In an article title Small States and the Politics of Maritime Boundaries in South Asia: Case Studies of India–Sri Lanka and India–Bangladesh Maritime Boundaries, published in Geopolitics, Udayan Das examines how maritime boundaries in South Asia are negotiated and governed through the cases of India–Sri Lanka and India–Bangladesh. The article shifts focus from land borders to maritime spaces, arguing that oceans are not neutral but politically constructed and controlled. As Das notes, “oceans too are territorially segregated and governed,” challenging the assumption of the sea as an open, unregulated domain.
The analysis foregrounds the perspective of smaller states, showing how Sri Lanka and Bangladesh navigated asymmetry with India to secure favourable boundary outcomes. Despite limited material power, both states used diplomatic strategies such as issue magnification, bilateral momentum, and leadership-level engagement. The article highlights that small states compensate for their limitations by leveraging strong interpersonal relationships at the highest levels, maintaining bilateral momentum, and capitalising on a regional balance that constrained India.
Das argues that maritime boundary formation in South Asia followed distinct pathways. While India and Sri Lanka resolved their boundary through bilateral negotiations in the 1970s, India and Bangladesh turned to third-party arbitration, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration delivering a verdict in 2014. For smaller states, international institutions offer legitimacy and balance. As one Bangladeshi view cited in the article suggests, outcomes were possible because of “international law and the UN’s platform for an arbitration process.”
However, the article shows that legal demarcation does not resolve underlying tensions. Maritime spaces remain socially embedded and contested, particularly in fisheries. Das observes that “announcing a demarcation is much easier than institutionalising it,” with persistent transgressions by fishers reflecting the gap between formal boundaries and lived realities.
The article concludes that small states adopt a dual strategy of cooperation and contestation in managing maritime relations with India. While they enforce domestic regulations and respond to violations, they avoid escalation and prioritise bilateral engagement. This produces a pattern where “unequal states can negotiate and resolve maritime boundaries,” yet continue to manage ongoing frictions within a framework of controlled cooperation.