Community Hub0 Subscribers
Community hub
Katchatheevu
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
Key Information
Katchatheevu (Tamil: கச்சத்தீவு, Tamil pronunciation: [kəttʃət̪t̪iːʋʉ], Sinhala: කච්චතිවු දූපත, Sinhala pronunciation: [kaccativu dūpata]) is an uninhabited island in Sri Lanka. The island was governed by British Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) from 1921.[3] Though the Indian government never controlled it, the island remained disputed until 1974 between India and Sri Lanka when India recognised Sri Lanka's sovereignty over the island.[4][5]
The island is located between Neduntheevu, Sri Lanka and Rameswaram, India and has been traditionally used by both Sri Lankan Tamil and Indian Tamil fishermen.[6][7] In 1974, then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi accepted Katchatheevu as Sri Lankan territory under the Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime agreement aimed at resolving the maritime boundaries in the Palk Strait.[7] Another agreement signed in 1976 restricted both the countries' fishermen from fishing in the other's exclusive economic zones.[7] Earlier, it had been owned by the Ramnad Kingdom of Ramanathapuram Rameshwaram which later came under the Madras Presidency during British rule of the Indian subcontinent. By 1920, Ceylon had reinstated its claims to Katchatheevu and the island found itself within Ceylonese territory in 1921.[3][7]
History
[edit]The oldest known name of the island, Kacci (modern Kaccativu), is mentioned in the Rameswaram Inscription of King Nissanka Malla (1187–1196 CE), the king of Sri Lanka, along with other nearby islands including Puvagu (modern Pungudutivu), Mininak (Maninaga), and Kara (modern Karaitivu).[8][9][10][11] The inscription states that Nissankamalla visited these islands during his expeditions within his realm.[8][9] Historical evidence suggests that Kachchativu Island has been under the jurisdiction of Sri Lanka since the era of the Portuguese, Dutch, and British.[12][13] The British occasionally used the island as a naval gunnery practice range from 1920 onwards.[14][15] During the medieval period, this island along with Pamban Island was in the possession of the Jaffna kingdom[citation needed]. From the 17th century onwards, the island was part of the Ramnad Kingdom in Madura district (present-day Madurai district, India). Later, with British rule on the Indian subcontinent, the island became part of the Madras Presidency.[6]
The dispute over the island between the Ceylonese and Indian colonial governments arose in 1920. While the Indian view was that the island was part of India because it belonged to a landlord of the Raja of Ramnad, B. Horsburgh opposed this view and cited evidence that Katchatheevu, along with St. Anthony's Church on the island, belonged to the Diocese of Jaffna. By 1921, both sides had agreed on a border that put the island within Ceylonese territory.[3]
Ownership of the island was disputed between India and Sri Lanka up until 1974 as it had been during British rule. It was never demarcated by the Indian government.[4][clarification needed] India recognized Sri Lanka's ownership of the island in 1974. The legality of the transfer was challenged in the Indian Supreme Court since the recognition had not been ratified by the Indian Parliament. This recognition of an island that is culturally important to fishermen of Tamil Nadu state in India has led to some agitations by Tamil Nadu politicians that India should claim sovereignty over it. The island is also important as fishing grounds used by fishermen from both countries. The Indo-Sri Lankan agreement allows Indian fishermen to fish around Katchatheevu and to dry their nets on the island. As part of the Sri Lankan Civil War, the arrangement led to many difficulties with the Sri Lankan Navy, which was deployed to prevent smuggling of weapons by the rebel group LTTE. The island has a Catholic shrine that attracts devotees from both countries.[16]
The main problem continues to grow as more fishermen move into the Sri Lankan sea area for poaching. In 2010 the Sri Lankan government issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu government saying the Indian court cannot nullify the 1974 agreement.[17]
In June 2011 the new Tamil Nadu government led by the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalithaa, filed a petition in the Supreme Court that the declaration of the 1974 and 1976 agreements between India and Sri Lanka on ceding of Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka were unconstitutional.[18] The court ruled in the Berubari case that the cession of Indian territory to another country had to be ratified by parliament through amendment of the Constitution.
