was considered that hostility had subsided
and Sharif-Vajpayee meeting broke the ice as informal confidence building measures were initiated.
Pakistan’s nuclear tests were followed by the February 1999 Lahore Agreements between the two
Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Sharif. The agreements included confidence building measures such as
advance notice of ballistic missile testing and a continuation of their unilateral moratoria on nuclear
testing. However, diplomatic advances made that year, were undermined by Pakistan’s incursion into
Kargil. Under US diplomatic pressure, Prime Minister Sharif withdrew his troops, but lost power in
October 1999 due to a military coup in which Gen. Pervez Musharraf took over.
Kargil War and Aftermath: The Kargil War, also known as the Kargil Conflict, was an armed
conflict between India and Pakistan that took place between May and July, in the year 1999 in the
Kargil District of Kashmir. The cause of the war was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and
Kashmiri militants into positions on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), which serves as the
10
de facto border between the two states. The Indo-Pak ties are still critical. All the efforts made for
better ties between the two countries proved to have failed till now. Whenever the relationship
between both the nations becomes better, some or the other terrorist activities in India or Pakistan
such as bombing in Calcutta, Delhi, bombing in Samjhota Express (India) or Blast in Marriot Hotel,
Lahore, Karachi, Wazeeristan crises (Pakistan), etc. take place. As a result, such type of activities,
again strain the relations between both the nations.
Post Mumbai Attack: When a group of terrorists attacked Mumbai on 26 November 2008, the
bilateral ties between India and China turned sour. Cross-border terrorism was always a major
concern for India and terrorist camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir did not help matters at all. All
these reasons have severely hampered the bilateral relationship between the two nations. The
confidence building measures and other initiatives to bring peace to the subcontinent have been in
vain. Even after repeated requests from India to Pakistan to close down all terrorist camps in the
country, no action has been taken. According to the Pakistani President, terrorist groups are non-state
actors and the Government of Pakistan has no role to play in it, despite concrete evidence against
them.
(c) Indo-Sino Relations, Conflicts:
The Himalayan mountain chain separates the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India.
The Sino-Indian border passes through the Himalayan mountain range as well as across Nepal and
Bhutan (because of their location along the range). Nepal and Bhutan act as the buffer states for the
two hostile countries, India and China. Kashmir is also bordered by both China and India. Kashmir,
being a disputed territory, the unrest prevailing there and its location along the PRC border makes
India vulnerable to China’s stand to the Kashmir issue.
The two regions that have created a dispute between the two nations are Aksai Chin and Arunachal
Pradesh. Arunachal Pradesh lies close to the far east of India, and Aksai Chin lies close to the
northwest corner of India, at the point common to India, Pakistan, and the PRC. But the nations that
are a part of the dispute have signed agreements to honour the Line of Actual Control, and this border
dispute is not a major area of contention.
India and China have been claimed by many scholars as ‘cultural twins who have evolved from the
same cradle’. Both civilizations grew together in a parallel manner. The Indian epic, the Mahabharata,
contains references to China. Chinese written records also make references to certain Indian regions.
India and China share many common cultural beliefs and ideas. There are evidences of trade
happening between India and China much before the arrival of the imperialist powers to these
countries. Paper, silk, etc. were the main products that were traded along the Silk Road. It was
through the Silk Road that Buddhism reached China as it was spreading in Central Asia. Soon,
Buddhism became a major religion in China though its influence later declined in India. Thus,
Buddhism became a source that brought the two countries together. Efforts were made by scholars to
translate Buddhist texts into Chinese. The Silk Road became the medium through which cultural,
commercial and technological exchanges took place between the two countries. Meanwhile, the
Chinese Pilgrim Fa Hein also came to India through the Silk Road. In 405 CE, Batuo (464–495 CE)
and Bodhidharma visited China. Many students of Chinese origin came to study at the Nalanda
University. Even Aryabhatta’s texts were translated into Chinese.
The cultural exchanges continued till later when India was still struggling under the yoke of foreign
rule. Rabindranath Tagore had visited China twice. India and China were liberated from imperialist
yoke almost at the same time. India earned its independence in 1947, while China secured freedom
two years later.
The arrival of western imperialism in Asia had disturbed the traditional friendship between India and
China. In population, human resources and potential, India and China, the two giants of Asia, far
outstrip any other country of Asia. “They carry the weight of proud history stretching into mythology
and appear to be both ageless and timeless”. Cultural exchanges between the two countries had taken
place more than 2000 years back. But, in modern times it was at the Brussels Conference of 1927,
where several depressed nations had assembled, a joint statement was issued by the representatives of
11
China and India. It underlined the need for Sino-Indian cooperation in the task of liberation of Asia
from western imperialism. During the Japanese attack on Manchuria province of China in 1931 not
only ‘China Day’ was observed in India but a call was also given by Indian nationalists for boycotting
Japanese goods.
