Interesting facts in these US Navy directives:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...62305/India.doc
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...5/Sri_Lanka.doc
If it has right data then:
a) In past, India and Sri Lanka have tried to assert to the international community that the Palk Straight waters are 'historic' and 'internal'. Both have been united and consistent in this stand.
b) USA does not recognize this claim, has always protested against these, and considers the waters as 'international' and rejects the 'historic' claim too.
c) India decides to unilaterally damage the bridge on its side of the waters - which means effectively India is going back on its earlier claims of waters being of historic importance.
d) This also means Sri Lanka is free to do what it likes on its side of the waters.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...62305/India.doc
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...5/Sri_Lanka.doc
If it has right data then:
a) In past, India and Sri Lanka have tried to assert to the international community that the Palk Straight waters are 'historic' and 'internal'. Both have been united and consistent in this stand.
b) USA does not recognize this claim, has always protested against these, and considers the waters as 'international' and rejects the 'historic' claim too.
c) India decides to unilaterally damage the bridge on its side of the waters - which means effectively India is going back on its earlier claims of waters being of historic importance.
d) This also means Sri Lanka is free to do what it likes on its side of the waters.
