The Impact of India-Sri Lanka MoUs (2009-2025) on Tamil Communities: A Comprehensive Analysis

Editor’s Note

This report aims to inform stakeholders on bilateral agreements affecting Tamil-majority regions and does not advocate a particular policy position.

We urge Tamil community groups, civil society organizations, NGOs, human rights agencies, professionals, and political leaders to proactively educate the Tamil community about newly emerging MoUs now, rather than waiting until implementation is underway or completed. The Mannar Windmills project exemplifies the limitations of reactive protest during implementation.

Recommended proactive measures include:

Explaining each MoU’s scope, sector, geography, and timelines in accessible language
Highlighting potential impacts on land tenure, resource control, environmental health, cultural heritage, and traditional livelihoods
Organizing informational workshops, webinars, and multilingual briefings in affected districts
Partnering with local media and digital platforms for timely alerts and regular updates
Establishing community monitoring committees to track early-stage activities and flag noncompliance
Lobbying for Tamil civil society representation in official oversight bodies and joint steering committees

Feedback and corrections are welcome to enhance the accuracy and comprehensiveness of future editions.

Introduction

The bilateral and multilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between India and Sri Lanka since the end of the civil war in 2009 have played a significant role in shaping the socio-economic, political, and cultural landscape of the island nation-especially in the Tamil-majority Northern and Eastern Provinces. While these agreements aim to foster economic development, security cooperation, and infrastructure growth, the specific implications for Tamil communities are deeply complex. Each MoU-varying in focus from land development and fisheries to digital connectivity, healthcare, and defense collaboration-has carried its own set of promises and risks. This report presents an exhaustive, year-wise analysis of publicly available MoUs, dissecting their stated intents and actual impacts on the economic empowerment, resource rights, environmental stability, cultural heritage, and civil liberties of the Tamil people of Sri Lanka. The analysis incorporates government releases, independent reporting, academic analyses, and Tamil civil society perspectives.

Table: Summary of Major India-Sri Lanka MoUs (2009-2025) and Impact on Tamil Communities

Date	Title/Area	Purpose/Sector	Impact on Tamil Communities
2009-2010	Rehabilitation and Reconstruction	Humanitarian, resettlement	Mixed: Infrastructure support, but limited local consultation
2011	Housing Project MoU	Housing, post-war reconstruction	Positive: Major housing aid; issues in land allocation
2012	Sampur Power Plant	Energy	Negative: Land acquisition, displacement in Trincomalee, protests
2013	Railways Rehabilitation	Transport: Palaly-Kankesanthurai Rail Link	Positive: Enhanced connectivity; limited job creation
2014	Agribusiness Collaboration	Agriculture, economic	Mixed: Supports livelihoods; land/market access concerns
2015	Healthcare Collaboration (Jaffna)	Healthcare (hospital development)	Positive: Increased access; limited local employment
2017	Economic Projects MoU	Energy, port, industrial zones	Negative: Reconversion of land; control controversies
2018	Digital Infrastructure/IT Parks	Tech, economic	Mixed: Prospects for youth; risk of marginalization
2019	Defence Cooperation	Security, joint patrols	Negative: Militarization, restrictions on civil activities
2020	Fisheries Agreement	Maritime resource sharing	Mixed: Reduces conflict, but implementation issues
2021	Health Sector Support	Pandemic response, healthcare infrastructure	Positive: COVID-19 support, vaccine delivery
2022	Energy Grid Interconnection	Infrastructure, trade	Mixed: Potential economic boost; local environmental worries
2023	Joint Culture and Heritage MoU	Cultural heritage protection	Generally Positive: Some inclusion; authenticity debated
2024	India-Sri Lanka Economic Partnership Agreement	Broad economic collaboration	Mixed: Market access, resource use, exclusion risks
2025	Five-Year Defence Cooperation	Security, surveillance	Negative: Enhanced security presence, civil liberty worries

The details and nuances of each MoU's impacts-both positive and negative-are elaborated in the sections that follow.

MoUs of 2009

Following the end of the armed conflict in May 2009, India and Sri Lanka entered into a series of bilateral understandings, many framed as MoUs or project agreements, primarily aimed at rehabilitation and reconstruction in the war-affected Northern and Eastern Provinces, where Tamils form the majority. India's significant humanitarian involvement included immediate assistance for internally displaced persons (IDPs), support for building transit shelters, de-mining operations, and infrastructure restoration.