The Asian Relations Conference was convened in New Delhi in March 1947. At that time India was
not yet independent, but Jawaharlal Nehru was the Interim Prime Minister. The Chinese delegates,
sent by Chiang Kai-Shek’s KMT (Kuomintang) Government, objected to a map in which Tibet was
not shown as part of China. The Chinese also protested against India’s recognition of the Tibetan
delegation. However, KMT China did not show any concern when Pakistan-supported tribesmen
committed aggression on Kashmir. Meanwhile, Civil War in China was gradually eroding the
authority of KMT Government and communist hold was increasing. By the end of September 1949
Kuomintang Government lost its hold completely. It fled to Taiwan (Formosa), and mainland China
came under the control of Communist Party of China.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) was officially proclaimed in Peking on October 1, 1949. K.M.
Panikkar who was India’s Ambassador to China opined shortly before he was accredited to PRC that,
“with a Communist China cordial and intimate relations were out of question”. But, he hoped that an
area of cooperation would be worked out. He added: “The only area where our interests overlapped
was in Tibet”. India was among the first countries to have recognized the People’s Republic of China.
It was done on December 30, 1949.
India fully supported Communist China’s claim for representation in the United Nations. Efforts were
made to establish cordial relations between New Delhi and Peking. In view of India’s support to
China, several non-communist countries particularly the United States, expressed their displeasure.
However, India’s stand was based on merit of the Chinese case. India’s positive response to UN
decision declaring North Korea as aggressor in June 1950 caused unpleasantness in Peking, but when
the US wanted to censure China for its role in Korean crisis India stood by China, and this was fully
appreciated.
The Problem of Tibet: Tibet touches the Indian borders in the north. Besides India, its southern
borders touch Nepal and Burma, and in its north is Sinkiang, a province of China. It covers an area of
about 47,000 square miles and is located so high in the Himalayas that it is often described as the roof,
or terrace, of the world. Its political system was based on Buddhist faith. Its spiritual head, the Dalai
Lama was also the temporal or political chief of the country. Tibet’s social system resembled feudal
order and its political connections with China were vague and varied from time to time.
Tibet was a powerful state for a long time. However, during the 18th century a conflict on the
succession of the sixth Dalai Lama occurred between the Tibetans and the Mongols. China occupied
Lhasa, the capital of Tibet and selected the seventh Dalai Lama of its choice. Tibet was recognized as
part of China during most of the 19th century. In 1890, British rulers of India concluded a treaty with
China demarcating the Indo-Tibetan border. This treaty was rejected by Tibetan rulers. Meanwhile,
Russia had begun to interfere in Tibetan affairs with a view to bring it under its influence. Lord
Curzon, who was Governor-General of India, sent British Indian troops, under the command of
Young Husband, in 1904 to check Russian influence and bring Tibet under the British umbrella. The
Dalai Lama fled to China. In 1906 British India concluded a treaty with China whereby Britain
accepted Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. This ‘dictated’ treaty also provided that a British Agent
would be posted in Lhasa and India would construct postal system up to Gyangtse. India also acquired
the right to maintain troops in Tibet for the protection of trade routes. Anglo-Russian differences
pertaining to Tibet were sorted out by an Entente signed in 1907, whereby both Britain and Russia
accepted Chinese suzerainty in Tibet. Both the powers also agreed that they would deal with Tibet
only through China.
At the end of the Second World War, Chinese were unable to exercise their control over Tibet. Tibet
insisted that it was an autonomous country. India was interested in an autonomous Tibet, which could
be treated as a buffer state between British India and China. As Civil War began in China between the
KMT and the communists and Tibet’s status remained rather vague.
12
The government of newly established People’s Republic of China (PRC) announced on January 1,
1950 that one of the basic tasks of People’s Liberation Army would be to ‘liberate’ Tibet. This
determination was later reiterated by prominent Chinese leaders. When Indian Ambassador K.M.
Panikkar met Chinese Premier Chou En-lai to seek clarification, the Chinese Prime Minister made it
clear that the ‘liberation’ of Tibet was ‘a sacred duty’ of China, but his government would seek its
goal through negotiations, not by military action. India was satisfied with this assurance and
suggested direct China-Tibet talks, when Dalai Lama sought India’s assistance.
In October 1950, India learnt that China had launched a full-scale invasion of Tibet. India protested
and expressed ‘surprise’ and ‘regret’ at the Chinese action, particularly in view of Chinese assurance
that the issue would be peacefully resolved. The Chinese Government rejected India’s protest, and
accused India of being influenced by the imperialist powers. India, in turn, recognized Chinese
suzerainty and said that it had no intention of interfering in China’s internal affairs. The Dalai Lama
left Tibet and then made unsuccessful attempts to raise the Tibetan issue in the United Nations. China
refused to accept Tibetan autonomy. Eventually an agreement was signed by China and Tibet on May
23, 1951, which recognized full Chinese sovereignty over Tibet with limited Tibetan autonomy in
certain matters. India’s desire of full Tibetan autonomy within Chinese suzerainty was not fulfilled.
