Indian and Sri Lankan pilgrims leave Katchatheevu in March 2023 after attending the St. Anthony’s Church festival.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The story so far: On March 31, Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted on social media platform ‘X’ that he blamed the Congress for “callously” giving away Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka. He cited a media report on documents received in response to a Right to Information Act application from K. Annamalai, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Tamil Nadu president. Soon after, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar held a media conference, in which he sought to elaborate on Mr. Modi’s allegation. Calling for a “solution”, he said the bilateral agreements signed by India and Sri Lanka in 1974 and 1976, when the Congress and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) were in power respectively at the Centre and in Tamil Nadu, displayed indifference about Katchatheevu island, and compromised Indian fishermen’s rights in the Palk Strait separating India and Sri Lanka.

Where is Katchatheevu?

Katchatheevu is an uninhabited island spanning some 285 acres in the Palk Strait that separates Tamil Nadu and northern Sri Lanka. More precisely, it is located 14.5 km south of Delft Island and about 16 km to the northeast of Rameswaram. It is barren, has no drinking water or infrastructure, except a sole Catholic structure dedicated to St. Anthony.

What was the dispute?

The dispute was over who owns Katchatheevu. Negotiations began in 1921, between the British colonial governments of Madras and Ceylon, with both sides claiming territorial ownership. The matter was settled some five decades later, after the Governments of India and Sri Lanka, under Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, signed two bilateral agreements in 1974 and 1976. The governments agreed that Katchatheevu falls within Sri Lanka’s territory, and on a maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal to define the two countries’ exclusive economic zones. With the exclusive economic zones, India and Sri Lanka agreed to exercise sovereign rights over the living and non-living resources of their respective zone. The understanding was that fishing vessels and fishermen of India and Sri Lanka shall not fish in each other’s waters, territorial sea and the exclusive zone.

However, despite the historic dispute over its territorial definition, fishermen from Tamil Nadu visit Katchatheevu every March, along with their Tamil-speaking counterparts of northern Sri Lanka, for the annual St. Anthony’s festival. The Indian fishermen do not require a passport to visit the island in Sri Lankan territorial waters for this purpose, because the 1974 agreement expressly permitted them to access the island for rest, drying of nets, and the festival, while prohibiting any fishing activity.

What did India get?

Commentary and analysis from the time, including in The Hindu, shows New Delhi was seen as gaining some diplomatic mileage with its neighbour, which was tilting towards China then. A few years after the liberation of Bangladesh, and alongside the difficult question of citizenship for Indian-origin Tamils who were rendered stateless in Sri Lanka, New Delhi deemed strong and close ties with Sri Lanka important. Further, New Delhi got sovereign rights over Wadge Bank, located near Kanniyakumari, and its rich marine resources. Earlier this year, the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Directorate of Hydro-Carbon put out Notice Inviting Offers (NIO) for the exploration and development of oil and gas blocks in India, under the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Licensing Policy (HELP). The move drew flak from residents of Kanniyakumari and environmentalists who raised concerns over such activity impacting the marine ecosystem around Wadge Bank.

Are fishermen arrests related to the island?

No, they are not. Indian fishermen from Tamil Nadu have been facing arrests by the Sri Lankan Navy for many years now, for fishing illegally in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. Invariably, the arrests are made well past Katchatheevu, very close to Sri Lanka’s northern shores. Northern Sri Lankan fishermen, also Tamil speaking, have been agitating since the end of the island nation’s civil war in 2009, to assert their fishing rights. The Indian fishing boats are a major impediment to their post-war recovery.

In particular, they resist the use of the bottom-trawling fishing method used by their Indian counterparts, where trawl nets go down to the seabed, and scoop out all marine organisms, including small fishes and eggs. Eager to boost its marine exports, India began encouraging mechanised trawler fishing decades ago, when the Norwegian government invested millions of dollars into modernising India’s fishing fleet from the 1950s and up to the early 1970s. Owing to the practice, marine resources along Tamil Nadu’s coast have depleted, pushing Indian fishermen towards the Sri Lankan coast, rich in marine biodiversity, especially shrimps. Northern Sri Lankan fishermen are opposing the use of the fishing method that Indian fishermen stubbornly hold on to, despite the two governments in 2016 agreeing to expedite the “transition towards ending the practice of bottom trawling at the earliest”. The fishermen’s conflict is a contest between Tamil-speaking fishermen in India and Sri Lanka, with those from Tamil Nadu habitually fishing illegally in Sri Lankan waters, using bottom trawlers that are banned in Sri Lanka. Although many politicians in India often conflate the two issues, Katchatheevu is not the site of this struggle, and its “retrieval” cannot be a solution to it.

What has been the response?

Opposition parties led by the Congress have slammed the remarks, citing the government’s own position in 2015 that the previous agreements did not “involve either acquiring or ceding of territory belonging to India”. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin asked if PM Modi raised the issue of the retrieval of the Katchatheevu island with Sri Lanka once during his 10-year rule. Senior diplomats, who have led Indian missions in Sri Lanka, said questioning past agreements could damage India’s credibility and impair relations with our neighbour. Former National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon told The Hindu that reopening the 50-year-old-agreement could prove to be a “self-goal.”

Editorial | No man’s land: Playing politics over Katchatheevu 

In what some see as a muted response from the Sri Lankan government, the country’s Foreign Minister Ali Sabry has said there is no need to resume talks on a matter resolved 50 years ago. Sri Lanka’s Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda has accused India of acting in self-interest “to ensure Sri Lankan fishermen do not have access” around Katchatheevu. Fishermen on both sides have voiced concern over the remarks, while reminding the two governments that much needs to be done to resolve the actual fisheries conflict that is threatening both the region’s marine ecosystem and livelihoods of fisher folk who depend on it.