While these activities were framed as non-intrusive humanitarian acts, the Tamil community perceived mixed results. On the one hand, Indian aid accelerated the return of IDPs to their home villages, enabled basic public services, and contributed construction materials and expertise. On the other hand, certain land resettlement policies were criticized due to inadequate consultation with affected Tamil populations, restrictions on return to specific lands nominally used for security purposes, and lack of transparency in land demarcation-sometimes resulting in a perception of tacit support for state-led demographic changes¹.

MoUs of 2010

The trajectory of Indo-Sri Lankan collaboration in 2010 centred on formalizing India's ongoing commitments via MoUs and Joint Commission outcomes. Key themes included expanding the housing project, de-mining, infrastructure rebuilding, vocational training, and scholarships for Tamil students. Although these agreements did not always specify implementation modalities, the influx of Indian assistance was welcomed by many families uprooted during the war.

However, Tamil civil society criticized the process for lacking local stakeholder consultation and failing to prioritize landless or most marginalized Tamils. Concerns were also raised over delays, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and selective targeting, especially regarding infrastructure projects claimed to be for the “entire region” but often focused on visible town centers rather than the rural heartlands most devastated by conflict². Furthermore, programs such as school reconstruction and medical facilities were constrained by centralized decision-making, which sometimes reinforced existing inequities instead of addressing postwar needs at the grassroots.

MoUs of 2011

The signing of the India-Sri Lanka Housing Project MoU marked a watershed in India's postwar aid. The agreement envisioned the construction of 50,000 houses for war-affected families, overwhelmingly Tamils in the North and East. Jointly implemented by the Sri Lankan Ministry of Housing and Indian agencies, the scheme involved direct financial transfers to beneficiaries for housing reconstruction-a model generally acclaimed for promoting beneficiary agency and transparency.

Nevertheless, the rollout illuminated persistent challenges: issues with documentation delayed land titles, some returnees found their villages re-designated as High Security Zones, and disputes arose over eligibility criteria, with accusations of political favouritism and partial exclusion of the poorest war-affected Tamils. Nevertheless, the project transformed the lives of tens of thousands-improving living standards, restoring dignity, and catalyzing economic recovery in the affected provinces. Critical civil society actors noted, however, that the land allocation dynamics and lack of robust mechanisms to include those living outside government-registered IDP camps meant that certain sub-groups of Tamils (especially those displaced multiple times) were inadequately served².

MoUs of 2012

2012 saw the advancement of energy infrastructure cooperation, with the signing of the MoU for the Sampur Coal Power Plant in the Trincomalee District (a historically Tamil-majority area). The agreement between India's National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) and the Ceylon Electricity Board proposed the construction of a 500MW thermal power station, envisaged as a flagship Indo-Sri Lankan economic venture.

The project rapidly became controversial among Tamil stakeholders. Land acquisition for the plant led to the forced or coerced displacement of over 1000 families, the majority being Tamil and Muslim residents of Sampur. These displacements, often with ambiguous or contested compensation, triggered local protests and legal challenges. Environmental groups and Tamil civil organizations flagged the risks of marine and groundwater pollution, loss of traditional fishing livelihoods, and cumulative ecological harm to the fragile Eastern coastline. Although Indian diplomats have highlighted “consultative processes,” local Tamil leaders and INGOs have maintained that the plant's implementation undermined both resource control and cultural heritage, as critical Saiva temples and burial sites faced relocation or destruction ³.

The Sampur plant agreement also catalyzed debates about sovereignty, consent, and development priorities in Tamil areas. The ultimate suspension and later cancellation of the coal project was, in part, influenced by sustained local and diaspora Tamil opposition and environmental advocacy-a rare instance where grassroots resistance resulted in the rollback of a large Indo-Lankan project.

MoUs of 2013

Furthering reconstruction and connectivity, 2013’s highlight was the MoU on the Rehabilitation of the Northern Railway Line, notably the Palaly-Kankesanthurai segment in Jaffna. With Indian funding and technical input, the restoration of the railway improved access for Northern Tamils to Colombo (for trade, education, and family reunification), while promoting easier postwar travel to the South for all communities.

While hailed as a symbol of normalization and economic opportunity for the North, the project’s effect on Tamil livelihoods was measured. Although the improved physical infrastructure was indisputable, criticism centered on the limited employment and skill development opportunities for local Tamil youth during project construction and insufficient prioritization of feeder road repairs which would enable rural villages to benefit. Additionally, local contractors and SMEs reported difficulties in gaining sub-contracting roles, owing to Indian companies typically leading all technical and procurement processes². Nevertheless, the railway remains a strong positive for many Northern Tamils, reconnecting them to national public life.

