By Ayesh Indranath Ranawaka –

Ayesh Indranath Ranawaka

I hold Narendra Modi in high regard due to his remarkable leadership skills and rapid political growth. He has not continued the Ayodhya temple issue, prevented its ramifications from significantly affecting India’s political landscape. Moreover, his diplomatic efforts to elevate India’s global standing are commendable.

I have closely observed Modi’s evolving ideologies, particularly in his approach towards fostering strong business growth in India. While acknowledging India’s shift towards an open and liberal economy under Modi’s leadership, it’s notable that he seldom acknowledges the pivotal role played by Manmohan Singh, a Congress member, in spearheading this transformation.

As the world’s largest democracy, India’s electoral methods should exemplify integrity and efficacy, especially in its interactions with smaller nations like Sri Lanka, currently facing economic challenges. India, often perceived as a guiding figure for its neighboring countries, should exercise caution and prudence in its dealings.

While the Katchatheevu Island dispute warrants attention, dwelling excessively on historical grievances and past glories isn’t conducive to resolution. It’s imperative to grasp the evolving global dynamics and contemporary realities, rather than relying solely on past narratives.

In light of recent developments, such as Sri Lanka’s economic downturn, it’s essential for India, as the regional powerhouse, to approach issues like the Katchatheevu Island dispute with sensitivity and understanding. Blaming past administrations, like the Congress party, for historical agreements may not serve the interests of fostering constructive dialogue and resolution.

In essence, resolving complex issues like the Katchatheevu Island dispute requires a forward-thinking approach that acknowledges historical context while focusing on contemporary challenges and mutual interests. It is incumbent upon leaders like Prime Minister Modi to demonstrate astute diplomatic leadership in navigating such matters.

India’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Jayashankar, recently conducted a lengthy press conference, aiming to shed light on past events and individuals involved in certain matters. However, we respectfully urge the Foreign minister yo peruse the book titled “Katchatheevu Island and Indo-Lanka Maritime Border Line,” authored in English by Mr. WT Jayasinghe, former Defence /Foreign Secretary in Sri Lanka in Seventies. This text holds significant relevance not only for India’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Jayasankar but also for all officials within our public service. It provides valuable insights into the responsibilities and conduct expected of diplomatic officers, particularly evident in the skilled negotiations between Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, as depicted within its pages.

This literary work serves to underscore the competence of officials during that era. Hence, we advocate for its thorough examination by government personnel and embassy staff alike. Additionally, we commend the expertise of individuals such as Mr. Shirley Amarasinghe, who, with his profound knowledge of hydrography, served as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Despite his departure from the position in 1977, his contributions were instrumental in determining the Indo-Lankan maritime boundary. Similarly, Mr. Pinto’s expertise as a legal Advisor significantly contributed to this endeavor.

We harbor a belief that, notwithstanding India’s intellectual prowess during that period, they were unable to counter the compelling arguments presented by Mr. Shirley Amarasinghe and our delegation. While the traditional method of maritime border delineation involves the “Equal Distance,” the relevance of this approach to the Katchatheevu Island issue remains debatable. Historical records indicate varied claims over the island, dating back to different periods of colonial rule. However, we assert that dwelling on historical narratives holds little significance in the present context. What truly matters is the contemporary landscape.

The dialogue surrounding Katchatheevu Island commenced in 1968, India’s Prime Minister Nehru once said, ‘Don’t waste Parliament’s time on a useless island, we are not in to this work anymore’ in 1961. This sentiment was echoed by Indira Gandhi, who likened the island to a mere “useless rock.” Subsequently, an agreement was reached in 1974, granting the island to Sri Lanka, albeit with specific provisions allowing Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen access to its waters. When signing this, it mentions very specific things. That is, “Fishermen from India and Sri Lanka can ENJOY this historic water for fishing activities”. However, amendments in 1976 restricted Indian fishermen’s rights, highlighting the evolving nature of bilateral agreements.

According to the information available to us, historical records from 1974 indicate two key locations where Sri Lankan fishermen operated: Katchatheevu Island and Wadge Bank near Kanyakumari, Mannar Basin. Wadge Bank holds significance due to its abundant rich resources, including a pearl reef and fertile fish breeding areas. An agreement from that time stipulated that Sri Lanka would cease fishing in Wadge Bank, while India would refrain from fishing near Katchatheevu. However, neither Foreign Minister Jayashankar nor Prime Minister Modi has addressed this matter. This agreement ceased to be enforced in 1976. Despite Sri Lankan fishermen being barred from accessing Wadge Bank, Indian Trawlers continue to traverse the waters to Sri Lanka unabated. It has been five decades since 1974, yet this practice persists. It is imperative that India takes proactive measures to address this issue rather than focusing on past grievances ,Who did and who hid. The pertinent question remains: what justification do these Indian fishing boats have under the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea?

Furthermore, the 2017 ban on trawling in Sri Lanka poses significant challenges for our fishermen. This discrepancy in fishing regulations, where Indian fishermen can access Sri Lankan prawns while Sri Lankan fishermen cannot reciprocate, creates an unequal playing field. The economic stakes are high, with India annually earning over 2 billion dollars from shrimp exports alone, compared to Sri Lanka’s total fish export revenue of 350-400 million dollars. The government of Sri Lanka needs to give answers to this problem very soon. India stopped the project of the media telling stories about Setu Samudran, about Hanuman, but Subramaniam Swami filled case against it 15 years before . A case was filed earlier and it was again taken into consideration in the present. I wrote an article against it which was published in the Colombo Telegraph on March 1, 2022. We need to talk about these problems. Otherwise, these problems will arise again in about 50 years time or so. We must face this truth. The only valuable resource we have is the “Katchatheevu” book written by Mr. Jayasinghe. The media’s role in highlighting these challenges, such as the Setu Samudram project, is vital. Legal avenues have been pursued previously and must be revisited. Like Sethu Samudram, this is an endless issue.

The Easter attacks before the last Indian elections underscore the urgency of addressing this issue. It is imperative for both Sri Lankan and Indian citizens to engage in constructive dialogue on matters such as the Katchatheevu Island dispute. We echo the sentiments of past Indian leaders, including Indira Gandhi and Nehru, in questioning the necessity of prolonged efforts regarding Katchatheevu. It is crucial to ascertain whether any concessions were made to India concerning Katchatheevu or Wadge Bank.Is it give n take DEAL? The potential loss of our rights due to silence is a stark reality. If Katchatheevu were to be returned to India, it raises concerns about the environmental impact of Indian trawlers operating in Sri Lankan waters. The Ministry of External Affairs should provide a comprehensive response to India, consulting relevant authorities such as the newly established National Hydrographic Office.