Katchatheevu is a mirage that keeps coming to the Tamil people like an unasked-for vada with masala dosa when elections are around the corner. The island occupies an area of 285-acres and has no fresh water. It was unilaterally handed over to Sri Lanka by the Indira Gandhi government in 1974. Tamil political leaders are now demanding the return of this small island, which has been used by Tamil fishermen for decades to relax and dry fishing nets.

The only building on the island is the Roman Catholic Church named after Saint Anthony. The Sri Lankan government allows about 3,000 people a year to attend the feast of Saint Anthony, the most beloved of Tamil Christians, without visas or passports. The Tamils have demanded to get hold of their holy land and its premises, currently under the Jaffna Diocese. This island and its surroundings were under the old princely state of Ramnad. The dispute over the fishing traffic around this island, which is only 24 km from Rameswaram, is affecting India-Sri Lanka relations.

Hundreds of Indian fishermen had violated the maritime boundary and were thrown into Sri Lankan prisons. Fishermen from Rameswaram, Nagapattinam, Cuddalore, and Karakal have historically used Katchatheevu to dry their cloth nets, in addition to using it as a pitstop. The island was handed over by the Union government authorities, unbeknownst to the Tamil Nadu state assembly. The State government has been strongly emphasising their interest in the island and has been demanding that Katchatheevu be made part of India’s territory.

The claim over Katchatheevu was relinquished by Mrs Gandhi to the then Sri Lankan President Sirimavo Bandaranaike, while discussing and negotiating the maritime boundary in the Palk Strait. Historically, the land under the custody of the Raja of Ramnad, was ceded to the Madras Presidency during British rule. Ramanathapuram, after Independence, came under the Tamil Nadu state government and the need of retaining the territorial integrity was strongly felt by the Tamil leaders. M. Karunanidhi, then chief minister of Tamil Nadu wrote to Indira Gandhi on the Ramnad links with Katchatheevu island.

The public was then not bothered by the agreement as it did not specify the fishing rights in the waters. The fishing business was carried on as usual until the Emergency period. In 1976, the state government’s powers were dismissed and a solitary finalisation was made on the boundary, without the deliberation of the state assembly or Parliament. Exclusive Economic Zones were marked beyond the respective boundaries and the practice of fishing in the other country’s territorial waters was restricted.

However, during the civil war era, the fishermen could easily cross boundaries, thanks to the liberties extended by the LTTE group, which had occupied the northern part of Sri Lanka. In 2008, Chief Minister Jayalalitha revived the issue by moving the Supreme Court seeking to nullify the 1974 and 1976 Katchatheevu agreements. The resolution of the civil war in 2009 complicated things for fishermen.

The countries strengthened their maritime security and the fishermen who accidently crossed the territorial waters illegally were imprisoned and umpteen negotiation talks had to be conducted for their release. Each time, Tamil Nadu brought up the need to re-acquire the island. The issue was sentimental. In 2014, the Central government reiterated that the Katchatheevu island territorial claim was a “settled issue” and that the fishermen from India were to adhere to the agreement by not fishing in Sri Lankan waters. It said so while replying to the Madras high court on a PIL.

It was stated that while fishing was prohibited, the use of the island for resting, net drying and for attending St. Anthony’s festival had been sustained. The following year, Ranil Wickramasinghe, Sri Lankan prime minister, sparked controversy for his statement that Indian fishermen who crossed the waters may be shot. The aquatic life in the Indian shelf saw a plummet through the years and this would result in native fishermen, who largely depended on the marine resources, sailing beyond territories to catch fish in Sri Lankan waters.

The Sri Lankan government was also concerned about the resources being depleted within their boundaries. This added to the tensions amidst the arrests and talks. In August 2023, Tamil Nadu chief minister M. K. Stalin brought up the issue while addressing a fisherman’s conference in Ramanathapuram district. He asked the Prime Minister for the retrieval of the islet. Stalin also wrote a letter to the PM, in which he mentioned the impact of the unconsented transfer of Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka and the deprivation of the rights of fishermen.

Tamil Nadu views the land as an integral part of its national conscience, and ever since the Sri Lankan civil war, the issue has been on the agenda in Tamil politics. Prime Minister Modi, in his speech in Parliament had used Katchatheevu to counterattack the opposition on their remarks on Bharat Mata. “Somebody gave it (Katchatheevu) to another country. It happened under the leadership of Indira Gandhi. Wasn’t that a part of Maa Bharati?” he asked. Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi had said in the Supreme Court during the 2014 appeal, with reference to the 1974 agreement: “How can it be taken back today? If you want Katchatheevu back, you will have to go to war to get it back.”

The product of a 14th century volcanic eruption, Katchatheevu serves to be a little more than just a tiny island. Central to many civil rights violations and strains in foreign relations, the island once only significant to devotees of St. Anthony is now looked at as an instrument of diplomacy. Though legally a settled matter as per the ‘Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime Agreement,’ it lurks unsettled in the minds of native Indian Tamils. The ritualistic Sri Lankan arrests of Indian fishermen do not help matters.

The Katchatheevu issue stands at a complicated juncture as it projects regional dissatisfaction within the country over an international issue. The nature of the issue can be a ticking bomb as it affects coastal life and maritime security. The issue was settled without consultation or a platform for opinion, nor was it ever given a space for healthy debate. It is, thus, an issue of local, regional, national and coastal pre-eminence and should be at the forefront of the non-traditional security resolver’s green book.

(The writer is Associate Professor, Centre For South Asian Studies, Pondicherry Central University.)