‘Our seas, our land’: Sri Lanka assures India against hostile acts from its territory

Sri Lanka has promised India that its territory, territorial waters, and airspace will not be used for hostile activities against Indian security. The pledge covers the country’s land and seas, not only military bases. It matters because Sri Lanka and India are close neighbours, so military use of Sri Lankan facilities could directly affect India and the surrounding region.

Dissanayake stated that “our seas” and “our land” would never support a hostile act against India. He also repeated the commitment during a meeting with Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh in Colombo last month. The article links the promise to cooperation on regional safety, security, peace, and prosperity.

The commitment remains part of Sri Lanka’s stated non-aligned policy. Colombo says it will not join military conflicts, while still providing humanitarian assistance. It recently rejected US aircraft access and an Iranian request to send warships, showing how the pledge may operate in practice.

In general, territory or airspace is used for a hostile act when it enables military action against another country. Examples can include launching attacks, moving forces, gathering intelligence, supplying weapons, or staging operations. The article does not provide a legal definition or list specific prohibited activities. Its central point is that Sri Lanka will not let its land, seas, or airspace support threats to India.

The mechanism is access. A foreign military could potentially use facilities for aircraft movement, naval operations, communications, or logistics. If that access helped an attack or coercive operation, India could regard the host territory as contributing to a hostile activity. Dissanayake therefore made a broad political commitment rather than naming individual operations.

Sri Lanka’s stated position is preventive. It says Colombo rejected US aircraft landings and Iran’s request to send warships during the conflict. At the same time, it accepts humanitarian requests, such as hospital care for injured Iranian sailors.

Sri Lanka is very close to India. At their nearest points, the countries are separated by roughly 30 kilometres, with the Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannar between them. This geography makes Sri Lanka more than a distant island neighbour. Activity there can affect India’s southern coastline, nearby maritime approaches, and regional security calculations.

The intervening waters are relatively narrow, but the wider maritime setting is strategically important. Sri Lanka sits in the Indian Ocean, near sea routes linking the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia. Ports, airspace, and naval access can therefore matter for surveillance, supply, rescue, and military movement. These geographic points come from established world knowledge, not details supplied by the article.

The article frames the relationship as a close-neighbour and maritime partnership. Dissanayake’s pledge reflects that proximity. By denying military access to both sides in the US-Iran conflict, Sri Lanka seeks to prevent nearby waters or facilities from becoming part of wider hostilities.

A conflict participant may seek access to Sri Lankan ports, airspace, or territory because location and infrastructure can support military operations. Ports can provide fuel, repairs, supplies, or shelter. Airspace can enable aircraft transit or surveillance. Territory can support communications, logistics, medical care, or staging. These are general strategic reasons, not purposes identified in the article.

Permission matters because a host government controls access to its facilities and can decide whether military activity is allowed. Sri Lanka says it refused permission for US aircraft to land and rejected Iran’s request to send warships. Those decisions prevented the requested military presence, while leaving room for humanitarian assistance.

The article does not explain why Washington or Tehran made the requests, or what missions they proposed. It only establishes that both sides approached Colombo during their conflict. Sri Lanka’s response shows how a non-aligned state can deny military access to competing parties without refusing all assistance.

If a foreign power used Sri Lankan territory for hostile operations, India could face threats from a nearby location. Such access might support aircraft, ships, surveillance, or logistics close to Indian territory and maritime approaches. It could also challenge India’s sense of security and make the island’s facilities part of a wider conflict. These consequences are general security analysis; the article does not predict a particular attack.

The key mechanism is proximity combined with access. Military activity based near India could shorten warning times and complicate monitoring. It might also pressure India to increase patrols or defensive measures. Sri Lanka itself could face retaliation, diplomatic pressure, or economic disruption if its territory became associated with combat. These possible effects are not detailed in the article.

Dissanayake’s pledge aims to prevent that chain of events. By rejecting US aircraft access and Iran’s warship request, Colombo says it will not take sides militarily. It still offers humanitarian help, preserving regional cooperation without turning Sri Lanka into a combat platform.

A non-aligned foreign policy seeks to avoid joining opposing military blocs or taking sides in armed conflicts. It does not require a country to end all diplomatic contact. Sri Lanka’s president said the country would continue this approach and would not become party to a military conflict. That matters because Colombo is responding to requests from both sides without granting either military support.

The article gives a clear example. Sri Lanka denied permission for US aircraft to land and rejected Iran’s request to send warships. Yet it did not reject humanitarian needs. In March, Sri Lankan hospitals treated sailors from an Iranian vessel hit by a US submarine. The distinction is between enabling combat operations and helping people affected by conflict.

This policy lets Sri Lanka protect its neutrality while maintaining practical cooperation. Dissanayake says the country lacks military capabilities and will not join the conflict. Its future position, as described, is to deny military access, avoid taking sides, and respond to humanitarian requests.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a coastal state generally has sovereignty over its territorial sea, extending up to 12 nautical miles from its baselines. That sovereignty includes control of the waters and the airspace above them, subject to rules such as innocent passage for foreign ships. A state also has sovereignty over its land territory and airspace above it under international law.

Sri Lanka’s exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, can generally extend up to 200 nautical miles where geography permits. In an EEZ, Sri Lanka has sovereign rights over natural resources and certain jurisdictional powers, but not full sovereignty. Other states retain navigation and overflight freedoms. Maritime boundaries with India can limit the areas available, so precise claims depend on agreements and geography.

These legal principles help explain Colombo’s ability to approve or refuse access. However, the article does not discuss UNCLOS, distances, innocent passage, or EEZ rules. Dissanayake’s pledge is a political commitment that operates within, rather than replacing, international law.