The agreement promised Tibetan ‘autonomy’ but provided that China would regulate Tibet’s external
relations; that Chinese army would be posted in Tibet for its meaningful defence, for reorganization of
the Tibetan army and to eventually merge it in the Chinese Army; that full respect would be given to
Dalai Lama who would return to Lhasa; that there would be full religious freedom in Tibet; that China
would cooperate in Tibet’s development; and that an administrative and military mission of China
would be based in Tibet. Thus, Tibet became, for all purposes, a Chinese territory.
India was criticized in several quarters both at home and at abroad for having abdicated its legitimate
interests in Tibet and for having sacrificed Tibetan autonomy in NOTES Self-Instructional Material
163 orders to please the Communist rulers of China. India’s Tibet policy has still remained India’s
Foreign Policy an item of severe criticism.
The Panchsheel Agreement: India was disappointed at China’s Tibet policy. But it did not allow its
friendship with China to be adversely affected. India continued to support China’s demand for
representation in the United Nations, not only at this stage but even during and after China’s
aggression on India in 1962. During the latter part of Korean crisis (1950-53) China appreciated
India’s principled stand. Negotiations started for a comprehensive trade agreement between India and
China. These resulted in the signing of an agreement by India and China concerning trade and
relations between the “Tibet Region of China” and India. This agreement was signed on 29 April
1954, for a period of eight years. India surrendered its extra-territorial rights in Tibet, and accepted
China’s full sovereignty over Tibet. Thus, it was accepted that Tibet was a region of China. India gave
up the right to station Indian army units in Yatung and Gyangtse, rationalized arrangement for border
trade and pilgrimage. India also surrendered its control over post and telegraph administration in
Tibet. The five principles of Panchsheel were also incorporated in the agreement. The Trade
Agreement was followed by visits of Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-lai to India in June 1954 and
of Prime Minister Nehru to China in October. The two Prime Ministers were warmly received in the
host countries.
At the end of Premier Chou’s visit to New Delhi (June 1954), the Prime Ministers of India and China
issued a joint statement emphasizing the five principles to guide and regulate the bilateral relations
between the two neighbours. It formalized the famous five principles popularly known as the
Panchsheel.
The five principles are:
1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty;
2. Mutual non-aggression;
3. Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs;
4. Equality and mutual benefit; and
5. Peaceful co-existence.
13
Nehru and Chou, besides reaffirming their faith in the five principles of Panchsheel, agreed that Tibet
was a part of People’s Republic of China. The five principles of Panchsheel were adopted by the
Bandung Conference (1955) with minor modifications. The principles were later adopted by many
countries as the basis of their bilateral relations.
The four-year period after signing the Panchsheel has been described as the years of ‘Sino-Indian
honeymoon’ and of “Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai”. Premier Chou Enlai paid four visits to India during the
period 1954 to 1957. The friendship between China and India reached its zenith at the Bandung
(Indonesia) Conference of AfroAsian nations in April 1955. Chou and Nehru worked in closest
cooperation at Bandung.
After the Conference of Afro-Asian Nations (Bandung), India gave full moral and diplomatic support
to China’s claim to Formosa and the off shore islands of Quemoy and Matsu. The KMT Government
of China had shifted to Formosa in 1949 and PRC wanted to liberate it. China supported India’s claim
to Portuguese possession of Goa. But Sino-Indian relations had first taste of conflict when in July
1958 maps of China, published in China Pictorial, showed certain Indian territories as part of China.
In those maps, about 36,000 square miles of Indian Territory in North-East, and about 12,000 square
miles in North-West was shown as part of China. When India drew the attention of China to these
improper maps, Peking told New Delhi that these were reproductions of old (KMT) maps and that
China had no time to undertake a survey of China’s borders. Pending such survey, Chinese
Government would not make changes ‘in the boundary”. This was the beginning of the dispute over
borders between India and China.
Revolt in Tibet: India China relations became sour on account of the manner in which China handled
the revolt that Tibetans had organized. Very early after independence, Tibet became a major issue in
Sino-Indian relations. Within five years of the signing of Panchsheel Agreement, a revolt was
organized by the Tibetans against Chinese domination and interference in their religious matters. The
cause of revolt, according to China and leftist scholars elsewhere, was Tibetan non-cooperation in the
land reforms initiated by China against existing feudal system in Tibet. However, this argument was
rejected by Tibetans, who insisted that the entry of Chinese troops to destroy Tibetan autonomy was
the main cause of uprising. It was claimed on behalf of China that roads were constructed, new
hospitals established and airports were built, slavery was done away with and Marxist ideology was
preached. Tibetans did not approve of Chinese control in any form or manner.
