India is directly responsible for terrorism in Sri Lanka. If India did not arm, train and fund the Tamil Tigers, Sri Lanka would have been spared a lot of violence and bloodshed - including the lives of more than 70 000+ civilians.
India's support for the LTTE was a policy blunder which resulted in the death of more than 1200 Indian soldiers and the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. So when India points fingers at neighbouring countries about "cross border terrorism" it rings quite hollow, because if truth be told India is the grandmother of terrorism sponsorship in South Asia. Like the USA it has used its power to bully, push and dominate its smaller countries. Like the USA it sponsored insurgent groups that have turned around and taken huge bites out of the hand that fed them.
The carnage in Mumbai which outraged many Indians was visited many times over in Sri Lanka, courtesy of the Indian government and its erstwhile policy. Even today several Indian politicians mostly from the southern state of Tamil Nadu openly support the LTTE and its ideology. India took little action against the smuggling of arms and ammunition from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka during the war. So it is understandable that many Sri Lankans are suspicious of its giant neighbour; it is very justified given the past history. Now India is grappling with its own insurgencies, including the threat posed by Maoists while Sri Lanka has defeated the LTTE which was thought by many to be invincible.
Despite India's blunder in funding, arming and training the greatest threat to Sri Lanka's existence as one nation the relationship between the two countries has never been closer. India's policy towards Sri Lanka has changed ever since the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. I don't think the policy change came about because of any guilt about funding terrorism, but rather cognisance of the fact that the LTTE was also a threat to India and that the west was using the conflict to destabilise India. India's policy change helped Sri Lanka a great deal in destroying the LTTE, although Tamil Nadu continued to guide parts of it. Thus India's defence relationship with Sri Lanka has been half-baked. India refused to sell offensive equipment to Sri Lanka. As such, Sri Lanka went shopping elsewhere.
Pakistan, throughout the conflict has been steadfast in its support for Sri Lanka. When the LTTE was rolling in on Jaffna, while India balked at helping Sri Lanka, Pakistan did not. As the saying goes, "friends in need are friends indeed." It was Pakistan's help, and not India's that prevented the LTTE from taking Jaffna and perhaps changing the balance of the war. Pakistan was instrumental in the defeat of the LTTE and this will always be remembered. Unlike India's flip-flop policy on Sri Lanka, Pakistan has taken a consistent stand throughout the conflict. I think it is a sign of character. China's stand was no different. So why would Sri Lanka spur them?
Nevertheless, India's help in the last stages of the war was instrumental in the defeat of the LTTE as well. Indian intelligence input was crucial towards destroying LTTE ships. However I think it was more a case of "backing the wining horse" rather than a principled stand. Indian (and Chinese) support during crucial international debates on the war in Sri Lanka staved off possible western intervention that wanted to save the LTTE. The rest is history. It is true that the extent of India's help in the final stages will remain in the mists because of the fallout it may have in Tamil Nadu.
A few Indian commentators seem miffed that Sri Lanka has developed relations with Pakistan and China. Well perhaps it is time to shine a mirror inward and think about how official Indian policies have effected that situation. Why shouldn't Sri Lanka have gone elsewhere to purchase arms when India refused to sell it any? Why shouldn't Sri Lanka develop a close relationship with an up and coming world power such as China? Why should Sri Lanka refuse Chinese investments when India says "no" to them? Case in point: Hambantota Port. The development of this port was first offered to India and India alone. The higher echelons of the Indian government wanted nothing to do with it. Then China stepped in. And now we hear about how it is a "threat" to India and how China is increasing its influence in the Indian Ocean. No one else is to blame for this situation except the netas in Delhi. It is unfair for Sri Lanka's development to be held hostage to India, and it is unfair to blame the Chinese for their initiative. Try and look at this from Sri Lanka's point of view.
Given the past history, Sri Lanka has cause to be suspicious of India but no cause to be suspicious of China or Pakistan.
HAMBANTOTA PORT, UNDER CONSTRUCTION. It's development was first offered to India. India refused. China stepped in. Is it Sri Lanka's fault?
However, like I mentioned earlier, despite all the "bad blood" that has flown under the bridge the relationship between India and Sri Lanka has never been better. Infact, I would say it is the most progressive relationship India has with any of its neighbours. The central government has distanced its Sri Lanka policy away from the politicians of Tamil Nadu, and in my opinion is certainly more enlightened than that which existed during the Indira Gandhi era. I feel that the end of the LTTE has removed one of the biggest obstacles towards Indo-Lankan co-operation and South Asian stability. India now has a chance to interact and further its relationship with Sri Lanka, not by funding and supporting terrorism, but by establishing and consolidating economic, religious, cultural and sporting contacts. Let's hope the military bit can be added here as well. Perhaps now India can have a full defence relationship with Sri Lanka. I already see this happening and I hope it continues both for the stability of South Asia and for Sri Lanka's (and India's) interests. Unlike other countries, Sri Lanka has not challenged India's dominant role in the region and Sri Lanka's closest cultural contact is India. A stable and prosperous Sri Lanka is in India's interests, just as a stable and prosperous India is in Sri Lanka's interests.
India will always be Sri Lankan foreign policy's number one priority. The reasons are obvious. One thing that must be remembered however is that Sri Lanka will not sacrifice its relationship with Pakistan or China. It is Sri Lanka's right, as a sovereign country to have its own foreign policy. India's foreign policy can never be Sri Lanka's foreign policy. I think this is a fair statement.
I think Sri Lanka should develop close relationship with ALL its neighbours. Because I don't think Sri Lanka has "enemies." And Sri Lanka does have good relationship with Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Iran, Burma... as well as relatively distant China. Whatever the bungling of Sri Lanka's governments past and present and their flaws of Himalayan proportions, I think they have worked on this aspect quite well. It ought to continue; it is in Sri Lanka's interests. How Sri Lanka balances them will be a test of her skill.
And finally, I think all South Asians can learn quite a few things from the China and the Chinese, including discipline, dedication and national conciousness.
do you have anything to say on your own Mr.Sri Lankan?? 
