The Katchatheevu Island
By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism)
A tweet by the Prime Minister has stirred up a hornets’ nest in diplomatic and political circles. On March 31, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted, “Eye opening and startling new facts reveal how Congress callously gave away Katchatheevu Islet to Sri Lanka.” Critics in no time screamed that Modi was trying to score a political point in Tamil Nadu. The state votes for Parliament on 19 April. The Congress and DMK are in alliance. Modi added that Congress government did it in tacit concurrence of DMK patriarch M. Karunanidhi. This incurred sharp reactions from DMK as well as the Congress, and some diplomatic counter from Sri Lanka.
Scanning the reactions, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, son of M. Karunanidhi tried to take a pot shot against the Prime Minister, “What steps Prime Minister has taken to retrieve the Islet? Karunanidhi had opposed ceding it away.” Stalin’s reaction was countering the Prime Minister as well as appealing to the Tamil sentiments, mainly the fishermen, associated with the Islet. The Congress contends that the Islet was given away as a part of friendly arrangement. Sri Lankan government stated, the sovereignty of the Islet has been settled by the 1974 and 1976 Boundary Agreements.
The Prime Minister’s tweet rings a bell regardless of accusations of political opportunism. Under the Congress leadership, India lost quite a bit of territory and strategic advantages, ironically, after the British pulled out of the Indian Sub-Continent. I am referring to about 5000 sq km of territory under Chinese occupation, and in particular, the loss of Tibet, an independent country to the Chinese. The British Administration in India had maintained Tibet as a buffer between China and India. Historians argue that Chou-en-Lai, the Chinese Premier talked Nehru into legitimising Chinese sovereignty over Tibet without any reciprocal concession. Nehru acquiesced in Chinese wish as “he had too much faith and confidence in China.”
On Katchatheevu, what is the issue? Katchatheevu is a tiny Island consisting of 285 acres in the Palk Straight, a stretch of ocean between India and Sri Lanka. It is 1.6 kms long and 300 meters wide and 33 kms far from the Indian coast, in the North-West of Rameshwaram. Its distance from Jaffna, Sri Lanka is about 62 kms. There is only one structure on this Islet a church built by the British in the 20th Century and run by pastors from India and Sri Lanka. Both countries stake claim to fishing rights in the waters around Katchatheevu.
In 1974, Sri Lanka and India signed a Maritime Boundary Agreement which ended the dispute. India relinquished any claim over the Island. The Agreement affected the rights of Indians in Katchatheevu. Since then, Indian fishermen continued to be arrested by Sri Lankan Naval authorities as India had surrendered fishing rights in the Island. A subsequent pact signed on March 23, 1976 about Gulf of Mannar, the Bay of Bengal and related matters “settled beyond doubt” the sovereignty of Sri Lanka over the Islet.
In a reply by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama to their Parliament in September 2008, the Minister quotes Article 6 of the 1974 Agreement that says, “By this Article only navigational rights of the vessels of both Sri Lanka and India over each other’s waters have been preserved”. The provisions of Articles 5 and 6 taken together “Do not confer any fishing right on the Indian fishermen or vessels to engage in fishing in Sri Lankan waters”.
Interestingly, the Minister added Indian fishermen could only have the access to Katchatheevu in order to “dry their nets and catch”. The 1976 Agreement endorsed the position established by the 1974 Agreement. In the 1976 Agreement, “Each party shall respect rights of navigation through the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone”. The Congress argument refers to the exchange of territories around these Agreements. India secured, in return, the exclusive rights of Wadge Bank the waters in the South of Cape Comorin.
The DMK argument is that Karunanidhi had not consented to the 1976 Agreement which deprived Indian fishermen of their rights to fish around Katchatheevu; he was not in power at that time. But the RTI document reveals the facts to the contrary. As per the minutes of a meeting between India’s Foreign Secretary and then Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi in 1974, Karunanidhi consented to redrawing of India-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary that would leave Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka. The Agreement between India and Sri Lanka was signed on June 26-28, 1974, within a week of the meeting between Karunanidhi and the Foreign Secretary on June 19, 1974.
The DMK’s contention that it was the 1976 Agreement which surrendered the fishing rights in Katchatheevu when Karunanidhi was not in power. This does stand the factual scrutiny as India had already surrendered the fishing rights in 1974 itself, with Karunanidhi on board. It is true that the plight of fishermen in Tamil Nadu has sporadically prompted Tamil politicians to raise the issue of Katchatheevu. In fact, a case was filed by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Ms. Jayalalitha at the Supreme Court of India. Sri Lankan government maintain that any decision given by court outside the jurisdiction of Sri Lanka would not be binding on the Island country.
Apparently, BJP is attempting to correct some strategic mistakes committed in the past. As said above, giving away Tibet is one such blunder. Taking Kashmir into the United Nations as Indian Army was clearing the Pak-backed tribal invaders is another. Several such lapses have been pointed out by historians. I have referred to quite a few of them in this column. Digging into the debates in the 1960s about Katchatheevu, indicate an indifferent approach adopted by Nehru. As per the available documents, Nehru said that he attached, “no importance at all to Katchatheevu and that he would have no hesitation in giving up claims to it”. At the same time, the officials of the Foreign Ministry and other experts thought that India had a ‘good legal case to assert claim over Katchatheevu’; an Indian king “continuously and interruptedly” ruled the Island between 1875 and 1948.
Nehru’s attitude was similar when he harshly commented that ‘not a blade of grass grew in Aksai Chin’. This was during a debate in Rajya Sabha when China was invading, infiltrating and occupying Ladakh (Aksai Chin). In fact, a Member of Parliament, Mahavir Tyagi sarcastically retorted to Nehru pointing to his bald head, “there is no single hair on my head, shall I then cut it off?” In any case, the historians and experts attribute Nehru’s statement as a lame excuse for the failure of not being able to defend Indian Territory against Chinese aggression.
Of course, Katchatheevu is not the same as any territory occupied or claimed by China. It was given away or relinquished under a peaceful, negotiated agreement. Also, Sri Lanka is a friendly country. One may say Prime Minister is flogging a dead horse; it is a political rhetoric during election time. However, as said, the historic lapses with regard to our territory are painfully reminded through the reference to Katchatheevu. The country has to deal with that pain, by correcting the fault lines and precluding their recurrence. — INFA