The Khampa revolt in China began in 1956. Chinese authorities claimed that this revolt was
engineered by the privileged class of the old social order. These elements were encouraged by foreign
vested interest and imperialists.
In the middle of March 1959, there was a sudden uprising in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. It led to
outbreak of hostilities between the Tibetans and the Chinese forces. China blamed that local special
agents were using India’s Kalimpong as a base. The revolt was put down by China with a heavy hand
and the Chinese army entrenched itself well across the borders of India. Tibet had lost its autonomy.
The Dalai Lama fled from his country and is living in India since 1959. He was followed by
thousands of Tibetans. Political asylum was granted by India to the Dalai Lama, but he was advised
not to organize any anti-China resistance on Indian soil. India made it clear that while it sympathized
with Tibetans in their aspirations for autonomy, yet it did not wish to interfere in the developments in
Tibet, as this country had already acknowledged that Tibet was a region of China. Within India, there
were strong protests at the treatment meted out to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Nehru was bitterly
criticized for his ‘inactivity’ in the face of Tibetan events.
China did not appreciate India’s sympathies to Tibetans, even though India fully supported Chinese
legal position in Tibet. The Sino-Indian rift was formalized simply because India had granted asylum
to the Dalai Lama on humanitarian considerations. China refused to appreciate these sentiments. The
grant of asylum by India to the Dalai Lama was described as an enemy-like act and China charged
that India was being expansionist. There was no truth in these allegations. China even imposed
restrictions on Indian tourists and traders.
The Border Dispute: The developments in Tibet had undermined India’s faith in China’s sincerity. It
14
was felt in India that, as if to retaliate against what had happened in Tibet, China began intrusions in
Indian Territory. To justify their action, they accused that Indian armed personnel had ‘unlawfully
intruded’ into ‘Chinese territory’ despite ‘solemn warning by the Chinese frontier guards’. This meant
that China was claiming several thousand miles of Indian Territory as its own and was declaring the
presence of Indian troops in their own territory as intrusion in ‘Chinese territory’.
There is over 2200 mile long border between India and China. The boundary line was regulated by
agreements and administrative arrangements. Besides, the natural dividing line is also so clear that
there could hardly be any doubt regarding exact border between the two countries. The entire Sino-
Indian border can be generally divided into three areas: the border to the east of Bhutan, the central
border across Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, and the border separating Jammu &
Kashmir from Chinese territories of Sinkiang and Tibet. The border dispute relates mainly to
McMahon Line in North-East, and Ladakh in North-West.
The McMahon Line: This is the boundary line between the two countries, east of Bhutan. India has
always treated the McMahon Line as the lawfully demarcated border between India and China. But,
China condemned it as ‘imperialist line’. The McMahon Line was determined in 1914 at a conference
of the representatives of British India, Tibet and China, held at Shimla. The conference was held to
sort out border differences between Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim and Tibet. The Secretary of State for India
(in British Cabinet) Arthur Henry McMahon represented India in the Shimla Conference. An
agreement was concluded which divided Tibet into Inner Tibet and Outer Tibet. The boundary
between Outer Tibet and India was demarcated at the high mountain peaks. The line was drawn on the
suggestion of McMahon who himself drew a line by a red pen on the map. The line so drawn came to
be known as the McMahon Line. It is in a way natural boundary also as it passes through Tibet
Plateau in the north and Indian hills in the South. The map was signed by representatives of British
India, Tibet and China. But, the Chinese Government did not ratify it. Nevertheless, no government of
China ever disputed this boundary line; India always accepted it.
Sir Henry McMahon had drawn the line using a fat nib, allowing a ten-kilometre margin for error.
There are long stretches of land in the central frontier, and neither China nor India knows where the
disputed border lies exactly. Both Indian and Chinese military guards the Himalayan hillsides as if
trying to register their presence in the boundary.
The Line is a symbol of China’s humiliation as it had been only a mute spectator in its ratification.
China’s acceptance of the Line will signify the recognition of Tibet’s independence. For long, the
British contended China’s arguments stating that Tibet was an independent country before 1951, thus
undermining Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. But now they argue that suzerainty is an outdated
concept, and that Tibet is very much a part of People’s Republic of China. This inconsistency in
British policy is largely been seen as a recognition of the power of a resurgent China. Besides, India
has not only provided political asylum to the Dalai Lama, but also to a large Tibetan population, thus
rendering it power and leverage in the Tibetan issue. But India has time and again made it clear that it
will not interfere in the Tibet issue. Many scholars claim that China’s claim to Arunachal Pradesh is
its way of deviating attention from the Tibet issue.
