Was Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War needed? Critically examine.

India’s relationship with Sri Lanka is complex. The ethnic and historical links between Sri Lankan and Indian Tamils as well as New Delhi’s own regional influence in South Asia give India an enduring interest in its southern neighbor. The original intention was peacekeeping but the Indian Peace Keeping Force eventually involved in large scale military operations. This raised confusions about intervention needed or not?

Arguments supporting Indian intervention

1. Request by Srilankan state considered as a boost to India’s geopolitical image.
2. Unstable Srilanka could threaten indias national interest.
3. Intervention was needed to prevent external powers like china making base in SL.
4. The Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War was the deployment of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka intended to perform a peacekeeping role.
5. LTTE demands for separate Tamil state posed territorial integrity risks to India and srilaknka which urged intervention.
6. The deployment followed the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord between India and Sri Lanka of 1987 which was intended to end the Sri Lankan Civil War & was successful.

Arguments against India’s intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War

1. Assassination of PM and tarnished image of country unable to protect her prime minister.
2. Counterproductive to ambitions of geo-political dominance.
3. Human rights violations and reduced Indian status as protector of human rights.
4. The 32-month presence of the IPKF in Sri Lanka resulted in the deaths of 1100 Indian soldiers and over 5000 Sri Lankans. 
5. Domestic politic took a dip with increased Tamil polarization and north south divide.
6. The cost for the Indian government was estimated at over ₹10.3 billion.

Even though intervention was done for national interest, interventions to internal issues of srilanka had many bitter consequences. Nonetheless, India played a vital role in wiping out LTTE in 2009.