Governments must understand that the issue is about fishing rights and initiate serious negotiations that will provide long-term benefits to both Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen.
Published Apr 03, 2025 | 1:17 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 03, 2025 | 3:14 PM
The retrieval of Katchtheevu from Sri Lanka has been a long-standing demand of Tamil Nadu.
Synopsis: Tamil Nadu’s resolution on India taking back Katchatheevu may have political reasons. Fishermen from both Sri Lanka and India, however, hold a view that transcends borders—and it’s about livelihood.
The barren island was of “no strategic importance” when India ceded Katchatheevu in the Palk Straits to Sri Lanka in 1974. The government of Tamil Nadu now wants the island back under India’s control.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on Wednesday, 2 April, urging the Union government to reclaim Kachatheevu, an uninhibited island spread over 285 acres 32 kilometres off the Indian coast.
Introducing the resolution, Chief Minister MK Stalin said the retrieval of Katchatheevu was the only permanent solution “to protect the traditional fishing rights of Tamil Nadu fishermen and to mitigate the sufferings faced by them due to the Sri Lankan Navy”.
Tamil Nadu also asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi to initiate diplomatic measures to ensure the release of imprisoned fishermen from the state along with their vessels.
The resolution also demanded a relook of the 1974 Indo-Sri Lanka accord, which delimited a boundary through the “historic waters” of the Palk Bay.
Opposition AIADMK and BJP, too, backed the resolution but blamed the DMK for ceding the island when its ally, the Congress, was ruling the country.
Interestingly, the timing of the resolution was notable. It came two days before Prime Minister Modi was to embark on a visit to the island nation.
Modi has been scheduled to be in Sri Lanka from Friday, 4 April, to 6 April.
The retrieval of Katchtheevu from Sri Lanka has been a long-standing demand of Tamil Nadu. By reviving the demand, the Assembly has reignited debates over the island’s historical and strategic importance, adding a new dimension to India-Sri Lanka relations.
While introducing the resolution, Stalin condemned the Sri Lanka Navy’s continuous attacks on Tamil Nadu’s fishermen, calling it an unresolved humanitarian crisis.
He pointed out that Tamil Nadu fishermen were being arrested and assaulted, and their boats were remorselessly confiscated. He said Sri Lanka arrested 530 fishermen in 2024 alone.
Stalin criticized the Union government’s inaction, recalling that despite repeated letters—74 official communications to the Prime Minister and Union Ministers—the attacks have not ceased.
He also reminded the House that before the 2014 elections, Modi had promised that no Indian fisherman would be arrested under his leadership: yet the reality has been different.
Incidentally, Modi revived the discussion on Katchatheevu on 31 March 2024. Sharing a reply to an application BJP’s Tamil Nadu president K Annamalai had filed under the Right to Information Act, the prime minister Narendra Modi indicated on X (formerly Twitter) that the Congress never attached much importance to the island.
Stalin further stated in the Assembly that the issue was not just about the frequent arrests but about Tamil Nadu fishermen’s historical and traditional fishing rights in the Palk Strait, which have been severely impacted ever since the 1974 agreement. He said the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement was made without Tamil Nadu’s consent.
He reiterated the DMK’s long-standing opposition to the agreement, recalling how former chief minister M Karunanidhi had strongly protested the cession of Katchatheevu, warning that it would lead to severe consequences for Tamil Nadu fishermen.
Stalin asserted that unless India retrieved Katchatheevu, the attacks would continue, threatening the livelihood and safety of thousands of Indian fishermen.
The resolution highlighted that:
The resolution strongly condemned the Sri Lankan Navy’s actions and emphasised that without a firm response from the Union government, Tamil Nadu’s fishermen would continue to suffer.
It urged the country’s leadership to prioritise Tamil Nadu’s interests and take immediate diplomatic measures to resolve the long-standing issue.
All parties supported the resolution. Even the BJP MLAs in the Tamil Nadu Assembly backed the resolution.
However, BJP Tamil Nadu State President Annamalai, in an X post, criticised the DMK for not opposing the 1974 agreement when it was signed, but making a political issue now.
The contradiction between Annamalai’s statement and the BJP MLAs’ support for the resolution has caused confusion.
South First spoke to fishermen from both India and Sri Lanka to understand whether the resolution on retrieving Katchatheevu would genuinely resolve the long-standing crisis.
Mohammed Alam, the president of the Northern Fishermen People Unity in Sri Lanka, expressed skepticism about the resolution’s effectiveness. He argued that the resolution served more as a political move for future gains rather than an actual solution for fishermen.
“Retrieving Katchatheevu would only change the flag flying there—it would replace the Sri Lankan flag with the Indian flag. But beyond that, nothing else would change,” he said.
