• NPP’s econ plan: Vote for us today. Prosperity is only 20 yrs away

Twenty-five years after the India–Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) came into force, bilateral trade relations stand at a paradoxical crossroads. While trade between the two neighbours has expanded dramatically and India remains Sri Lanka’s largest trading partner, efforts to deepen economic integration through broader agreements such as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and the Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement (ETCA) continue to face political resistance and public suspicion in Sri Lanka.

At the 25th anniversary of the ISFTA, the Indian High Commissioner forcefully told the Sri Lankan authorities and the public that the island-Nation is missing opportunities by delaying a more comprehensive economic partnership with India. He obviously appears to be increasingly frustrated by Colombo's reluctance to move forward on both trade liberalisation and connectivity projects.

Signed in 1998 and implemented in March 2000, the ISFTA was Sri Lanka's first bilateral FTA. It opened preferential access to the vast Indian market and helped Sri Lankan exports grow significantly over the past two decades. Recent studies show that Sri Lankan exports to India increased from around US $ 50 million before the agreement to over $ one billion annually today.

However, despite these gains, many exporters complain about non-tariff barriers, Customs delays, product registration requirements and cumbersome rules-of-origin procedures. Some analyses indicate that a growing share of bilateral trade now takes place outside the FTA framework because firms find compliance burdensome. Indian officials argue that these shortcomings should be addressed through an upgraded agreement rather than by allowing the FTA to stagnate. New Delhi maintains that an expanded framework covering services, investments, technology and logistics would generate greater benefits for Sri Lanka than for India itself.

India has promoted a range of initiatives including electricity grid interconnection, petroleum pipelines, liquefied natural gas cooperation, ferry services, port development and, at various times, the discussion of a physical land bridge across the Palk Strait. These projects fit into India's broader strategy of strengthening regional economic integration and securing its maritime neighbourhood.

Yet, in Sri Lanka, such proposals often provoke fears about sovereignty, demographic pressures, environmental impacts and excessive dependence on India. Opposition has come from political parties, nationalist groups, trade unions and sections of the business community. Concerns range from the influx of Indian professionals under ETCA to fears that physical connectivity could undermine Sri Lanka's strategic autonomy.

These anxieties have repeatedly stalled major initiatives. Even projects that enjoy broad economic justification often become entangled in domestic political debates, forcing successive Governments to proceed cautiously. Negotiations on the CEPA were substantially completed more than a decade ago but collapsed amid protests from professional associations and nationalist groups who feared Indian dominance in services sectors. The ETCA was later proposed as a narrower alternative focusing on economic and technological cooperation, but, it too encountered strong political resistance.

Although technical discussions have periodically resumed, no Sri Lankan Government has been willing to expend significant political capital to conclude the Agreement. India has repeatedly signalled its readiness to proceed but insists that the next move must come from Colombo.

Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha recently noted that India is awaiting Sri Lanka's decision on whether to upgrade the FTA or pursue the ETCA, emphasising that the choice rests entirely with the Sri Lankan Government. On the one hand, Sri Lanka requires foreign investment, export growth and deeper integration into regional supply chains as it rebuilds its economy after the 2022 crisis. Many economists argue that closer economic ties with India are essential if Sri Lanka is to attract manufacturing investment and participate in South Asian value chains.

On the other hand, political sensitivities surrounding India remain deeply embedded in the Sri Lankan public discourse. Governments of different ideological persuasions have discovered that economic logic often collides with emotional and geopolitical concerns about preserving independence and avoiding excessive reliance on any single external power.

As the ISFTA enters its second quarter-century, both countries appear to agree that the existing framework has reached its limits. The question is whether Sri Lanka can overcome domestic political resistance to embrace a more comprehensive economic partnership.

India's message is increasingly clear: connectivity, investment and trade liberalisation are part of a single strategic package. Sri Lanka's response remains cautious, reflecting long-standing concerns about sovereignty and economic asymmetry.

For now, the 25th anniversary of the FTA serves as both a celebration of past achievements and a reminder of unrealised ambitions. The future of the CEPA, the ETCA and cross-border connectivity will depend less on technical negotiations and more on whether Sri Lanka can build a domestic consensus that deeper engagement with India is an opportunity rather than a threat.

A political satire: The NPP’s econ plan is "Vote for us today. Prosperity is only 20 years away"

Deputy Industry and Entrepreneurship Development Minister Chathuranga Abeysinghe has kindly informed the Nation that the National People’s Power (NPP) requires 15 to 20 years to fully develop Sri Lanka.

The announcement has caused some confusion among veteran political observers. Not because of the 20 years — but because they distinctly remember young Abeysinghe and his colleagues spending the last few years mocking former President, attorney Ranil Wickremesinghe for saying that Sri Lanka's transformation would take until 2048. "Why should people wait 25 years?" demanded Abeysinghe and other Opposition speakers then. "Who can plan so far ahead?", "Is this development or a retirement plan?" they joked.

Now, after assuming office, the same mathematical exercise has apparently produced a different answer. Twenty-five years was absurd. Twenty years is visionary.

Five years have somehow disappeared from the national development timeline, making the entire programme appear significantly more revolutionary.

Political scientists are studying this remarkable phenomenon. One theory suggests that development years are like Government vehicles: they become more efficient when transferred to the ruling party.

According to them, the last 77 years do not count. “They were capitalist years."

Some mischievous observers have suggested a future election slogan: "Vote for us today. Prosperity is only 20 years away."

The real lesson is that economic development appears remarkably similar to the horizon. No matter how far one travels, it remains comfortably 20 years ahead.

As for Abeysinghe and Wickremesinghe, perhaps they now agree on one thing: developing Sri Lanka is a long journey. Their only disagreement seems to be whether the bus arrives in 2048 — or five minutes earlier.

The writer is a journalist, diplomat, and media professional with experience in public communication and international media relations

—--------

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication