The Katchatheevu politics
…and move to license poaching in northern waters
The Sectoral Committee
on International Relations
should examine the highly
contentious proposal to
regulate Indian poaching
in Sri Lankan waters.
Talks are continuing on
the setting up of a licensing
system to address a
long standing problem.
The intensity of poaching
has only increased since
the conclusion of the war,
over a decade ago. Today,
the Indian fishing fleet
operates in Sri Lankan
waters with impunity
though on and off arrests
sometimes hinder them.
During President
Ranasinghe Premadasa’s
honeymoon with the
LTTE, the latter, on several
occasions, rounded up
Indian fishing craft to discourage
them. However,
Indian poaching never
ceased and now they
have an opportunity to
legitimize the invasion of
the smaller neighbour’s
waters.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
The Sri Lanka Navy is under fire for having a Buddha statue on the Katchatheevu/Kachchativu Island, situated 50 nautical miles from the northern mainland.
Responding to accusations, Navy headquarters emphasized that as most of the naval personnel, attached to the Naval Detachment, on the Kachchativu Island, were Buddhist, they pay homage to a modest Buddha Statue installed in close proximity to their billet.
Those deployed on the island are accommodated in a temporarily-constructed billet as no other fixed structures, besides St. Anthony’s Church, are allowed therein.
The Hindu , in its online edition, on March 31, 2023, dealt with the issue. In a story headlined ‘Installing of Buddha statues in Sri Lanka’s Kachatheevu raises hackles,’ senior correspondent R. A. Radhakrishnan quoted Pattali Makkal Katchi leader, S. Ramadoss, as having said that Buddha statues were a national security threat as it would be the first step for something more sinister. Ramadoss wanted New Delhi to take steps to remove the statues.
The Hindu writer, R.A. Radhakrishnan, found fault with President Ranil Wickremesinghe for essentially following the policies of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Perhaps Ramadoss should explain how the installation of a Buddha statue, or two statues as alleged by some interested parties, could threaten a nuclear armed member of the US-led ‘Quad’ security alliance. Ramadoss, another opportunist politician, owed an explanation, regarding his unprecedented threat assessment. Before long, some other politician would probably claim that the Chinese plan to build a listening post on that island.
The Katchatheevu issue, too, is all part of the propaganda project directed at Sri Lanka. One fine day, the same lot would question the need for an SLN detachment on Katchatheevu. In fact, such external interventions pose quite a significant threat to post-war Sri Lanka.
The Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC), chaired by retired Vice Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, MP, should examine the contentious Katchatheevu issue, taking into consideration the overall challenges caused by the developing political-economic-social crisis. The responsibility on the part of the executive, legislature and judiciary, had to be scrutinized against the backdrop of the China vs ‘Quad’ battle.
The 12-member SOC, included war-winning Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, now a member of the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB). Field Marshal Fonseka and R.A. Weerasekera, in spite of their much publicized differences on political issues, should adopt a common agenda at the SOC. The Katchatheevu issue is certainly not an isolated development but part of a strategy meant to target Sri Lanka.
Unfortunately, political parties, represented in Parliament here, seem incapable of addressing the growing challenges. Bankrupt Sri Lanka, caught up in the China-Quad battle should expect the continuation of instability as the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa dispensation tries to stabilize its hold at the expense of the long overdue Local Government polls. There cannot be any dispute that the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB) is in line with the current dispensation’s overall strategy to suppress growing political dissent.
Regardless of repeated vows to defeat the ATB, both in and outside Parliament, the Opposition lacked the wherewithal to thwart the government’s agenda. Their only hope is the Supreme Court. The recent SC determination on a Bill, titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka,’ pleased the vast majority of people. Therefore, those who are determined to thwart the ATB should move the SC, as the last resort, to derail the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa strategy.
Unfortunately, an issue such as Katchatheevu is going to be put on a back burner.
Gandhi bust at Temple Trees
In early Oct. 2019, the then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe unveiled a bronze bust of Mahatma Gandhi at Temple Trees. The event, also attended by Yahapalana President Maithripala Sirisena (now an Opposition MP), and the then Indian High Commissioner here, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, coincided with the 150th birth anniversary celebrations of the non-violent architect and leader of the Indian freedom struggle.
Both President Sirisena and Premier Wickremesinghe paid floral tributes to the Indian leader.
Sri Lanka also issued two commemorative stamps. Celebration of Gandhi Jayanti each year, in Sri Lanka, is a dual celebration of Mahatma’s birth anniversary, as well as the celebration of his connection with Sri Lanka. Altogether, there are six statues of Gandhi, including in Jaffna, in the Northern Province.
Sri Lankans never found fault with the Yahapalana government for the installation of the bronze Gandhi bust at Temple Trees. Perhaps, against the backdrop of protests against a Buddha statue on the Katchatheevu island, the government should be asked to explain its criteria in installing a bust of any kind of a foreigner in Temple Trees, or any other government building or state/private land.
During Mahinda Rajapaksa’s first tenure as the President, Sri Lanka built a memorial for the Indian Army at Sri Jayewardenepura, Kotte. Years later, the Sri Lanka Army found a long forgotten memorial built for Indian troops, killed in an abortive airborne raid on an LTTE stronghold. The memorial consists of seven structures and has the names of 33 personnel. Both memorials are open to the public. Indian leaders, ministers and diplomats pay floral tributes at these memorials.
Regardless of the Indian intervention that caused a massive destruction here, no one has ever questioned the rationale in memorials for the Indian Army here. Sri Lanka must be the only country to erect memorials for foreign armies responsible for the deaths of its citizens – by direct action and by training thousands of terrorists. Can we ever forget how the Indian Army rigged the elections in the Northern and Eastern Province, during the 1987-1990 period, for the benefit of those chosen by Delhi at that time, and the Tamil National Army (TNA) it trained, comprising members of Tamil groups aligned with the Indian Army and Intelligence Services at the time?
The likes of Ramadoss have conveniently forgotten the Indian intervention here. Instead of apologizing for deaths and destruction caused here, over a decade after the eradication of terrorism, they are still pursuing an agenda inimical to Sri Lanka. However, Sri Lanka should be grateful to New Delhi for giving up its claims on Katchatheevu, in 1976. The uninhabited island is situated on this side of the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary. The Indo-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary Agreements of 1974 and 1976 settled the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Palk Straits, Palk Bay and in the Bay of Bengal, respectively. This includes the Katchatheevu issue, as well.
Katchatheevu and related issues
The Katchatheevu issue cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the large scale poaching, in Sri Lankan waters, by the massive Indian fishing fleet. In spite of on and off talks, at different levels, during the war and after, the Indian fishing fleet continues to cross the maritime boundary, almost on a daily basis. A section of them also engage in clandestine operations. The recovery of large stocks of Kerala ganja, on this side of the maritime boundary, is evidence that regardless of regular sea patrols, smuggling of contraband, including substandard chemical fertilisers, is continuing.
The LTTE operated across the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary until late 2008. With the eradication of the LTTE presence, north of Mannar, up to Pooneryn, by November, 2008, the LTTE lost the Tamil Nadu route. Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion in May of the following year. The LTTE received the support of some Indian fishermen while there were some instances of them being harassed and even killed.
But, well over a decade after the war, Indian poaching remains a serious issue. In fact, over the past few years, poaching has intensified, with the Indian fishing fleet brazenly carrying out often illegal and destructive fishing operations, including bottom trawling, on this side of the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary. Such large scale invasions, almost on a daily basis, cannot happen without New Delhi issuing orders to its Navy and Coast Guard to turn a blind eye to such blatant violations.
Unprecedented Indian support, in the wake of the continuing economic crisis, appears to have weakened Sri Lanka further. Regardless of on and off arrest of poachers, the Indian fishing fleet carries on at the expense of our mainly poor fishermen. It would be pertinent to ask how our High Commissioner in New Delhi, Milinda Moragoda, intended to address this issue. Career Foreign Service officer Niluka Kadurugamuwa is our Deputy HC there. The Foreign Ministry here should explain its position on the developing situation.