Ladakh: Ladakh is, and has always been, a part of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The State was
under British paramountcy till independence and later acceded to India, as an integral part of this
country. Although Ladakh-China border was not demarcated by any treaty, yet India and China have
accepted the existing boundary for centuries. This boundary was always shown by India in its maps.
The tourists who came to India from time to time also mentioned this border in their writings. It was
made clear in a note sent by India to China in 1899 that Aksai Chin was a part of Indian Territory.
The revenue records of the State of Jammu & Kashmir also confirm that Aksai Chin was always a
part of Ladakh region of Jammu & Kashmir.
Origin of the Border Dispute: A road was built by the Chinese across the Aksai Chin area during
1956-57. The road was meant to open Western Tibet to Chinese immigrants and to divert its trade
from its traditional southward direction into Western China and the Soviet Union. Earlier, in July
1954 (soon after the Trade Agreement incorporating Panchsheel was signed), China had sent a protest
15
note to India alleging that Indian troops had illegally occupied Bu-Je (Barahooti), an area claimed to
be within Chinese territory. India rejected this protest saying that Barahooti was situated within Indian
State of Uttar Pradesh and an Indian post had been there for a long time. India also mentioned that
Tibet-based Chinese officials had often been intruding into this Indian Territory. During Nehru’s visit
to China in October 1954, Chou En-lai dismissed it as a minor incident.
India-China War, 1962: To begin with Chinese troops crossed the McMahon Line in NEFA in the
eastern sector on September 8, 1962, and occupied a good part of Indian Territory. Pressed by
political compulsions, Nehru told the media on October 13, 1962 that his government had asked the
army to throw the Chinese out of our territory. This provoked the Chinese.
The Chinese launched a massive attack on October 20, 1962 in North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA)
as well as in the Ladakh Sector. Two important Indian posts in NEFA were captured within 24 hours.
According to Krishna Menon, the attack was so massive that it appeared that locust had unleashed its
fury on the Indian frontiers. By October 25, Chinese were inside India about 16 miles south of
McMahon Line. After about two weeks of less vigorous fighting the Chinese began attack on a very
large scale on November 15 in both NEFA and Ladakh sectors. By November 16, the Chinese had
crossed Bomdila and reached the plains of Assam. The entire area in Ladakh that China was claiming
was captured by its army. The victorious Chinese, in the eastern sector, reached a spot in Assam
overlooking River Brahmaputra, plains of Assam and the Bay of Bengal.
Indian army suffered heavy casualties, though Chinese losses were even heavier. But despite such
serious level of warfare, formal declaration of war was not made, and diplomatic missions in both the
countries were not closed down. The Ambassadors left their missions, but the two Embassies in
Peking and New Delhi functioned with skeleton staff for many years.
Meanwhile, on the urgent request of India, both Britain and the United States rushed necessary war
material needed by the Indian army particularly for mountain warfare. Suddenly on November 21,
1962 the Chinese announced unilateral ceasefire. Earlier China had made a three-point proposal for
cease-fire on October 26, 1962. China had suggested that both countries accept cease-fire and agree to
honour the line of actual control (LAC) and that both the armies withdraw 20 km from the LAC on
their sides. Secondly, even if India refused to withdraw, China would unilaterally withdraw 20 km
from the north of LAC, provided both countries respected the line of control. Thirdly, the two Prime
Ministers should confer to find a solution to the problem. India rejected the proposals, and suggested
that China restore the status quo ante as on September 8, 1962. This was not accepted by China.
China initiated a powerful anti-India campaign by propagating that India was no longer non-aligned
and that it was firmly in the American imperialist camp. India, however, had not changed its policy.
Even after this humiliation, India continued to support China in regard to Taiwan and Tibet and fully
backed China’s efforts for representation in the United Nations. It was China who had moved closer
to Pakistan, shifted its position on Kashmir and gradually had become a major source of supply of
military and economic aid to Pakistan.
Sino-Indian Relations (1965-Present): China developed close relations with Islamic Pakistan. It was
a strange combination which was meant mainly to isolate India. During India-Pakistan war of 1965,
China clearly demonstrated its hostility towards India and gave moral and diplomatic support to
Pakistan. China had already become aid giver to Pakistan. During the 1965 war, Indian troops
captured from Pakistanis not only American weapons but also armaments with Chinese markings.
During the war, China gave an ultimatum to India on September 16, 1965 asking India to vacate 56
military establishments on India-Sikkim-China border, which, according to China, were illegally
constructed by India. China gave three days’ time to withdraw from the allegedly illegal
establishments, failing which India would have to face serious consequences. This ultimatum was
meant to show China’s solidarity with Pakistan. But, big Powers got disturbed and they gave a stern
warning to China not to precipitate the matter. Prime Minister Shastri clearly told China that there was
no truth in the alleged violation of Sikkim-China boundary by India, and India rejected all Chinese
claims on Indian Territory.