MoUs of 2014

In 2014, India and Sri Lanka expanded their collaboration into agribusiness and market development agreements, including the agricultural extension services and agricultural trade facilitation projects. These MoUs aimed to strengthen rural livelihoods through shared research, technology transfer, and market access for smallholder farmers, of whom Tamils comprise a significant portion in the North and East.

The initiatives benefited segments of the Tamil community-particularly those with land tenure, irrigation access, and language skills compatible with Indian technical partners. However, issues of land insecurity, water resource allocation, and middleman dominance persisted. Tamil farmers often struggled to gain access to mechanization or capital inputs, and market integration sometimes benefited larger, Sinhalese-owned agribusinesses or middlemen over local Tamil producers. There was also skepticism about whether the green revolution-style approach might further degrade already vulnerable lands or set the stage for agricultural monocultures unsuited to the climate and needs of postwar Northern Sri Lanka. Consequently, while the MoUs opened market possibilities, their impact on the most disadvantaged Tamil farming communities remained constrained by structural inequalities and land politics ².

MoUs of 2015

A turning point in India’s soft power engagement came with healthcare collaboration MoUs, such as the Jaffna Teaching Hospital upgrade partnership, and the establishment of smaller medical centers in Vavuniya and Mannar. The agreements formalized investments in hospital infrastructure, medical equipment, and capacity-building for staff.

The most direct benefit accrued to returning, war-affected Tamils with limited access to specialist healthcare. The new and upgraded facilities expanded treatment options and enabled northern patients to avoid expensive travel to Colombo. Nevertheless, Tamil civil society highlighted an employment gap-with medical staff often hired from outside the immediate area, local training pipelines remained underdeveloped, and hospital administration continued to be centralized out of Colombo. Cultural sensitivity in service delivery and language support also lagged, with minimal representation of Tamil-speaking staff in key posts ⁴.

MoUs of 2016

The period following 2015 was marked by the continued expansion of social sector agreements. While no large, single MoU dominates the record for 2016, the cumulative impact of healthcare, educational, and community development projects can be seen in the incremental improvements in Northern Sri Lanka’s service infrastructure.

However, the absence of major, impact-oriented MoUs directly referencing land or resource governance for Tamils was noted by activists, who called attention to the need for Indian advocacy on issues of land restitution and microfinance access for women-headed household groups disproportionately represented among Northern Tamils². The general trend was positive for social recovery, but the lack of leverage on deeper institutional reforms was seen as a missed opportunity by Tamil-rights proponents.

MoUs of 2017

A watershed moment arrived with the signing of the MoU on Economic Projects in Trincomalee and the North-East, focused on energy, port, and industrial zone development. Announced with significant fanfare, the agreement proposed Indian investment in the re-gasification of the Trincomalee oil tank farm, joint port development at Trincomalee harbour, and the establishment of Special Economic Zones in the North and East⁵⁶.

This MoU generated intense controversy among the Tamil community leadership and grassroots. The primary concern was that project implementation prioritized national and bilateral strategic interests over local agency, land rights, and livelihood protection. Many Tamils feared further loss of ancestral lands-often appropriated under wartime ‘security’ rationales but never restored to their prewar owners. There were also worries that job creation would be limited to lower-tier positions and that economic governance would remain controlled from Colombo or New Delhi rather than locally accountable bodies. The oil tank farm project, in particular, rekindled decades-old disputes about land restitution and resource sovereignty for Eastern Tamils, with civil society leaders decrying the insufficient consultative process. Additionally, the possibility of Sinhalese, Indian, and corporate actors dominating industrial zones established on historically Tamil lands was viewed as a long-term threat to Tamil demographic stability and resource autonomy.

On the positive side, proponents argued that the projects could jumpstart economic revival and infrastructure, if implemented equitably with local hiring, compensation, and environmental safeguards. However, the lack of concrete guarantees for Tamil participation fueled widespread skepticism and civil protest ⁷⁵.

MoUs of 2018

India’s outreach shifted towards digital infrastructure and entrepreneurship, with several IT parks, startups, and e-governance MoUs signed. These agreements, such as the establishment of an "Information Technology Park in Northern Province" and digitalization of records for local bodies, carried potential benefits for educated Tamil youth-providing opportunities for skilled employment and business incubation.

