logo
How India got entangled in the geopolitical games in 1950s Ceylon

How India got entangled in the geopolitical games in 1950s Ceylon

Scroll.in26-04-2025

In November 1955, the governor general of Ceylon, Oliver Goonetilleke, invited the Indian high commissioner, Birendra Narayan Chakravarty, to spend a few days as his guest in the hill station of Nuwara Eliya. The meeting went well – at first.
'I had a good opportunity of talking with him freely on various subjects, though later when the Pakistan High Commissioner also came as a house guest, the talks became somewhat restrained,' Chakravarty wrote in a letter to the Ministry of External Affairs.
Chakravarty's letters reveal a picture of the diplomatic relationship at the time between India and Ceylon, now Sri Lanka. On the surface, it might appear that the two enjoyed warm diplomatic ties after they attained independence from Britain, but in truth, there were tensions simmering between them.
What was souring the relations especially was the lack of clarity on India's role in the island. Should India have a hands-off approach? Or should it be more involved?
Geopolitical assistance
In Nuwara Eliya, Goonetilleke expressed disappointment that India was not giving Ceylon more geopolitical help. 'The Governor-General also asked whether it is not possible for Mr. Nehru whose views are listened to with the greatest respect in the world, to take up the causes of the closest neighbours like Ceylon and Burma more earnestly,' Chakravarty wrote. 'He cited, for instance, when Ceylon had the rubber-rice trade pact with China, the US stopped the supply of an essential commodity like sulphur to the great distress of Ceylon.'
In 1952, Ceylon, facing a severe rice shortage, had signed a trade agreement with China called the Rubber-Rice Pact to exchange rubber for rice. The agreement, which lasted for three decades, infuriated the United States, which was intent on stopping the spread of communism to South Asia. To punish Ceylon, Washington invoked the Mutual Defence Assistance Act that prevented it from giving aid to any nation that was selling strategic materials to communist countries.
Goonetilleke told Chakravarty that India could have stepped in in this situation. 'No attempt was made by India to intercede with the United States on behalf of Ceylon,' Chakravarty cited Goonetilleke as saying. 'India is a great nation and she is not afraid to incur the displeasure of either the East or the West in advocating the cause of world peace.'
Such remarks were normally taken with a pinch of salt by Indian envoys, especially since the Ceylonese ruling class' real thinking was in plain view in the local press and political mouthpieces. To many of them, India was not an intermediary but a meddler.
In Nuwara Eliya, though, Goonetilleke expressed a different sentiment. 'He thought that there should be even closer unity between India, Burma and Ceylon,' Chakravarty wrote in the letter to the Indian foreign ministry. 'I said that within our limitations, we try to do what we can for our neighbours. I cited, for instance, the Prime Minister's efforts to win Russian support for Ceylon's admission to the UN and our taking up the case of Burma in connection with the presence of the KMT [Kuomintang or Chinese Nationalist Party] troops in north Burma.'
Chakravarty told Goonetilleke that India had no intention of 'thrusting' itself in the affairs of another country, when there was 'so much unjustified talk that we are anxious to get the leadership of Asia'. 'I assured the Governor-General that if on any particular issue, Ceylon wishes to have the support of India, we would do all we can to help them,' he added.
'Hero of Bandung'
While Goonetilleke may not have been entirely insincere in reaching out to New Delhi, it is unlikely that Ceylon's prime minister John Kotelawala would have supported the idea. A graduate of Christ's College in Cambridge, Kotelawala had a strong dislike for Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
In the mid-1950s, Nehru was widely regarded as one of the greatest statesmen in the world. He wanted good relations with both China and the US, although with the US, that did not always work. In contrast, Kotelawala leaned a lot more towards Washington.
One time this difference came into sharp focus was after the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung in 1955. While almost every participating nation praised Nehru's leadership, the Colombo press lauded Kotelawala for standing up to both the Indian prime minister and Chinese premier Zhou Enlai.
An article in the official journal of Ceylon's United National Party claimed that 26 of the 29 nations at the conference hailed Kotelawala as the 'Hero of Bandung'. 'Sir John saved the conference from pious but empty talk,' the journal wrote. 'They would have otherwise gathered round to hear the usual sermon on the need for 'peace,' 'understanding,' 'accord,' 'goodwill' etc., etc., of which J. Nehru is such a sanctimonious parrot.'
This editorialising should be seen in the context of Ceylon's domestic politics, where SWRD Bandaranaike's promises of pro-Sinhala Buddhist policies were gaining him popularity among the electorate and posing a threat to Kotelawala's position.
The journal of the United National Party added, 'The conference, including Nehru, would have kow-towed to Chou En-lai. Nehru and Chou would have hatched plots in secret, as in fact that arch conspirator Krishna Menon tried to do, and the 27 other delegates would have been expected to say 'Ehei' to the 'Big Two.''
Another admirer of Kotelawala's supposed Bandung conquest was the West. When he returned home from the conference, Western ambassadors greeted him at the airport and the US ambassador Maxwell Henry Gluck reportedly complimented him on a job well done.