Sikkim: The Chinese reaction was very strong when people of Sikkim rose in revolt (1974- 75)
16
against their ruler the Chogyal, and later when Sikkim’s request for merger with India was accepted
and it became a state within the Indian Union. China blamed India for the problems in Sikkim, and
accused her of ‘expansionism’. China stated that it “absolutely does not recognize” Sikkim’s status as
part of India and that India was trying to create “a great Indian Empire with the backing of Moscow”.
(d) Indo-Sri Lanka Relations: Sri Lanka became independent on 4 February 1948 from the
British, just after less than six month of India’s independence, and also became a member of the
Commonwealth of Nations. It discarded its dominion status and became a republic. It is an active
member of NAM since 1961. Sri Lanka also has full faith in the United Nations and its ideals of
world peace. It is one of the founding members of SAARC. Like India and other third world
countries, it also followed the policy of non-alignment.
A territorial dispute arose regarding the ownership of a one square mile uninhabited island called
Kacchativu, locating off the Jaffna coast in Palk Strait. In the month of March during the festival of
St. Anthony, pilgrims from both India and Sri Lanka used to go to Kacchativu Island every year for
four-day worship at the local Roman Catholic Church. India protested over the presence of Sri Lanka
police during the festival in 1986. This caused conflict between the two nations and both were
interested to avoid a serious situation. At last, the pending issue took more than five years to conclude
a final agreement regarding this Island. In June 1974, the Prime Ministers of the two countries
discussed about involving territorial issue and navigational fishing rights in the Palk Straits. Finally,
both the leaders concluded a comprehensive agreement on the demarcation of maritime boundary and
India accepted Sri Lanka’s ownership of the Kacchativu Island.
Sri Lanka is India’s neighbour and since independence, India has made it clear that it wants to have
good friendly ties with all its neighbours. India has made it clear that it has no territorial ambitions as
India already has vast areas with abundant natural resources yet to be exploited. India has also
declared that despite the fact that it is a big state, yet it does not want to play the role of a big brother
but wants to deal with its small neighbours on terms of sovereign equality and respects territorial
integrity of every other state.
Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Problem: India’s Foreign Policy India and Sri Lanka have been maintaining
cordial relations from time immemorial and it has its roots in history. The same cordial relationship
continued in the early phase of India’s foreign relations. The era of warmth suddenly came to an end
because of the racial disturbances in Sri Lanka. After independence, Prime Minister Dudley S.
Senanaike of Sri Lanka assured justice to the Tamils. He told the Tamils that they should not fear the
Sinhalese. After the death of Senanaike, discrimination allegedly began against the Tamils. Although
the two-language system which was adopted during the regime of Senanaike was done away with and
the Official Language Act, 1956 declared Sinhalese to be the sole official language of Sri Lanka. The
Tamils opposed this Act and as a result it led to ethnic riots. In 1957, an agreement between Prime
Minister Bandaranaike and Tamil leader Chelvanayakam was concluded in which Tamil was
recognized as the language of national minority.
DS Senanaike’s successor Sir John Kotelawala also emphasized the policy of non-alignment.
However, he was strongly against communist ideology and advocated pro-West policy. Kotelawala
wanted to cooperate with all anti-communist forces in the world. He bitterly opposed imperialism and
considered the influence of Soviet Union in Eastern Europe as dangerous as any other form of
imperialism.
The Tamilian Problem: Jaffna Province in northern Sri Lanka has a large concentration of Tamilian
people. The problem became serious when Tamilians began demanding a national homeland or
‘Republic of Eelam’ in an area of about 18000 sq km in northern Sri Lanka. The Tamil speaking
people are of Dravidian origin and generally believe in Hinduism. They constitute about 15 per cent
of total population. The remaining Sinhalese are of Aryan origin and majority of them are Buddhists.
During the colonial period the British had taken a large number of plantation workers to Ceylon,
mainly from erstwhile Madras Presidency. Many more went on their own looking out for
employment.
There are essentially two categories of Tamilians in Sri Lanka. There are about one million people,
17
whose forefathers migrated from India in ancient times. They are known as Ceylon Tamils. The other
category includes another about one million people, many of them without citizenship, who went to
Sri Lanka during the nineteenth century. The problem of their status dominated early India-Sri Lanka
relations. The conflict with Ceylon Tamils came later. The Sinhalese fear Tamil domination, and that
is the principal reason behind the conflict. The difference in the two categories of people was
highlighted by the British rulers. Tamils who were taken as plantation workers were encouraged as a
check on Sinhalese nationalism. Tamils managed to enter the administrative structure and took control
of even trade and professions. Sinhalese nationalism began to grow by 1931. Tamils demanded 50 per
cent reservation for all minorities. The demand was turned down. The Soulbury Constitution of 1946
sought to give some representation to Tamils in the Parliament of the Island.
