Indian fishermen proceed to be arrested by Sri Lankan authorities as a result of India had surrendered fishing rights close to Katchatheevu Island in 1974 itself “beyond doubt” and an extra settlement in 1976 solely additional put this out explicitly, reveals a Sri Lankan doc of 2008 that News18 has accessed.

This doc is the reply of Sri Lanka’s then Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama within the Sri Lankan Parliament in September 2008.

The Sri Lankan minister cited Article 6 of the 1974 India-Sri Lanka settlement to say that “by this article, only navigational rights of the vessels of both Sri Lanka and India over each other’s waters have been preserved” and stated provisions of Article 5 and 6 taken collectively “do not confer any fishing rights on the Indian fishermen or vessels to engage in fishing in Sri Lankan waters.”

The minister stated all that Indian fishermen might do post-1974 when it comes to rights of entry to Katchatheevu was to “dry their nets and catch”.

Bogollagama stated an settlement between each nations in 1976 “further clarified” the place established by the 1974 settlement.

In the 1976 settlement, it was talked about that “each party shall respect rights of navigation through the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone…”.

The Sri Lankan minister stated that the 1974 and 1976 agreements taken along with the Letters of Exchange signed between the overseas secretaries of either side “has put the question of fishing rights beyond doubt and clearly rules out any fishing rights…it clearly prohibits fishing vessels and fishermen of one country fishing in the others’ waters”.

Bogollagama cited Paragraph 1 of the ‘Exchange of Letters’ which clearly stated – “Fishing Vessels and fishermen of India shall not engage in fishing in the historic waters, the territorial sea and the EEZ of Sri Lanka…”

Why This is Important

DMK has been arguing now that its chief M Karunanidhi had by no means consented to the 1976 settlement which took away Indian fishermen’s rights to fish round Katchatheevu, as he was not in energy then.

The RTI doc revealed by the Ministry of External Affairs of India has introduced forth the minutes of a gathering between India’s then overseas secretary after which Tamil Nadu CM M Karunanidhi in 1974, wherein Karunanidhi gave his approval for re-drawing of the India-Sri Lanka maritime boundary that would depart Katchatheevu on the Sri Lankan aspect.

The settlement with Sri Lanka was signed on June 26-28, 1974, inside every week of the assembly of Karunanidhi and the Indian overseas secretary on June 19, 1974.

DMK now argues that it was the 1976 settlement which surrendered India’s fishing rights in Katchatheevu and therefore, Karunanidhi was against it. However, the Sri Lankan doc with News18 now reveals that India had surrendered the fishing rights in Katchatheevu in 1974 itself, inside days of getting Karunanidhi on board.

In that assembly with Karunanidhi, the Centre advised him that the brand new boundary line would cross 1-2 miles west of Katchatheevu and the “ostensible reason for the lines would be to ensure the maintenance of traditional fishing and other rights enjoyed by Indian nationals on and around the island, which would fall on the Sri Lanka side of the line.”

“Because of our strong stand, they (Sri Lanka) finally agreed that Indian fishermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to the Katchatheevu island as hitherto.”

However, because the Sri Lankan doc revealed by News18 now reveals, Sri Lanka by no means bestowed Indian fishermen the best to fish in waters round Katchatheevu since 1974.

Fishermen’s Plight

The Sri Lankan doc of 2008 says a number of personalities in Tamil Nadu have raised the problem of Katchatheevu, “making proposals based on their own perceptions without any apparent valid legal basis, pertaining to the rights of Indian fishermen”.

“In fact, there has been a case filed by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Jayalalithaa at the Indian Supreme Court. However, a decision given by a court outside the jurisdiction of Sri Lanka would not be binding on Sri Lanka. Any such court order or judgement will not alter or have any impact on a bilateral treaty concluded between two sovereign states,” the Sri Lankan minister stated.