'Is it proper for the American Ambassador to treat our Prime Minister as a teacher who would treat a pupil what that pupil had carried out a particular piece of work creditably,' Senator Somasundaram Nadesan asked in parliament in response to the US ambassador's remarks.
Kotelawala remained unfazed and stepped up his anti-Nehru, anti-India rhetoric.
Media attacks
Chakravarty's information officer gave him a reason for this bitterness. He said the leading Ceylonese media proprietor Esmond Wickremesinghe (father of former president Ranil Wickremesinghe) had told him in a private conversation that Kotelawala's hatred of Nehru stemmed from the belief that the Indian prime minister deliberately sabotaged Ceylon-backed peace talks between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.
Even newspapers that were critical of Kotelawala's foreign policy and pro-American views began to turn on India after the Bandung conference, something the Indian High Commission suspected was on account of government coercion.
'It is time that Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru was told where he gets off,' The Times of Ceylon said in an editorial. 'He was given the hint by Sir John who told him in effect in the face of half the world that he did not relish the role of Small Brother. It is quite apparent that the gentleman who has been posturing before young and pitifully credulous nations as the Grand Seigneur of Asian politics is suffering from political auto intoxication.'
When clippings of these articles and a political cartoon in the Ceylon Observer by the well-known Collette were sent to the Ministry of External Affairs, Foreign Secretary Subimal Dutt was not pleased. 'It would be absurd to expect any dispassionate consideration of outstanding issues between our two countries with people of this way of thinking,' he wrote to Chakravarty in a letter. 'The other side is not obviously in a mood to seek a reasonable settlement of the Indian problem.' This was a reference to the issue of citizenship for Indian-origin plantation workers on the island.
For his part, Chakravarty was justifiably sceptical of Goonetilleke's friendly overtures as it was the governor-general who had presented a gold medal on behalf of the island's Social Services League to Kotelawala in honour of his 'services' in Bandung.
American involvement
Meanwhile, the US kept working to keep both India and Ceylon free of communist influence. Declassified memos sent by the Indian High Commission in Colombo to the foreign ministry in New Delhi suggest that Americans took credit for the communists' failure to win the 1955 Andhra assembly election. These memos state that US officials visiting Colombo openly bragged about helping Nehru in the election, keeping the communists at bay.
The Americans were also keen to ensure there was no pan-Asian solidarity. In a letter to Foreign Secretary Subimal Dutt, Chakravarty wrote, 'The British have bases in Ceylon, which the US could always use in the event of a war. There was no special need therefore to draw Ceylon into the US sphere of influence, unless the object is to take her out of the influence of 'neutralist' India, and thereby weaken the growing Southeast Asian solidarity, which is not to the liking of Mr. [US Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles.'
When Chakravarty met Goonetilleke, he realised the full extent of American involvement with the Ceylonese government. 'This influence has become very considerable during the last year or so, because the Ambassador has been promising US aid,' Chakravarty wrote in his letter to the Indian foreign ministry. 'Apparently, he went even to the extent of telling the Prime Minister to take the American aid into account into framing the current year's budget!'
Chakravarty mentioned that nothing came out of the ambassador's promises and that Kotelawala considered him 'to be almost a buffoon'.
The Indian high commissioner believed there could be drastic changes in the island's foreign policy. 'It seems that they are going to wait for another few months to see what USA does,' Chakravarty wrote. 'At the end of that period, Ceylon may probably revise her policy. A policy of wooing China and the Soviet Union may then begin.'
He added that Kotelawala may visit the two communist giants. 'You may recall that the late Liaquat Ali Khan had once threatened to go to Moscow, and that led the Americans to take greater interest in Pakistan,' he wrote. 'Ceylon is perhaps hoping for the same result.'
In 1956, the United National Party lost the general election and Kotelawala retired from politics. One of the first geopolitical moves of SWRD Bandaranaike, who became prime minister of Ceylon, was to take over the British naval base in Trincomalee and remove British naval personnel from the island. After that, with their staunch ally out, the Americans could not get a stranglehold on the island.
A lot of the damage to India-Sri Lanka relations in the Kotelawala years was repaired after 1956, but then, another challenge emerged between them in the form of ethnic strife on the island.
Today, for the time being at least, the South Asian neighbours seem to have reached some sort of a meaningful understanding that they never enjoyed in the 1950s, but the US and China still continue to wrestle for influence in Sri Lanka.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Nijjar & After: Facing Flak, Canadian PM says Progress in ‘Accountability' Paved Way for Modi G7 Invite
Nijjar & After: Facing Flak, Canadian PM says Progress in ‘Accountability' Paved Way for Modi G7 Invite