“Sri Lankan fishermen conduct their trade entirely within their territorial waters. So, the claim that reclaiming Katchatheevu would permanently resolve the issue for Tamil Nadu fishermen is nothing but a staged drama that the people of Tamil Nadu must recognise,” Alam stated.
He further explained that even if India were to regain Katchatheevu, it would add only a few kilometers to its territorial fishing area.
“For instance, if we assume a 20-kilometer extension, only 10 kilometers would be gained within the Sri Lankan border. However, Tamil Nadu fishermen already venture beyond the Katchatheevu region for fishing,” he claimed.
“We have no issue with them fishing around Katchatheevu, as they operate thousands of boats just a short distance from the shore. They have requested the Indian government to reform their fishing practices,” Alam added.
Alam revealed that Sri Lankan fishermen had sent over four petitions to Chief Minister Stalin regarding the issue but received no response.
“We don’t understand what MK Stalin is thinking. Is he genuinely trying to solve the fishermen’s crisis, or is he trying to escalate the situation,” he wondered.
He warned that if India pushed for reclaiming Katchatheevu, Sri Lanka might be forced to reconsider other agreements with its neighbour.
“If India seeks to reclaim a piece of land transferred under a government-to-government agreement, it would set a precedent for reviewing all such agreements. If Tamil Nadu pushes us into that situation, we will also demand a review of other agreements made between India and Sri Lanka,” he said.
Alam dismissed the argument that fishermen from Tamil Nadu were arrested solely because of Katchatheevu.
“The claim that Tamil Nadu fishermen are arrested because they lack access to Katchatheevu is either based on ignorance or a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation,” he stated.
Alam explained that before 2017, arrested Indian fishermen were typically detained for 14 or 28 days before releasing them along with their seized boats.
However, in 2018, Sri Lanka amended its Foreign Vessels Management Act, imposing fines ranging from Sri Lankan Rs 5,00,000 to Rs 5 million for illegal fishing, with repeat offenders facing harsher penalties.
“Under this law, the Sri Lankan Navy now arrests fishermen who cross into Sri Lanka’s maritime borders. The arrests are not arbitrary—only those who enter Sri Lankan waters are detained,” Alam clarified.
He also pointed out that Tamil Nadu fishermen fish as close as five kilometers from Sri Lankan islands and coastal villages like Neduntheevu (Delft Island) and Mannar.
Even Tamil Nadu fishermen have admitted to this practice, he claimed.
Justin, the president of the Rameswaram Fishermen’s Association, acknowledged that Indian fishers often cross the maritime border.
“It is because there are no clearly defined boundaries. Fishermen are forced to go wherever they can find fish. If there were well-defined fishing boundaries, methods, and seasons, it would prevent unnecessary conflicts between Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen,” he said.
He pointed out that Tamil Nadu’s demand to reclaim Katchatheevu stemmed from the fact that India previously had 24 nautical miles of fishing waters in the region. After ceding Katchatheevu, it shrank to 12 nautical miles.
“Reclaiming a territory that has already been handed over to another country is nearly impossible. This is why fishermen have at least demanded the restoration of their traditional fishing rights in the area,” he said.
“However, if Katchatheevu is reclaimed, the previously available 24 nautical miles of fishing zone for India will also be restored,” he added.
While the Tamil Nadu Assembly claimed that retrieving Katchatheevu would bring a permanent solution, fishermen and researchers believed that the issue went beyond territorial disputes.
According to researcher Prabhakar, who studies the labour history of Palk Bay sea fisheries and associated with the Coastal People’s Right to Life Movement said the Katchatheevu issue affected only fishermen from Rameswaram.
Fishermen from Vedaranayam, Nagapattinam, and Thanjavur did not face those challenges. “Instead, their use of large trawlers has become a problem for Sri Lankan fishermen who rely on traditional fishing methods,” he said.
Justin claimed that Karaikal fishermen were primarily responsible for the conflict between Indian and Sri Lankan fishing communities.
“Fishermen from Karaikal frequently use trawlers and stay in Sri Lankan waters for up to seven days at a time. This damages Sri Lankan fishermen’s nets and severely affects their livelihoods,” he said.
“In particular, fishermen from Jaffna, Kilinochchi, and Mullaitheevu have been significantly impacted by these incursions,” Justin noted.
Recent discussions between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan fishermen highlighted a different core issue—trawler fishing by Tamil Nadu fishermen. During these talks, Sri Lankan fishermen accused their Tamil Nadu counterparts of overexploiting marine resources, leaving little for those using traditional methods.
Even Tamil Nadu fishermen acknowledged the issue and requested time to transition away from trawler fishing.
Prabhakar called for structured agreements on fishing zones, practices, and regulations to end the crisis.
“This is not just a border issue—it is a fishing rights issue. Governments need to understand this and initiate serious negotiations that will provide long-term benefits to both Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen,” he said.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