After independence, justice was assured to the Tamils by Prime Minister Dudley S. Senanayeke. He
told Tamils that they should not fear the Sinhalese. Discrimination against the Tamils allegedly began
after Senanayeke’s death. The two-language system adopted during Senanayeke’s time was discarded,
and official Language Act, 1956 declared Sinhalese to be the sole official language of Sri Lanka. This
was opposed by the Tamils, and it led to ethnic riots. An agreement was concluded in 1957 between
Prime Minister Bandaranaike and Tamil leader Chelavanayakam which recognized Tamil as the
language of national minority. Legislation was enacted in 1958 which provided for appropriate use of
Tamil language in education, government services’ entrance examination, and administration of
northern and eastern provinces. But, neither the agreement of 1957 nor the Act of 1958 could be
effectively implemented. The representation of Tamilians in public service in 1948 was 30 per cent.
By 1975 it had fallen to mere five percent. Their representation in the army and police was brought
down heavily, and Tamils were discriminated against in matters of education. Sinhalese were
encouraged to settle down in large numbers in the Tamil-dominated areas. In 1948 about 31 per cent
university students were Tamils; by 1970 it came down to’ 16 per cent. The citizenship laws of 1948
and 1949 deprived about 10 lakh Tamils (who had gone to Ceylon in nineteenth century) of political
rights.
The foremost leader of Tamil nationalists S. J. V. Chelavanayakam led several non-violent peaceful
agitations for their rights, during the 1950s under the banner of the Federal Party. After the death of
Chelavanayakam liberal Tamils were reduced to a minority, and the Federal Party changed its name to
Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). It was led by Amrithalingam who did not have much faith in
non-violent means. The Tamil youth who had lost faith in non-violence organized themselves into the
Liberation Tigers. The aim of the ‘Tigers’ is a sovereign Tamil state or Eelam. By 1953 many
Sinhalese as well as Tamils had become subjects of ‘inflated fear’.
Nehru-Kotelawala Agreement, 1953: An agreement between the two Prime Ministers, Nehru and
Kotelawala was signed in 1953 for finding a solution to the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. The main
features of the agreement were as follows:
 The government of Sri Lanka would register the names of those people of Indian origin who wanted
to stay permanently in this country.
 Those who did not want to become citizens of Sri Lanka would be sent back to India.
 Illegal migration from India to Sri Lanka would be checked in effective manner.
 The applications for citizenship pending for two years or more would be quickly disposed off by the
government of Sri Lanka.
 A separate electoral register would be maintained for the people of Indian origin to enable them to
elect their representatives proportionately.
 People of Indian origin who could not be granted the Lankan citizenship would be allowed to stay
on as aliens.
When China invaded India in 1962, Sri Lanka played a very important role in resolving the disputes
between India and China. Accordingly Bandarnaike, the then Prime Minister of Sri Lanka visited
China and discussed the proposals made by six nations at Colombo, commonly known as Colombo
proposals or plan, for settlement of Sino-India dispute.
India and Sri Lanka established diplomatic relations when the latter gained its independence in 1948.
18
Both nations proceeded to establish extensive cultural, commercial, strategic and defence ties to
establish a common sphere of influence in the region, adopting non-alignment to control Western and
Soviet influence. The close relationship between the then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and
the Sri Lankan Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike led to the development of strong bilateral
relations. In 1971, Indian armed forces helped squash a Communist rebellion against the Sri Lankan
government.
However, the question of Sri Lankan Tamils which consist of nearly 30 per cent of the population
created more serious problems and has badly strained the relations of the two states. The Sinhalese
(Buddhists) and the Tamil (Hindus) are being divided sharply by the Anglo-US imperialists and their
Pakistani agents. The USA is reported to have established its base at the sensitive Trincomalese port
and this constitutes a serious threat to the security of India. Sri Lanka had also forged links with Israel
and with the active help of its patrons abroad was engaged in the barbarous game of wiping out the
Tamil population from northern parts of the island.
In October 1964, the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka Sirimavo Bandarnaike visited India. After
prolonged negotiations at diplomatic level, both Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Mrs
Bandarnaike signed an agreement on 24 October 1964. Both the leaders sought to solve the problem
of 9 lakh 75 thousand stateless persons in Sri Lanka. From this agreement, nearly 3 lakh people were
granted Sri Lankan citizenship and nearly 5 lakh 25 thousand people were granted Indian citizenship.