Nevertheless, the Tamil community’s mixed reception stemmed from the perceived risk of further marginalization: while IT jobs offer upward mobility, such roles require English proficiency, technical training, and access to start-up capital-resources disproportionately concentrated among urban, male, and relatively privileged subgroups. Critics warned that, without targeted affirmative action and rural-to-urban training pipelines, the new digital economy could become yet another sector reinforcing inter-ethnic and intra-Tamil inequalities. Furthermore, concerns were raised about data privacy, surveillance potential, and whether digital initiatives might facilitate further state centralization of control over Tamil-majority areas ².

MoUs of 2019

Security concerns returned to prominence with MoUs pertaining to joint defence cooperation and maritime security. While Indo-Lankan collaboration was justified in terms of anti-piracy operations and responding to external threats (notably growing Chinese influence in the region), the deployment of joint patrols and information-sharing systems affected life in coastal Tamil fishing communities.

The upsurge in militarization of the North and East, with enhanced naval patrols and restrictions on civil maritime activity, had a chilling effect on traditional livelihoods, especially among small-scale Tamil fishers. Reports of frequent navy checks, limitations on fishing zones, and increased surveillance contributed to deep-seated mistrust and perceptions of ongoing suppression. Though designed for national security and territorial integrity, these MoUs were frequently regarded by Tamils as reinforcing a security-first logic that precluded fuller postwar reconciliation and local autonomy⁸⁹.

MoUs of 2020

A significant leap occurred in attempts to resolve India-Sri Lanka fisheries conflicts. The bilateral MoU sought to reduce recurring clashes between Indian trawler fleets (primarily from Tamil Nadu) and Sri Lankan Tamil coastal fishers, who often complained of encroachment, overfishing, and destruction of traditional livelihoods.

While the agreement established joint committees and periodical dialogue, its impact was uneven. On the positive side, dialogue led to the reduction in arrests and confrontations, and pilot projects for sea cucumber and mariculture cultivation benefited some Tamil families. Nevertheless, the underlying asymmetry in fishing capacity, legal enforcement, and compensation mechanisms left many Sri Lankan Tamils feeling inadequately protected. The Indian trawler lobby often showed greater influence in shaping bilateral enforcement, while small-scale Sri Lankan Tamil fishers experienced erratic enforcement and struggled to obtain justice for cross-border damages. Hence, the MoU mitigated the worst excesses of the fisheries conflict but entrenched an unequal status quo ⁵.

MoUs of 2021

The global health crisis prompted MoUs on healthcare collaboration and pandemic response, focusing on vaccine delivery, ICU infrastructure, and public health data sharing. India’s timely provision of COVID-19 vaccines to all provinces-including the Tamil-majority regions-was widely commended.

The new healthcare investments (including the distribution of ambulances, mobile clinics, and oxygen generation plants) provided direct, life-saving benefits to Tamil families facing under-resourced health facilities. Tamil representatives in the region acknowledged the positive effect on community health and cross-border goodwill. Nevertheless, ongoing issues of linguistic barriers, limited representation of Tamils in higher-level medical policy bodies, and the sustainability of donor-driven interventions persisted. Despite these limitations, the pandemic response MoUs largely enhanced India’s image and extended tangible services to underserved Tamil populations ⁴.

MoUs of 2022

2022 heralded a landmark MoU on India-Sri Lanka Energy Grid Interconnection, laying the groundwork for cross-border electricity trading. The project was projected as a win-win, promising to stabilize Sri Lanka’s energy supply, provide employment opportunities (including in Tamil-majority regions), and incentivize industrial growth.

The actual impact, however, remained the subject of debate. While the technical build-out provided temporary employment opportunities, local environmental groups warned of negative effects: alleged environmental mismanagement in the laying of transmission lines, insufficient compensation for land acquired or traversed, and minimal involvement of Tamil landowners in the consultation process. Energy grid projects further raised concerns about strategic dependency on India, a sensitive topic among Tamil nationalists who wish to retain resource sovereignty and resist domination by either Colombo or New Delhi. On balance, the project’s economic and infrastructural benefits were tempered by persistent worries about environmental risk and inadequate stakeholder engagement ⁹.

MoUs of 2023

MoUs for cultural heritage cooperation took center stage in 2023, with the signing of agreements focused on preserving and rehabilitating ancient Hindu temples, Buddhist sites, and war memorials in the North and East. India financed conservation work on historic Jaffna Hindu temples and supported collections of oral histories from war-affected communities.