The Wire

time14 minutes ago

  • The Wire

Nijjar & After: Facing Flak, Canadian PM says Progress in ‘Accountability' Paved Way for Modi G7 Invite

New Delhi: Faced with questions over the invitation to Indian prime minister Narendra Modi for G7 summit, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney defended his decision, saying New Delhi had agreed to resume law enforcement dialogue in a way that 'recognises issues of accountability,' even as high-profile criminal investigations remains underway. On the evening of June 6 in Delhi, Modi posted on X about a phone call with Carney, noting that he had accepted the invitation to attend the G7 summit in the course of the call. The invitation came just over a week before the summit is scheduled to begin on June 15. Other non-G7 invitees, such as South Africa, Brazil, and Mexico, were invited at least a month in advance. Carney's office issued a readout, saying there 'was agreement to continued law enforcement dialogue and discussions addressing security concerns.' Following Modi's post, in Ottawa, Carney was pressed by reporters about the optics of inviting Modi, given that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has previously alleged the involvement of Indian government agents in a campaign of ' violent criminal activity ' in Canada and also accused them of orchestrating the June 2023 killing of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. India and Canada currently have vacant high commissioner posts in each other's capitals, after the top envoys were forced out last year. 'Won't disrupt process' Carney acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue but maintained that his government would not interfere in the legal process. 'We have now agreed, importantly, to continued law enforcement dialogue. So there's been some progress on that, which recognises issues of accountability,' he said, when asked directly why the Indian leader was being invited despite the allegations . He reiterated that the ongoing investigation would remain fully independent. 'We are a country of the rule of law. The rule of law is proceeding as it should in Canada, and I am not going to disrupt that process,' he said. India, for its part, has firmly rejected the allegations levelled by Canadian security agencies, including broader claims of foreign interference in electoral affairs. Canada had last year even accused Indian home minister Amit Shah of being involved in the alleged plot to target Canadian nationals. New Delhi has insisted that Canada has ' not shared with us any shred of evidence ' regarding the involvement of Indian agents in the Nijjar case so far. However, Indian authorities have cooperated with the United States , which has connected its own attempted assassination case involving a US-based Khalistani separatist to Nijjar's murder. Carney refused to say whether he believed Modi was involved in Nijjar's killing. 'First off, there is a legal process that is literally underway and quite advanced in Canada. It's never appropriate to make comments in any respect with regard to those legal processes,' he said. Carney also laid out the broader rationale for the invitation, pointing to Canada's role as this year's G7 chair and the need to engage India on global strategic and economic issues. 'First, we are in the role, Canada is in the role, of the G7 chair, and in those discussions, as agreed with our G7 colleagues, we're addressing important issues like energy security, the digital future, and critical minerals, among others,' he said. 'Partnerships in building infrastructure in the emerging and developing world are also part of the agenda. There are certain countries that should be at the table for those discussions,' Carney stated. 'In my capacity as G7 chair, and in consultation with others, some of whom also make these determinations, it makes sense to include India, the fifth-largest economy in the world, effectively the most populous country, and central to a number of those supply chains.' 'Won't even get a slap on the wrist' According to Globe and Mail , the decision to invite Modi drew criticism from within Carney's party as well. Liberal MP Sukh Dhaliwal, whose constituency in British Columbia includes the temple where Nijjar was killed, said he did not agree with the government's decision to invite Modi. 'My constituents are telling me the message that we are sending is they can come and kill Canadians on Canadian soil and they won't even get a slap on the wrist,' he said. Opposition leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, said that the invitation was 'necessary', but that conversations on security issues should remain on the table along with economic matters. 'We need to sell our natural gas, our civilian nuclear power technology and other resource projects to India,' he said Friday, as quoted by CBC news , adding, 'We want to see the government work on addressing security issues at the same time when the prime minister has those conversations'. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

'Criminal betrayal of our soldiers': Congress slams Modi Govt over 'failing' to isolate Pakistan
'Criminal betrayal of our soldiers': Congress slams Modi Govt over 'failing' to isolate Pakistan

The Hindu

time24 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

'Criminal betrayal of our soldiers': Congress slams Modi Govt over 'failing' to isolate Pakistan

