Why Stalin’s letter to Modi on Sri Lanka matters now

In a lengthy and sharply worded letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin has sought to push India back into the centre of one of South Asia’s most unresolved moral and political questions: the future of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

The letter, written after what Stalin describes as “detailed representations” from Tamil leaders in India and Sri Lanka, demands direct intervention at a moment when Sri Lanka is preparing a new Constitution under President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, and when New Delhi has largely chosen diplomatic restraint over public pressure.

“I am writing to you on a matter of profound concern relating to the welfare and political rights of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka,” Stalin tells Modi at the outset, grounding his appeal in what he calls Tamil Nadu’s “deep historical, cultural, and emotional ties” with Sri Lankan Tamils. “As the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, it is my bounden duty to bring the issue regarding the proposed new constitution of Sri Lanka to your kind attention.”

At the heart of Stalin’s warning is the fear that Sri Lanka is once again moving toward constitutional change without addressing the structural causes of Tamil marginalisation. “The Sri Lankan Tamils have endured for over 77 years systematic discrimination, violence, and attempts to curb their genuine rights culminating in what many describe as a genocide against their community,” he writes, tracing the problem back to the island’s post-independence foundations.

Stalin places particular emphasis on Sri Lanka’s constitutional history. “The post-independence Constitutions of Sri Lanka – those of 1947, 1972, and 1978 – have all been rooted in a unitary state structure,” he says, arguing that this framework “has enabled planned ethnic violence, structural oppression, and denial of basic rights to the Tamil people.” Even after the end of the civil war, he adds, “this unitary framework has continued to enable demographic changes, land grabs, and erosion of Tamil identity in their traditional homelands.”

The trigger for the letter is the present constitutional exercise in Colombo. Stalin cautions that the current government, “holding an absolute majority in Parliament, is accelerating efforts to introduce a new constitution under the guise of resolving ethnic issues.” But, he warns, “this proposed framework appears to again reinforce a unitary ‘Ekkiyarajya’ (unitary state) model, which threatens to further marginalise the Tamils by ignoring their legitimate aspirations for political autonomy.”

Stalin’s letter suggests that the issue is not simply a Sri Lankan domestic matter but an issue that India cannot afford to treat as distant. He invokes India’s own past role in the island’s conflict, including the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, to argue that New Delhi has both responsibility and leverage. “India, as a regional power with a longstanding commitment to peace and justice in Sri Lanka… has a moral and strategic imperative to act,” he writes.

A central feature of the letter is Stalin’s revival of the Thimpu Principles, articulated during talks facilitated by India in 1985. He lists them clearly and without dilution: “Recognition of the Tamils of Sri Lanka as a distinct nation; acknowledgment of the Northern and Eastern Provinces as the traditional homeland of the Tamil people; affirmation of the right to self-determination for the Tamil nation; and establishment of a federal system of governance that ensures equality and non-discrimination for all citizens, including full citizenship rights for hill-country Tamils.”

“Without incorporating these elements,” Stalin warns, “any new constitution risks perpetuating the cycle of injustice and instability, potentially leading to renewed conflict and humanitarian crises.” The language is measured, but the implication is stark: constitutional cosmeticism, he suggests, could reopen wounds that Sri Lanka has never fully healed.

What makes the letter politically significant is also its timing and audience. By addressing Modi directly, Stalin is placing the Sri Lankan Tamil question within India’s national diplomatic priorities, not merely Tamil Nadu’s emotional landscape. He frames federalism abroad as an extension of constitutional values at home. “India should press for the inclusion of federal arrangements that devolve power to the provinces, protect ethnic minority rights, and uphold the principles of pluralism and equality,” he writes, adding that such a stand would “align with our constitutional values of federalism and protection of linguistic and ethnic minorities.”

The letter, unusually comprehensive for a chief minister’s communication on foreign affairs, signals an attempt to shape New Delhi’s Sri Lanka policy at a moment when Colombo is still drafting, not finalising, its constitutional vision. The letter also reflects political realities within Tamil Nadu, where the fate of Sri Lankan Tamils remains a deeply felt issue across party lines. “The plight of Sri Lankan Tamils resonates deeply in Tamil Nadu, where millions view them as kin,” Stalin writes, warning that any deterioration could carry “broader implications for bilateral relations and regional stability.”

In closing, Stalin strikes a note of cautious expectation rather than confrontation. “I am confident that under your leadership, India will take proactive steps to safeguard the rights of Sri Lankan Tamils and contribute to a just and lasting resolution,” he writes.