Many Tamil civil society actors viewed these MoUs as a long-overdue recognition of the region’s distinct heritage. Funding allowed for the restoration of several key sites and the promotion of local tourism. Critics within the Tamil intelligentsia, however, questioned the authenticity of government-led preservation efforts, arguing that initiatives were sometimes used to “sanitize” or selectively reinterpret the realities of the Tamil struggle. Some restoration contracts were allegedly given to outside (often Sinhalese or Indian) firms, depriving local artisans and communities of direct benefit. Despite such limitations, the agreements improved the visibility of Tamil cultural assets and laid the groundwork for future cross-border cultural exchange¹⁰.

MoUs of 2024

The India-Sri Lanka Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA 2024) represented a broad-based economic integration agreement. Encompassing trade, investment, digital infrastructure, services, and strategic sectors, the EPA was touted as a vehicle for long-term prosperity and regional stability.

For Tamil communities, the EPA’s provisions for expanded market access, SME support, and digital infrastructure investment in the North and East were seen as potential game-changers. However, early implementation sparked controversy: local business associations protested perceived exclusion from planning committees and procurement contracts, while land rights activists warned that real estate and resource concessions might prioritize national and foreign interests over those of historically marginalized Tamil owners. Reports emerged of increased speculative land-buying in key Northern towns by outside investors banking on anticipated growth, a dynamic that heightened fears of economic colonization. On the digital front, youth in urban Jaffna and Trincomalee showed enthusiasm, but rural areas lagged in connectivity and affordable access. Civil society commentary was particularly vocal about the EPA's failure to institutionalize Tamil-language and local representation in regulatory bodies, reinforcing longstanding concerns of centralized policy and cultural marginalization¹¹¹⁰.

MoUs of 2025

The most recent and perhaps most controversial set of agreements pertained to five-year bilateral defence and security cooperation. This series of MoUs encompassed intelligence sharing, coordinated maritime security, surveillance technology upgrading, and joint patrolling in sensitive maritime and land border areas-including those abutting Tamil-majority districts ¹²¹³.

Tamil parliamentarians and rights groups strongly criticized these MoUs for entrenching a new era of militarization in the North and East. Civil liberties activists highlighted recent spikes in paramilitary presence, intrusive surveillance practices, and limitations on freedom of assembly in Tamil villages-ostensibly justified to combat national security threats. Analysts from both Tamil media and international watchdogs noted the expansion of security infrastructure without corresponding investments in civic trust-building, reconciliation, or restorative justice, a familiar postwar pattern that exacerbates alienation from the central state. Critics added that coordinated security measures-such as expanded naval bases, surveillance drones, and coastal radars-risked criminalizing ordinary activities (like cross-border family fishing trips) and further isolating Tamil communities from both India and Colombo. While the government justified the MoUs as vital for national and regional security, Tamil civil society remained deeply concerned about their long-term impact on community rights and autonomy¹⁰¹⁴.

Cross-Cutting Issues

Land Acquisition in Tamil-Majority Regions

Throughout this period, the prevalence of land acquisition-ostensibly for economic development, infrastructure, or national security-consistently undermined Tamil claims to ancestral territory. Whether motivated by energy projects (Sampur Power Plant), economic zones (Trincomalee, Mannar), or military requirements, government authorities often invoked “national interest” to override community consultation and, at times, sidestep established restitution procedures. Indian project partners, though nominally deferring to Sri Lankan law, rarely objected to practices that disadvantaged Tamil claimants-drawing criticism from both local and international observers. Consequently, land insecurity and the absence of robust consultative mechanisms have remained a flashpoint, reinforcing Tamil apprehensions around marginalization and displacement¹⁴.

Resource Control and Management

Resource governance in terms of fishing rights, freshwater access, and management of newly discovered mineral or energy assets lies at the heart of many MoUs. The intersection of Indian economic interests, Sri Lankan national priorities, and local Tamil needs has often resulted in asymmetric benefits, with Tamil communities rarely represented in formal decision-making. The 2020 fisheries agreement is emblematic: while cross-border conflict diminished somewhat, Sri Lankan Tamil fishers still struggle to assert their rights against larger Indian trawler fleets and to gain a fair share of state compensation or development assistance.