A view of Katchatheevu island in Sri Lanka.
| Photo Credit: L. Balachandar

The story so far: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on March 31 raised again the controversial matter of Katchatheevu, a few weeks ahead of the Lok Sabha poll in Tamil Nadu. Citing a report in a daily and posting it on “X” (formerly Twitter), he said: “Eye-opening and startling! New facts reveal how Congress callously gave away Katchatheevu….” Subsequently, the State BJP and the AIADMK sharpened their attacks on the DMK and the Congress while the responses were swift too. Even though almost 50 years have lapsed since the signing of the original agreement in 1974, the matter comes back to the fore as political parties use it for attacking their adversaries. On March 16, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK chief M.K. Stalin contended that Katchatheevu was ceded to Sri Lanka despite strong protests by the DMK. He asked the Prime Minister what steps were taken by the latter to retrieve the islet. About one-and-a-half months ago, Katchatheevu was in limelight as, in late February, fishermen associations in Ramanathapuram district boycotted the annual two-day festival, as a mark of protest against the Sri Lankan Government’s continuing arrests of Indian fishermen on charges of poaching.

When did Katchatheevu become a part of Sri Lanka?

During June 26-28, 1974, the then Prime Ministers of India and Sri Lanka, Indira Gandhi and Sirima R.D. Bandaranaike, signed an agreement to demarcate the boundary between the two countries in the historic waters from Palk Strait to Adam’s Bridge. A joint statement issued on June 28, 1974, stated that a boundary had been defined “in conformity with the historical evidence, legal international principles and precedents.” It also pointed out that “this boundary falls one mile off the west coast of the uninhabited” Katchatheevu. The pact brought to a close the talks held between the two sides since October 1921. Initially, the negotiations were held between the governments of the then Madras and Ceylon.

How important has been Kachatheevu to the fisherfolk?

Fisherfolk of the two countries have been traditionally using the islet for fishing. Though this feature was acknowledged in the 1974 agreement, the supplemental pact in March 1976 made it clear that fishing vessels and fishermen of the two countries “shall not engage” in fishing in the historic waters, territorial sea and exclusive zone or exclusive economic zone of either of the countries “without the express permission of Sri Lanka or India.”

St. Anthony’s Church there holds an annual festival, either in February or March, drawing devotees from both sides of the Palk Bay, a tradition which has been going on.

What triggered the negotiations between India and Sri Lanka?

Sri Lanka claimed sovereignty over Kachatheevu on the ground that the Portuguese who had occupied the island during 1505-1658 CE had exercised jurisdiction over the islet. India’s contention was that the erstwhile Raja of Ramnad [Ramanathapuram] had possession of it as part of his zamin. According to a news item published by The Hindu on March 6, 1968 which was based on the interview of the erstwhile Raja Ramanatha Sethupathi, Kachatheevu was under the jurisdiction of the zamin “from time immemorial” and it was the “last post’ of the Ramnad Estate. He added that the zamin had been collecting taxes till 1947 when it was taken over by the State government following the Zamindari Abolition Act. However, replying to the debate on the matter in Lok Sabha in July 1974, the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh asserted that the decision had been taken after “exhaustive research of historical and other records” on the islet.

How was the 1974 agreement received?

The present demand for the Katchatheevu retrieval traces its origin to the opposition that the pact generated in 1974. During the debates in both Houses of Parliament in July 1974, most of the Opposition including the DMK, AIADMK, Jan Sangh, Swatantara and the Socialist Party, staged walk outs in the two Houses. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was the Jan Sangh’s leader, had contended that the decision to transfer the islet had been taken “behind the back” of the people and Parliament. He was supported by Madhu Limaye, veteran Socialist leader. The then Chief Minister M.Karunanidhi, even in 1973 when the talk of the islet transfer had been doing rounds, had urged Indira Gandhi that the popular feeling was in favour of retaining Katchatheevu which “belonged to India and not to Tamil Nadu alone,” according to a report published by The Hindu on October 17, 1973. Three months later, he wrote a letter reiterating the stand, a copy of which was released a day after the 1974 agreement was signed. M. G. Ramachandran, founder of the AIADMK, which was a fledgling party then, had criticised Karunanidhi for “his failure to guide the Centre properly” on the issue and sought his resignation.

When did the issue get a fresh lease of life?

After remaining low nearly for over 15 years, the Katchatheevu issue got revived in August 1991 with the then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa demanding retrieval during her Independence Day address. She later modified her demand to one of getting back the islet through “a lease in perpetuity.” The Tamil Nadu Assembly had witnessed a number of debates on the matter. In the last 15 years, both Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi had approached the Supreme Court on the matter.

What has been the stand of the Union government on the issue?

In August 2013, the Union government told the Supreme Court that the question of retrieval of Kachchatheevu from Sri Lanka did not arise as no territory belonging to India was ceded to Sri Lanka. It contended that the islet was a matter of dispute between British India and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and there was no agreed boundary, a matter of which was settled through 1974 and 1976 agreements. In December 2022, the Union government, while referring to the two agreements, pointed out in its reply in the Rajya Sabha that Katchatheevu “lies on the Sri Lankan side of the India-Sri Lanka International Maritime Boundary Line.” It added that the matter was sub-judice in the Supreme Court.