Colombo's Default: Aid, Conditionality and Debt in India's Neighbourhood
April 2022. Sri Lanka suspends payments on about $51 billion of external debt; reserves fall below $50 million, inflation crosses 60 per cent, and fuel queues and 13-hour power cuts dominate the news. Colombo owes roughly $7 billion to China, which has held a 99-year lease on Hambantota port since 2017, and has also borrowed heavily from international bond markets. India has already extended around $4 billion in credit lines for fuel, food and medicine and is Colombo's largest bilateral supporter this year. Sri Lanka has signed a staff-level agreement with the IMF for a $2.9 billion facility that requires creditor assurances that debt will be restructured on comparable terms. Colombo now asks Delhi for a further bridge loan, while insisting it will not become a base for anyone's rivalry. In Delhi, officials debate whether new money should carry conditions - transparency about Chinese loans, procurement tied to Indian suppliers, support on a specific strategic project - or be given unconditionally.
1. Should India attach conditions to further assistance? Argue both sides and recommend a position.
Read the worked answer
The case for conditions. Indian taxpayers are funding a neighbour that may default again; accountability requires knowing the full creditor picture, because India cannot assess solvency while Chinese lending is opaque. Conditions can also create leverage on procurement and on projects India has long sought. A government that gives quietly and asks nothing may be treated as a soft lender whose money frees other creditors to keep lending.
The case against. Sri Lanka's stated policy is neutrality between Delhi and Beijing; visible political conditions confirm the narrative that India seeks vassalage and push Colombo closer to China. Bilateral conditions also undercut the IMF framework, which already requires transparency and comparability of treatment from all creditors - so India would be demanding at bilateral level what a multilateral process is designed to secure.
Recommendation: split the money by purpose. Humanitarian supplies - fuel, medicine, food, fertiliser - should be unconditional and fast, because their value is measured in lives and in goodwill, and they are India's comparative advantage. Financial support tied to the IMF programme should be conditional on process conditions only: full disclosure of all external liabilities to the IMF, and no new non-concessional borrowing outside the programme. Project finance should be conditional on normal commercial terms and Sri Lankan ownership. This keeps India aligned with the multilateral rulebook, gets transparency without demanding fealty, and leaves Delhi able to say to its own parliament exactly where the money went.
2. Is 'Chinese debt trap diplomacy' an accurate description of Sri Lanka's predicament? Use the facts in the case.
Read the worked answer
Evidence for the description. The borrowing financed projects with poor traffic and revenue forecasts; interest rates were higher than concessional alternatives; and the eventual 99-year lease of a strategically located port gave a creditor long-term control of an asset. Whatever the intention, the effect has been to convert financial distress into strategic leverage, which is exactly what the phrase describes.
Evidence against. Lending was requested by Sri Lankan governments, approved by Sri Lankan cabinets and financed prestige projects that domestic politics wanted. Hambantota's troubles came substantially from the port's own commercial weakness and from a decision to fund it with expensive commercial debt rather than concessional finance. Bondholders in London and New York lent on worse terms and are not accused of a trap. Sri Lanka also chose the lease as one instrument of debt relief rather than being stripped of the asset by force.
A more accurate formulation: not a trap laid in advance, but debt distress converted into strategic advantage - an asymmetry produced by weak bargaining power, poor project selection and a creditor willing to accept assets where others accept losses. That version is analytically better and also more useful politically, because it points to remedies: better project appraisal, concessional finance from India and multilateral banks, and coordinated restructuring - rather than to a conspiracy that no policy can address.
3. What, if anything, should India change in its neighbourhood policy after this episode?
Read the worked answer
Recognise the real advantage India has. Delhi moved first and fast, with credit lines approved in weeks while other creditors negotiated. Speed and proximity are structural assets in a crisis; the lesson is to institutionalise them - a standing regional emergency credit facility and pre-positioned fuel and medicine stocks would make the response automatic rather than improvised.
Fix delivery, not just announcements. Indian-assisted projects in the neighbourhood have a reputation for delay, land-acquisition problems and contractor disputes, which erodes the political return on money spent. A published delivery timeline for each project, with completion data, would do more for credibility than a larger headline commitment.
Accept hedging. Small states will borrow from China, host Chinese firms and refuse to be anybody's base. Treating this as betrayal produces exactly the punitive reflex - blockades, aid suspensions - that pushes them further away. India should compete on the quality and speed of what it offers and leave the choice to the partner.
Use regional institutions. SAARC is paralysed; BIMSTEC and the IMF-led restructuring process give India multilateral channels that do not look like bilateral pressure.
Conclusion: the episode validates the Neighbourhood First instinct but exposes its weak implementation. The change required is operational discipline and a refusal to convert humanitarian generosity into political billing.