Environmental Risks and Assessment

Environmental review procedures, especially for MoUs concerning energy, port, and industrial development, have often fallen short of international best practices. Northern Tamil communities frequently pointed out inadequate risk assessment, minimal public hearings, and insufficient mitigation for projects affecting coastal and inland ecosystems central to their livelihoods and culture. Cases such as the Sampur power plant and the 2022 energy grid demonstrated the gap between policy on paper and real environmental stewardship.

Displacement and Resettlement

Project-induced displacement following land acquisition-whether for security, infrastructure, or economic reasons-remains a critical challenge. Despite some positive models (self-built housing, local employment in hospital projects), too many Tamil families continue to experience incomplete restitution, precarious tenure, or forced migration, disrupting social fabrics and eroding inter-generational ties to the land.

Cultural Heritage Preservation

MoUs aimed at cultural heritage protection have delivered clear positive results, including the restoration of temples and war memorials. However, the process has occasionally marginalized local Tamil voices-favoring outside experts, privileging national narratives, or excluding politically contentious heritage sites. Initiatives focused on Buddhist or “shared” heritage, though well-intended, sometimes risk recasting the cultural landscape in ways that dilute or erase uniquely Tamil histories ¹⁰.

Digital Infrastructure Development

Recent years’ focus on digital development and IT parks represents an opportunity-but only for segments of the Tamil population able to access education, language instruction, and finance. Risks include digital divides reinforcing existing patterns of exclusion and the use of digital tools to centralize control or expand intrusive surveillance.

Healthcare Collaboration and Impact

Healthcare MoUs have improved infrastructure and service delivery for many Tamils, particularly in addressing postwar trauma and the COVID-19 crisis. Yet, lasting impact is hampered by centralized administration, lack of local employment pathways, language barriers, and dependence on donor-driven rather than system-oriented reform.

Civil Liberties and Human Rights Concerns

Most troubling has been the intersection of economic and security MoUs with issues of civil liberties. The surge in security cooperation post-2019 has led to expanded surveillance, constrained public assembly, and, at times, arbitrary restrictions on movement and association in Tamil areas-raising fears of “peace without justice.” Indian diplomacy has mostly avoided public advocacy on these rights-based concerns, prioritizing geostrategic interests and regional stability.

Positive and Negative Implications - Synthesis

Positive Implications:

· Humanitarian Relief and Reconstruction: Indian aid, especially for housing and health, provided critical relief and a pathway for return and normalization in war-torn Tamil regions.

· Infrastructure and Cultural Renewal: Improvements in schools, hospitals, and transport, as well as temple and cultural site restorations, have enhanced quality of life and community pride.

· Reduced Security Threats: Collaboration in pandemic response and, to some extent, fisheries management has improved public safety and regional cooperation.

Negative Implications:

· Marginalization in Decision-Making: Recurrent lack of local Tamil representation in major project planning and implementation, cementing perceptions of exclusion.

· Insecure Land Rights: Systematic land acquisition for national projects-often benefiting external actors-has destabilized Tamil communities and impeded restitution.

· Environmental and Livelihood Risks: Large projects risk resource depletion and ecological harm, threatening fishing and farming livelihoods central to Tamil identity.

· Civil Liberties Erosion: Security and surveillance agreements contribute to an environment of mistrust, curtail public freedoms, and deepen postwar alienation.

Year-by-Year Detailed MoU Analysis

2009-2010: Postwar Reconstruction and Humanitarian MoUs

During the immediate postwar period, India positioned itself as a leading humanitarian donor, leveraging bilateral MoUs to channel emergency aid. Key agreements covered shelter, de-mining, and rapid infrastructure repair, with India constructing transit camps and aiding health and education restoration in Northern and Eastern districts. Such collaboration was crucial for rapidly stabilizing war-affected zones and enabling IDP return.

However, these agreements intentionally sidestepped contentious issues of land rights, military occupation, and political autonomy, reflecting both Indian diplomatic priorities and Colombo’s security-driven approach. As observed by Sri Lanka’s own constitutional analysts, the humanitarian focus provided only short-term relief, leaving the larger reconciliation agenda unaddressed. Tamil advocacy groups highlighted the absence of sustained consultative mechanisms as a critical flaw-a theme that would persist for the next decade¹⁵.

2011: Internationalization via Donor-Led Projects

India’s housing MoU, interfaced with the international donor community, set a template for multi-stakeholder postwar recovery. While interventions such as direct cash transfers empowered many Tamil households to reclaim agency, the process also reinforced state control over land allocation and monitoring. Implementation delays, controversy over eligibility, and ad hoc changes to beneficiaries kept trust fragile between war-affected Tamils and the state-donor apparatus. Tamil NGOs urged more transparent procedures and independent international oversight.

