 "Katchatheevu island")
External Affairs Minister (EAM) S Jaishankar’s call for finding a “solution” to the Katchatheevu island matter by bringing Sri Lanka to the negotiating table could prove to be an uphill task, show official records from both countries.
Katchatheevu was identified as belonging to Sri Lanka in 1974 as part of a maritime boundary agreement between the two countries.
While claiming at a press conference on Monday that prime ministers from the Congress had displayed indifference towards the Katchatheevu matter and given away Indian fishermen’s rights despite legal views to the contrary, Jaishankar described the status of the island as an issue that was very much alive.
In essence, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) claim is that the Congress government led by Indira Gandhi gave away Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka in 1974.
Highlighting that 6,184 Indian fishermen have been detained by Sri Lanka and 1,175 fishing vessels seized in the past 20 years, the EAM also trained his guns on the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), claiming that the Tamil Nadu-based political party was also responsible for the current status of Katchatheevu island.
More From This Section
At the conference, Jaishankar said: “We have to find a solution. We have to sit down and work it out with the Sri Lankan government.”
An uphill task
But, this could prove to be an uphill task.
As of now, it appears that Sri Lanka has not received any formal communication on the matter yet.
On the same day that EAM Jaishankar held the press conference on the Katchatheevu matter and BJP’s Tamil Nadu unit chief K Annamalai claimed that the Centre was taking all possible steps to reclaim the island, Jeevan Thondaman, a minister in Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Cabinet, told an Indian national daily that India has not sent any official communication to his country on the Katchatheevu matter.
Thondaman reportedly said that as far as Sri Lanka was concerned, Katchatheevu fell “within the Sri Lankan line of control”.
He added that there had been no official communication from India to return the Katchatheevu island so far.
On Tuesday, a Sri Lankan government spokesperson said that the country’s Cabinet had not discussed the Katchatheevu issue so far as it was never raised.
While India-Sri Lanka ties have been progressing well in the recent past, official statements made by Sri Lankan authorities in the past suggest that a settlement in India’s favour could be an uphill task.
In a 2008 reponse in the Sri Lankan parliament, the country's then minister of foreign affairs, Rohitha Bogollagama, had said that the maritime boundary between Sri Lanka and India stood “settled”.
Specifically addressing the matter of Katchatheevu, Bogollagama explained the Government of Sri Lanka’s point of view:
1) The Government of Sri Lanka has maintained a consistent policy "founded on historical facts" on the ownership of Katchatheevu.
2) Sri Lanka “consistently and regularly” exercised its "jurisdiction and control" over Katchatheevu.
3) Katchatheevu has been under Sri Lanka's jurisdiction "since the time of Portuguese and later the British rulers of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon)".
4) The 1974 agreement regarding historical waters between Sri Lanka and India in the Palk Strait and the Palk Bay "formally confirmed Sri Lanka's sovereignty over the (Katchatheevu) island".
5) Article 4 of the 1974 agreement stipulates that India and Sri Lanka shall have “sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over the waters, the islands, the continental shelf and the sub soil on its side of the maritime boundary in the Palk Strait and Palk Bay” and the Katchatheevu island “was determined as falling within Sri Lankan waters''.
6) Article 5 of the 1974 agreement provides that “Indian fishermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit Katchatheevu as hitherto" and they will "not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel documents or visas for these purposes".
7) Article 6 of the 1974 agreement states that "the vessels of India and Sri Lank will enjoy in each other's waters such rights as they have traditionally enjoyed therein".
8) Only "navigational rights" of the vessels of Sri Lanka and India over each other’s waters have been preserved.
9) The preparatory notes that led to the finalisation of the rights of the two countries clearly show that the rights of pilgrims under Article 5 "were restricted to attend the annual feast of the church (on Katchatheevu) and the rights of access of fishermen was restricted to dry their nets and catch”.
10) The provisions in Article 5 and 6, taken together, “do not confer any fishing rights on Indian fishermen or vessels to engage in fishing in Sri Lankan waters”.
11) The agreement between Sri Lanka and India on the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal and related matters, which was signed in 1976, “further clarifies the position established by the 1974 agreement”.
12) Article 5 of the 1976 agreement stipulates that each party shall have “sovereignty over the historical waters and the territorial sea, as well as the islands falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary”; each party "shall have sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well as over their resources, whether living or non-living, falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary”; each party "shall respect rights of navigation through its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone in accordance with its laws and regulations and the rules of international law”.
Bogollagama had said that the 1974 and 1976 agreements, along with the exchange of letters, had put the question of fishing rights "beyond doubt".
He cited Paragraph 1 of the exchange of letters, stating that it “very clearly rules out any fishing rights for the fishermen of the two states in the waters of the other state”.
Citing the signing of the 1976 agreement and the exchange of letters, Bogollagama had said that "the maritime boundary between Sri Lanka and India stands settled".
Bogollagama's conclusion was that Katchatheevu's status as a territory of Sri Lanka had been "cemented by the agreements of 1974 and 1976 and the related exchange of letters".
On the Indian side, past statements show that for a long time, at least the Centre did not think that the Katchatheevu matter could be easily reopened or the island “reclaimed”.
‘It could mean war with Sri Lanka’
In August 2014, during a hearing on petitions filed by political parties from Tamil Nadu, the then Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi – who appeared for the Centre -- had told the Supreme Court that the Katchatheevu matter was closed and that India would have to go to war against Sri Lanka if it wanted to retrieve the island.
“Katchatheevu went to Sri Lanka by an agreement in 1974. It was ceded and now acts as a boundary. How can it be taken back today?" Rohtagi had said in front of the apex court, adding, “If you want Katchatheevu back, you will have to go to war to get it back.”
‘No Indian territory was ceded’
In its response to a January 2015 Right to Information (RTI) application, the Ministry of External Affairs had said that the Katchatheevu island lies on the Sri Lankan (SL) side of the India-Sri Lanka international maritime boundary line (IMBL), which was delineated by the 1974 agreement demarcating it in the Palk Straits and a subsequent 1976 agreement demarcating it in the Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal.
According to the ministry’s reply, “This did not involve either acquiring or ceding territory belonging to India since the area in question had never been demarcated.”
Back then, the ministry had said that under the 1974 and 1976 agreements, the Katchatheevu island "lies on the Sri Lankan side of the India-Sri Lanka IMBL".
Govt’s 2022 Rajya Sabha response said the same thing
In 2022, the Centre was asked in Rajya Sabha to provide details on whether or not the Tamil Nadu government had repeatedly called on it to restore the ownership and fishing rights for the Katchatheevu island and what had been its response, if any.
The Centre was also asked whether it would hold talks with Sri Lanka for the Katchatheevu island because Indian fishermen were being harassed and taken into custody by the Sri Lankan Navy.
In his July 2022 response, Union Minister of State for External Affairs V Muraleedharan had informed the Rajya Sabha that the Government of India had concluded maritime boundary agreements with Sri Lanka in 1974 and 1976.
Muraleedharan said that under these agreements, the island of Katchatheevu lies on the Sri Lankan side of the India-Sri Lanka IMBL. He had also highlighted that the matter relating to Katchatheevu was sub-judice in the Supreme Court.
Lastly, Muraleedharan had said that the issue of Indian fishermen was taken up through diplomatic channels and established mechanisms.
Change in India’s stance?
Apart from Annamalai and Jaishankar’s remarks, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday accused the DMK of having “done nothing” to safeguard the interests of Tamil Nadu's fishermen.
The PM's post on the microblogging platform X contained a link to a newspaper article that said that the then prime minister Indira Gandhi had taken the DMK leadership into confidence regarding the Katchatheevu deal.
PM Modi's attack on the DMK came a day after he targeted the Congress for weakening India's unity and integrity by ceding Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka.
Rhetoric aside, DMK has done NOTHING to safeguard Tamil Nadu’s interests. New details emerging on #Katchatheevu have UNMASKED the DMK’s double standards totally.
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) April 1, 2024
Congress and DMK are family units. They only care that their own sons and daughters rise. They don’t care for anyone…
Eye opening and startling!
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) March 31, 2024
New facts reveal how Congress callously gave away #Katchatheevu.
This has angered every Indian and reaffirmed in people’s minds- we can’t ever trust Congress!
Weakening India’s unity, integrity and interests has been Congress’ way of working for…
The Congress and DMK are allies in Tamil Nadu and constituents of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc.
However, at the Monday press conference, Jaishankar parried a question on whether the Centre was planning to reclaim the island, saying that the matter was in the Supreme Court.
(With agency inputs)
(With agency inputs)
WATCH: Ex-Sri Lankan envoy says BJP invoked vote-puller due to less hold in Tamil Nadu