One-time UNP Minister Moragoda quite convincingly dealt with the fisheries issues in his ‘Integrated Country Strategy: For Sri Lanka Diplomatic Missions 2021/2023. Priority vise, the fisheries issues were addressed last in the High Commissioner’s list of seven objectives. Let me reproduce the relevant section as it is: Mission Goal 7: Promote Sri Lanka’s interests in protecting its ocean resources
Mission Objective 7.1: Engage with Indian authorities (Central government, relevant state governments and other stakeholders) for a mechanism acceptable to all sides for the resolution of fisheries-related issues.
Mission Objective 7.2: Engage with Indian authorities for setting up a training centre for a marine disaster task force.
Mission Objective 7.3: Promote joint research in fisheries as well as in other marine and mineral resources.
The report referred to poaching and bottom trawling by Indian fishermen across the Indo-Lanka maritime boundary while emphasizing the need for sustainable and long-lasting solutions. The fisheries issues were quite appropriately referred to as challenges.
What is the status of the Lankan High Commission’s engagements with the government at the central and state levels, and also with major stakeholders, in Tamil Nadu, to curb poaching and IUU (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated) fishing? Had the HC been able to convince Indian authorities of the adverse effects of bottom trawling?
Perhaps an assessment in terms of financial losses, incurred by our fishermen, due to a steady loss of livelihood ,due to Indian poaching. The relevant ministries should seriously address this issue.
Devananda decries Indian fishers
Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda recently raised the issues at hand at a meeting with Deputy Indian High Commissioner, Vinod K Jacob. Following the meeting that took place on March 21, at the Fisheries Ministry, Devananda’s Office issued a brief statement, in Tamil and Sinhala. The Indian HC didn’t issue one, though one cannot expect a diplomatic mission to brief the media of all developments.
Nelson Edirisinghe, Media Secretary to the Fisheries Minister, quoted Devananda as having told Jacob that Indian fishermen didn’t comprehend how their illegal activities, on this side of Indo-Lanka maritime boundary, affected the lives of fishermen here.
Devananda was further quoted as having alleged that the irresponsible Indian response to legitimate actions taken by the Navy here to protect fishing resources and the lives of the northern fishermen, caused diplomatic problems between the two countries.
Northern fishers have repeatedly alleged Devananda, leader of the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP), one-time Indian sponsored terrorist group, of planning to legitimize poaching by setting up a licensing system.
Controversy surrounds the move amidst accusations of attempts to legitimize poaching, which would make a mockery of the maritime boundary and may cause fresh issues. Once created, there would be no turning back from the so-called licensing system, whatever the other issues – related, or otherwise – could be. The fisheries issue is expected to be high on the agenda when President Ranil Wickremesinghe visits New Delhi.
Minister Devananda is on record as having said that the proposed licensing system was meant to reduce tensions between the two fishing communities and prevent bottom trawling. Devananda, who had survived several LTTE assassination attempts, and served the cabinets of successive governments, since Ranasinghe Premadasa’s time, owed an explanation how proponents of this plan expected to rein in the Indian fishing fleet by issuing permits to some of them?
How to enforce the restrictions on the movement of fishing craft, across the maritime boundary, in terms of the licensing system, as India never took tangible measures to stop illegal crossings even at the time of the conflict. The explosive Sri Krishna affair of 2007 revealed how India allowed LTTE operations – transferring of arms, ammunition and equipment from floating LTTE arsenals to smaller trawlers operated by LTTE cadres. The proposed licensing system may aggravate the situation. The possibility of Tamil Nadu politicians and their henchmen taking advantage of the licensing system, too, cannot be ruled out as it is well-known that some leading politicians there are owners of fishing fleets.
Northern fishers allege that Minister Devananda is taking advantage of the situation to enhance his sphere of control. The relevant Sectoral Oversight Committee in Parliament should look into this matter and initiate a wider discussion on the issues at hand. Obviously, there is much more to this than meets the eye.
It would be a grave mistake on Sri Lanka’s part to take the proposed licensing system lightly. It would be interesting to know who really initiated the move to have a licensing system. Was it Devananda or some other interested party?