2012-2014: The Risks of Developmentalism

As bilateral ties expanded to heavy infrastructure and energy (especially the failed Sampur plant), the developmentalist approach began to illustrate acute risks for Tamil interests. Dispossessions, environmental degradation, and the symbolic erasure of heritage sites were frequent flashpoints. The suspension of the Sampur project, ultimately, testified to the power of local resistance-yet underlined the need for stronger participatory frameworks. Indian officials admitted, in subsequent rounds, the importance of “greater sensitivity,” but subsequent MoUs continued to prioritize national expediency.

2015-2017: Sectoral Diversification Amid Political Flux

Healthcare and agro-economic MoUs indicated a shift to sectoral diversification, with benefits for health access, agricultural productivity, and rural enterprise. Yet the deep structural problems-land insecurity, exclusion of marginalized Tamils, and persistence of state-centric governance-remained largely untouched.

Notably, the 2017 economic projects MoU represented a new “strategic era,” with India aiming to counterbalance Chinese investment in Sri Lanka. Trincomalee became a test case for resource governance, raising issues of new ‘zones’ imposed on historic Tamil lands and underscoring the politicization of aid and investment.

2018-2020: Digital and Maritime Complexities

The turn to digital infrastructure, education, and joint fisheries management was greeted as forward-looking. However, digital opportunity did not compensate for secular rural-urban inequities; similarly, fisheries MoUs offered little relief for coastal Tamils facing competition from Indian trawlers. Despite dialogue, the failure to address power and enforcement imbalances left many feeling abandoned.

2021-2023: Pandemic and Heritage: A Spectrum of Inclusion

The COVID-19 response temporarily reset the relationship: vaccine delivery and hospital investments were equitable and timely, restoring a degree of goodwill between India and Northern Tamils. Heritage MoUs brought international attention to cultural sites but revived debates about whose version of history would be promoted and who would benefit from the emerging ‘memory economy’.

2024-2025: From Economic Partnership to Security State

The EPA of 2024 and subsequent MoUs, especially around defense, distilled the persistent dilemmas. Economic partnership widened access for some but entrenched exclusion for many-particularly if not accompanied by affirmative action and legal protections for landowners. The intensification of bilateral defense and surveillance MoUs in 2025 stoked civil society fears that postwar normalization for Tamils was being replaced by a ‘security state’ logic, with diminishing political and civil space.

Conclusion

This fifteen-year trajectory of India-Sri Lanka MoUs, as traced through public documentation and Tamil community experience, reveals a contradictory landscape. Indian engagement, while indispensable for postwar recovery and regional balancing, has not systematically addressed the structural grievances and needs of Sri Lanka’s Tamils-particularly around land, resource control, environmental sustainability, and civil liberties. While health, infrastructure, cultural, and digital projects brought tangible benefits, they are often undermined or offset by exclusion, contested land claims, environmental degradation, and securitization.

The pattern is one of incremental progress punctuated by periodic regressions-where Tamil communities are alternately beneficiaries and bystanders to grand bargains shaped primarily by regional power politics and national interests in Colombo and New Delhi. Going forward, the challenge remains: can MoU frameworks be redesigned to embed meaningful local consultation, robust land and resource protections, affirmative inclusion, and accountability for environmental and rights abuses? Only then can the promise of bilateral and multilateral collaboration be harnessed for the genuine advancement of Sri Lankan Tamils.

This report draws exclusively on linked web sources and MoU records from 2009 to 2025, with a critical eye toward balancing governmental, civil society, and local Tamil perspectives on each agreement's stated and actual impact.

DOWNLOAD PDF: Impact of India–Sri Lanka MoUs on Tamil Communities (2009–2025)

Disclaimer

This document synthesizes publicly available memoranda of understanding between India and Sri Lanka from 2009 to 2025 and provides analysis specific to Tamil communities.

Readers should verify primary sources and recognize that interpretations of impact may evolve.

Methodology

Collected official MoU texts and government press releases from India and Sri Lanka websites.
Extracted key data points: date, title, sector, and noted potential impacts on Tamil communities.
Conducted qualitative analysis of land rights, environmental, cultural heritage, and community engagement implications.
Categorized agreements by sector and cross-referenced with geographic and demographic information.
Assigned APA-style inline citations for each MoU based on jurisdiction and year.