The Indian government in February 2014 stated, "No territory belonging to India was ceded nor sovereignty relinquished since the area was in dispute and had never been demarcated." The government added that the agreements did not require a constitutional amendment because no territory was ceded.[4]
A motion of the Katchatheevu dispute was reopened by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ahead of the general elections in India, which are set to start on April 19, 2024. The BJP brought this issue to the forefront as part of its election campaign, particularly targeting the discontent of Indian fishermen affected by the 1976 agreement that barred them from fishing in the waters around the island. Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister, Ali Sabry, has publicly dismissed the motion of reopening discussions about Katchatheevu, stating the issue was resolved 50 years ago.[19] In March 2025, Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution to reclaim Katchatheevu Island from Sri Lanka.[20]
St. Anthony's Shrine
[edit]St Antony's Shrine is the only structure on the island. It is a shrine-church named after Antony of Padua, considered a patron saint of seafarers by Christians. It was built by a prosperous Indian Catholic (Tamilian) fisherman Srinivasa Padaiyachi in the early 20th century. The annual church festival runs for three days. Christian priests from both India and Sri Lanka conduct the worship services (Mass) and procession. Pilgrims from India are ferried mostly from Rameswaram. According to the agreement between the Indian and Sri Lankan governments, the citizens of India are not required to possess an Indian passport or Sri Lankan visa to visit Kachchatheevu.
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b c Sengupta, Arjun (31 March 2024). "Did Congress 'give away' Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka?". The Indian Express. Retrieved 31 March 2024.
- ^ Tamil Nadu (India); Nagarajan, N.; Subramanian, K. (1977). History of Land Revenue Settlement and Abolition of Intermediary Tenures in Tamil Nadu. Government of Tamil Nadu. p. 195.
- ^ a b c Chatterjee, A.K. (2024). Adam's Bridge: Sacrality, Performance, and Heritage of an Oceanic Marvel. Ocean and Island Studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-003-85912-3. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
- ^ a b c Special Correspondent (2014-02-08). "Kachatheevu was not ceded to Sri Lanka & can't be retrieved – Government Of India". The Hindu. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
{{cite web}}:|author=has generic name (help) - ^ Tamil Nadu (India); Nagarajan, N.; Subramanian, K. (1977). History of Land Revenue Settlement and Abolition of Intermediary Tenures in Tamil Nadu. Government of Tamil Nadu. p. 196.
This was followed up by a meeting of the officials of India and Sri Lanka at Delhi when they decided to adopt the median line as the line of demarcation with a deviation around Katchatheevu including it in Sri Lanka's limits
- ^ a b Malone, David M.; Mohan, C. Raja; Raghavan, Srinath (2015-07-23). The Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy. OUP Oxford. ISBN 9780191061196.
- ^ a b c d Katchatheevu: The big issue over a small island, Livemint, 15 Jun 2016.
- ^ a b Ranawella, S. (2007). Inscription of Ceylon. Vol. VI. Department of Archaeology. pp. 117–125. ISBN 978-955-91-59-61-2.
- ^ Ranawella, S. (2007). Inscriptions of Ceylon, Volume VI. Department of Archaeology (Sri Lanka). pp. 117–125.
- ^ Manjula, H.A.K.L. (2024-02-10). "Kachchativu Island and Church (Sri Lanka)". Lankapradeepa. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
- ^ De Silva, S. (2008). Sharing Maritime Boundary with India Sri Lankan Experience. Faculty of Defence & Strategic Studies, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University. pp. 3–4, 7–9.
- ^ Mayilvaganan, M. (2019). "'Trouble waters': Maritime issues in Palk Strait, Indian Ocean". Samudera-Journal of Maritime and Coastal Studies. 1 (1): 35–48. doi:10.22452/samudera.vol1no1.3.