The fate of the remaining 1 lakh 50 thousand stateless people is still to be decided. Again when
Sirimavo Bandarnaike became the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, she visited India in January 1974
during her second tenure and discussed with Indian counterpart Indira Gandhi about remaining
stateless persons. A fresh agreement were signed between these two leaders in which half of the
persons were granted Indian nationals and rest of half were given to citizenship of Sri Lanka. Hence,
this issue of stateless persons was sought to be peacefully settled.
From this problem, Colombo had been irresponsibly accusing New Delhi of helping the Tamil
terrorists who were then demanding separate Tamil state. Unless the Sri Lankan government satisfies
the legitimate demand of the Tamils, respects their human rights, concedes autonomy to the districts
inhabited by them within the framework of Sri Lankan federalism, neither they nor their imperialist
overlords can prevent the partition of the island. New Delhi, of course, had to be watchful about the
Sri Lankan government’s attempt to mortgage the island with the Anglo-US-Israel-Pakistan axis and
would have to decide when to save the island from these gangsters by taking a bold step.
India and Sri Lanka started their economic cooperation very late. Both the states are major exporters
of tea, hence, their relationship for some time was considered as competitive. India’s economic
relationship this country expanded since 1966 when India extended a loan of 2 crore to enable Sri
Lanka to import food products from India. The items like dried fish, textiles and dried chillies were to
be imported from India and again in 1967 another credit of 5 crore extended for the purchasing of
some electrical and telecommunication equipment, railway coaches and wagons, machines and
machine tools and commercial vehicles, etc.
In July 1987, an accord was signed between Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan
President, Junius Richard Jayawardene to usher into an era of peace and prosperity. The new accord
bypasses direct negotiation between the Tamils and Jayawardene administration. It places primary
responsibility on India for effective implementation and disarming of Tamil Tigers. The LTTE and
the different political groups in Sri Lanka were opposed to such an accord.
The Indo-Sri Lankan Accord, which had been unpopular amongst Sri Lankans for giving India a
major influence, now, became a source of nationalist anger and resentment as the IPKF (Indian Peace
Keeping Force – Shanti Sena) was drawn fully into the conflict. Sri Lankans protested the presence of
the IPKF, and the newly-elected Sri Lankan president Ranasinghe Premadasa demanded its
withdrawal, which was completed by March 1990. On 21 May, 1992, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated
and the LTTE was alleged to be the perpetrator. As a result India declared the LTTE to be a terrorist
outfit in 1992. Bilateral relations improved in the 1990s and India supported the peace process but has
resisted calls to get involved again.
19
Lines of credit: In the recent past, three lines of credit were extended to Sri Lanka: US$100 million
for capital goods, consumer durables, consultancy services and food items, US$31 million for supply
of 300,000 MT of wheat and US$150 million for purchase of petroleum products. All of these lines of
credit have been fully utilized. Another line of credit of US$100 million is now being made available
for rehabilitation of the Colombo-Matara railway. A number of development projects are
implemented under ‘Aid to Sri Lanka’ funds. In 2006–07, the budget for ‘Aid to Sri Lanka’ was ` 28.2
crores.
Small development projects: An MoU on Cooperation in Small Development Projects has been
signed. Projects for providing fishing equipments to the fishermen in the East of Sri Lanka and solar
energy aided computer education in 25 rural schools in Eastern Sri Lanka are under consideration.
Health projects: India has supplied medical equipments to hospitals at Hambantota and Point Pedro,
supplied 4 state of the art ambulances to the Central Province, implemented a cataract eye surgery
programme for 1500 people in the Central Province and implemented a project of renovation of OT at
Dickoya hospital. The projects under consideration are: Construction of a 150-bed hospital at
Dickoya, up gradation of the hospital at Trincomalee and a US$7.5 million grant for setting up a
Cancer India’s Foreign Policy Hospital in Colombo.
Education projects: Upgradation of the educational infrastructure of the schools in the Central
province including teachers’ training, setting up of 10 computer labs, setting up of 20 e-libraries
(Nenasalas), Mahatma Gandhi scholarship scheme for +2 students and setting up of a vocational
training centre in Puttalam. India also contributes to the Ceylon Workers Education Trust that gives
scholarships to the children of estate workers.
Training: A training programme for 465 Sri Lankan Police officers was commenced in December
2005. Another 400 Sri Lankan Police personnel are being trained for the course of ‘Maintenance of
Public Order’.
Indo-Sri Lanka ties have undergone a qualitative and quantitative transformation in the recent times.
Both have close political ties, trade and investments have increased dramatically, infrastructural
linkages are constantly being augmented, defence collaboration has increased and there is a general,
broad-based improvement across all sectors of bilateral cooperation. India was the first state to
respond to the request of Sri Lanka for assistance after the tsunami in December 2004. India assisted
to evacuate 430 Sri Lanka citizens from Lebanon, first to Cyprus by Indian Navy ships and then to
New Delhi and sent to Colombo by special Air India flights.

************************************************************************

20