The Congress on Saturday (June 7, 2025) alleged that the Modi government has failed to isolate Pakistan on the global stage after the Pahalgam terror attack, calling it a "criminal betrayal" of Indian soldiers and citizens. Congress' head of media and publicity department, Pawan Khera, said instead of strong action against Pakistan, China armed it with fifth-generation jets and missiles and the World Bank and the ADB gave more aid to the neighbouring country. He claimed that the UN Security Council also named Pakistan Vice-Chair of the Anti-Terrorism Committee, just days after the terror attack on Indian soil. "After the brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, we expected strong actions and global isolation of Pakistan, but what has actually happened? "China is arming Pakistan with 40 fifth-generation stealth J-35A fighter jets armed with cutting-edge PL-17 missiles. Azerbaijan is investing $2 billion in purchasing 40 Pakistani JF-17 fighter jets," Mr. Khera said. "The World Bank has pledged USD 40 billion for Pakistan's development. The IMF approved USD 1 billion bailout to Pakistan. Russia has signed a USD 2.6 billion agreement to rebuild a steel plant in Karachi," he said in a post on X. Khera also claimed that Kuwait and the UAE have relaxed visa rules and offered 10 billion-dollar investment deals and Pakistan has joined the China International Mediation Organization, gaining greater influence in Asian diplomacy. "The UN Security Council has named Pakistan Vice-Chair of the Anti-Terrorism Committee, just days after a terror attack on Indian soil! "This is not just a diplomatic failure. It is a criminal betrayal of our soldiers and citizens," Mr. Khera said. Another Congress leader Renuka Chowdhury said in a post that IMF gave $1 billion to Pakistan on May 9, the World Bank decided to give $40 billion to Pakistan soon after Operation Sindoor and ADB gave $800 million to Pakistan on June 3, even though the ADB president met PM Modi on June 1. "Have we failed in our Foreign Policy?" she asked. "Why are the 4 terrorists who indulged in Pahalgam carnage still alive and going around?" she said. "You are able to eliminate Naxals, but not able to eliminate these 4 terrorists, even after a month? Who is responsible for the intelligence failure? "151 tours, 72 countries, many hugs, kisses and gifts. Still no results. India needs answers," Chowdhury said. The Congress leader also said that a special session of Parliament was required to ask questions on US President Donald Trump's claims, more than 11 times, of "brokering a ceasefire" between India and Pakistan. "Why is PM Modi not denying his claim?" she asked.

'Not a playground fight': Zelenskyy responds to Trump, urges greater global pressure on Russia
'Not a playground fight': Zelenskyy responds to Trump, urges greater global pressure on Russia

First Post

time25 minutes ago

  • First Post

'Not a playground fight': Zelenskyy responds to Trump, urges greater global pressure on Russia

According to Zelenskyy, comparing the war to a playground fight distorts the reality of Russia's aggressiveness. 'We are not kids with Putin at a playground,' he emphasised. 'Putin is a murderer who came to this park to kill the kids.' read more Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has responded to US President Donald Trump's recent remarks, in which he compared the conflict between Ukraine and Russia to a playground fight. Speaking to ABC News on June 6, Zelenskyy emphasised the intensity of the conflict and argued that people who are not in Ukraine cannot completely comprehend its consequences. According to Zelenskyy, comparing the war to a playground fight distorts the reality of Russia's aggressiveness. 'We are not kids with Putin at a playground,' he emphasised. 'Putin is a murderer who came to this park to kill the kids.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Zelenskyy reacted to Trump's statements earlier this week, in which the US president stated that Ukraine and Russia should be allowed to 'fight it out' before he intervenes, implying probable sanctions on both countries. Zelenskyy emphasised that the issue is not Trump personally, but rather the physical and emotional barrier between people watching the war from afar and those experiencing it. 'It's not about President Trump. It's about anyone thousands of miles away who cannot fully feel or understand this pain,' Zelenskyy explained. Zelenskyy highlighted the human toll of the war by sharing a story about a Ukrainian father who lost his wife and three children in a Russian missile strike. Though unnamed, the man was likely Yaroslav Bazylevych, whose family died in a similar attack last year. Zelenskyy said that the father told him: 'Every morning when I wake up, I look for my family all over the apartment… It still feels like a nightmare… a bad dream.' Zelenskyy stated that such agony is hard to understand for those who have not experienced it firsthand, and he emphasised the necessity for further international pressure on Russia. Following his discussion with President Trump in Washington on June 5, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz cautioned that some US senators are unaware of the scope of Russia's rearmament efforts. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Merz spoke in Berlin, urging US senators to recognise the threat presented by Russia's military development and supporting Trump's proposal for Nato members to increase defence expenditure to 5% of GDP.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store