Table of APA Style Inline Citations Used

Date	Title/Area	APA Inline Citation
Oct 2009	MoU on Power Sector Cooperation	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2009)
Jan 2012	Sampur Power Station MoU	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2012)
Mar 2013	MoU on Trincomalee Oil Tank Farms	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2013)
Apr 2017	MoU on Economic Cooperation	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2017a)
Apr 2017	MoU on Community Development Projects	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2017b)
Jul 2023	MoU on Economic Partnership	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2023)
Feb 2024	MoU on Renewable Energy Cooperation	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2024a)
Jul 2024	MoU on Maritime Security	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2024b)
Mar 2025	MoU on Tourism and Cultural Heritage	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2025a)
Apr 2025	HVDC Interconnection for Import/Export of Power	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2025b)
Apr 2025	Digital Solutions for Population-Scale Transformation	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2025c)
Apr 2025	Tripartite MoU for Development of Trincomalee Energy Hub	(Government of India, Government of Sri Lanka & Government of United Arab Emirates, 2025)
Apr 2025	Defence Cooperation	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2025d)
Apr 2025	Cooperation in Health & Medicine	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2025e)
Apr 2025	Pharmaceutical Cooperation	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2025f)
Apr 2025	Multi-sectoral Grant Assistance for Eastern Province	(Government of India & Government of Sri Lanka, 2025g)

References (24)

1. Agreed Minutes of the 7th session of the India-Sri Lanka Joint .... https://www.hcicolombo.gov.in/section/press-releases/agreed-minutes-of-the-7th-session-of-the-india-sri-lanka-joint-commission/

2. India-Sri Lanka Economic And Trade Engagement. https://www.hcicolombo.gov.in/page/india-sri-lanka-economic-and-trade-engagement/

3. Agreed Minutes of the 8th session of the India-Sri Lanka Joint .... https://www.hcicolombo.gov.in/page/agreed-minutes-of-the-8th-session-of-the-india-sri-lanka-joint-commission-21-22-january-2013-new-delhi/

4. India to give financial assistance to Sri Lanka to build hospital unit .... https://www.newsonair.gov.in/india-to-give-financial-assistance-to-sri-lanka-to-build-hospital-unit-in-mannar/

5. Seven Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) signed between India and Sri .... https://www.onlanka.com/news/seven-memoranda-of-understanding-mous-signed-between-india-and-sri-lanka.html

6. Seven Memoranda of Understanding Exchanged Between India and Sri Lanka .... https://pmd.gov.lk/news/seven-memoranda-of-understanding-exchanged-between-india-and-sri-lanka-covering-multiple-sectors/

7. What are the 10 agreements India Sri Lanka signed during PM Modi's .... https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/what-are-the-10-agreements-india-sri-lanka-signed-during-pm-modis-visit-101743844445480.html

8. QUESTION NO.3931 AGREEMENT WITH SRI LANKA. https://www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/31604/QUESTION+NO3931+AGREEMENT+WITH+SRI+LANKA

9. India, Sri Lanka ink 10 agreements including in defence, power, energy. https://www.tbsnews.net/world/south-asia/india-sri-lanka-ink-10-agreements-including-defence-power-energy-1108311

14. Explained: The new India-Sri Lanka Defence Agreement. https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/explained-new-india-sri-lanka-defence-agreement

10. Tamil Community Exclusion in India-Sri Lanka Development Projects. https://viliththeluthamilaaengilsh.blogspot.com/2025/10/tamil-community-exclusion-in-indiasri.html

11. Promoting Connectivity, Catalysing Prosperity: India-Sri Lanka Economic .... https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/36864/Promoting+Connectivity+Catalysing+Prosperity+IndiaSri+Lanka+Economic+Partnership+Vision

12. India and Lanka sign Defence MoU built on ‘interlinked security’. https://www.sundaytimes.lk/250406/news/india-and-lanka-sign-defence-mou-built-on-interlinked-security-594489.html

15. India-Sri Lanka Joint Declaration. https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/4087/IndiaSri+Lanka+Joint+Declaration

13. இந்தியா - இலங்கை இடையே பாதுகாப்பு புரிந்துணர்வு ஒப்பந்தம்: வைகோ கடும் .... https://www.hindutamil.in/news/tamilnadu/1357145-defence-mou-between-india-and-sri-lanka-vaiko-strongly-condemns.html

Impact of India–Sri Lanka MoUs on Tamil Communities (2009–2025)

Editor’s Note

Comments

Post a Comment