- ^ Muni, S. D. (1974). "Kachchativu settlement: Befriending neighbouring regimes". Economic and Political Weekly: 1119–1122.
- ^ Raju, A. S. (2009). "The (in) security of fishermen in South Asia". Fisheries exploitation in the Indian Ocean: Threats and opportunities. pp. 163–174.
- ^ "The Hindu : 'Cannot return Kachchativu'". Archived from the original on 2011-07-07. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
- ^ Gamini Gunaratna, Sri Lanka News Paper by LankaPage.com (LLC)- Latest Hot News from Sri Lanka (2011-04-17). "Sri Lanka : Sri Lankan minister says Indian court cannot nullify accord on Kachchativu Island". Colombopage.com. Archived from the original on April 20, 2011. Retrieved 2012-06-18.
- ^ Special Correspondent (2011-06-10). "Today's Paper News : Resolution passed on Katchatheevu". The Hindu. Retrieved 2012-06-18.
{{cite web}}:|author=has generic name (help) - ^ "Sri Lanka sees no need for talks with India on Katchatheevu island it ceded decades ago". The Indian Express. 2024-04-04. Retrieved 2024-04-04.
- ^ "TN Assembly passes resolution seeking retrieval of Katchatheevu island". The Indian Express. 2025-04-02. Retrieved 2025-04-02.
Katchatheevu
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Geography and Environment
Location and Physical Characteristics
Katchatheevu is a small islet located in the Palk Strait, the shallow waterway separating the southeastern coast of India from the northern coast of Sri Lanka. It lies roughly equidistant between Rameswaram on India's Tamil Nadu coast and Jaffna in Sri Lanka's Northern Province, approximately 33 kilometers from the former and 62 kilometers from the latter.[8] [1] The island spans 285 acres, equivalent to about 1.15 square kilometers, with dimensions of roughly 1.6 kilometers in length and up to 300 meters in width.[2] [9] It consists of low-lying, barren terrain characterized by sandy and rocky surfaces, with limited vegetation and no permanent human habitation beyond periodic use for religious purposes.[2] [10] Physically, Katchatheevu features a flat topography typical of the Palk Strait's sedimentary formations, supporting marine ecosystems rich in oysters and shellfish along its shores but lacking significant freshwater sources or arable land.[11] Its strategic position amid fishing grounds underscores its role in regional maritime activities, though the islet itself remains ecologically sparse.[12]Ecological and Strategic Features
Katchatheevu is a low-lying, uninhabited island spanning approximately 285 acres in the Palk Strait, characterized by sparse vegetation including coastal shrubs and scattered palm trees.[13] [14] Its surrounding marine environment falls within the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, featuring coral reefs that promote fish reproduction and sustain productive fishing grounds.[15] [11] The broader Gulf of Mannar hosts significant marine biodiversity, with around 1,400 species across 120 families, underscoring the ecological sensitivity of the area to overfishing and mechanized trawling practices.[16] [12] The island's strategic value derives primarily from its central position in the Palk Strait, a narrow waterway separating India and Sri Lanka that serves as a vital chokepoint for maritime traffic and cross-border activities.[1] This location enables surveillance and enforcement of maritime boundaries, crucial for coastal security against smuggling, illegal migration, and unauthorized fishing incursions.[1] [17] In the context of expanding Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean Region, control over such proximate features enhances India's ability to monitor regional sea lanes and deter potential adversarial encroachments.[18] Ongoing disputes over fishing access highlight its role in resource management, where traditional dry-season fishing by Tamil communities from both nations relies on the nutrient-rich banks surrounding the islet.[12][17]Historical Background
Pre-Colonial and Colonial Claims
Prior to European colonization, Katchatheevu was under the administrative influence of the Ramnad Zamindari, a feudal estate in present-day Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu, established around 1605 by the Sethupathi dynasty under the Nayak rulers.[19][20] The Rajas of Ramnad, such as those in the 17th century, asserted control primarily for revenue generation through pearl fisheries and related activities in the Palk Strait, viewing the uninhabited island—spanning about 285 acres—as part of their coastal domain that included multiple villages and islets.[21][22] These claims rested on local zamindari tenure rather than formal sovereignty, with the island serving practical purposes like net-drying for fishermen from both mainland India and northern Ceylon.[23][24] During the colonial era, European powers introduced layered claims, distinguishing between proprietary zamindari rights held by Ramnad and administrative sovereignty exercised over Ceylon. Under Portuguese rule in the 16th century, the island likely fell within the orbit of Jaffna Kingdom territories incorporated into Ceylon's colonial framework, though specific documentation is sparse.[25] The Dutch East India Company, governing Ceylon from the mid-17th century, formalized a lease in 1767 with Muthuramalinga Sethupathi, the Raja of Ramnad, acknowledging Ramnad's revenue rights while securing Dutch administrative use for fisheries and potential military purposes.[19][18] Subsequent British control, after acquiring Ceylon in 1796 and consolidating Indian territories, saw similar arrangements; by 1822, leases transitioned to the British East India Company, but the island's governance aligned with Ceylon's colonial administration rather than Madras Presidency.[19][26] British records indicate occasional use of Katchatheevu as a naval gunnery range from 1920, underscoring Ceylon's practical jurisdiction.[27] Tensions over boundaries surfaced explicitly in 1921 during British-led discussions to demarcate fishing limits in Palk Bay, where both Madras Presidency and Ceylon authorities staked claims based on historical usage and surveys.[3][28] Ceylon asserted sovereignty, supported by a British survey placing the island on its side of the provisional line, while Madras emphasized zamindari entitlements without resolving full ownership.[29][21] The British administration tacitly accepted Ceylon's position for administrative purposes, leading to Katchatheevu's de facto governance under Ceylon from that year onward, though no formal maritime boundary was delimited, leaving proprietary disputes latent.[30][31] This colonial delineation prioritized colonial convenience over pre-existing Indian zamindari claims, setting the stage for post-independence negotiations without altering the island's uninhabited, strategically marginal status.[23]Post-Independence Boundary Negotiations
Following the independence of India in 1947 and Ceylon (later Sri Lanka) in 1948, the maritime boundary in the Palk Strait and Palk Bay remained undemarcated, leaving the sovereignty of Katchatheevu unresolved as a legacy of colonial ambiguities.[32] India maintained claims rooted in the historical zamindari rights of the Raja of Ramnad, who had been granted privileges over the island for revenue and pilgrimage purposes under pre-colonial and early colonial arrangements.[33] Ceylon countered with assertions based on the traditional territorial extent of the Jaffna Kingdom, Dutch colonial maps depicting the island within its domain, and British administrative practices from 1921 onward, which treated it as Ceylonese territory for fisheries regulation.[34] By 1956, both governments recognized the necessity of delineating the international maritime boundary amid rising cross-border fishing activities, marking the onset of formal bilateral consultations on delimitation in the region.[19] These early talks, however, yielded no resolution on Katchatheevu, as disagreements persisted over interpretive historical evidence; India emphasized usufructuary rights without conceding sovereignty, while Ceylon insisted on outright ownership to secure its northern fisheries zone.[35] In May 1961, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru downplayed the island's significance in a letter to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader C.N. Annadurai, stating, "I attach no importance at all to this little island and if required, would have no hesitation in giving up the claim of India to it," reflecting a pragmatic view that prioritized broader diplomatic relations over the barren, uninhabited islet measuring approximately 285 acres.[33][35] Tensions escalated in the late 1960s due to incidents involving Indian fishermen venturing into disputed waters, prompting Ceylon's navy to assert control over Katchatheevu in 1968, which sparked debates in the Indian Parliament.[36] Officials from India's Ministry of External Affairs described the island as "uninhabited" with "not a blade of grass growing there," underscoring its negligible economic or strategic value while noting inconclusive evidence favoring either claim.[35] