Round
The Word
New
Delhi, 5 April 2024
The Katchatheevu Island
FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE!
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
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|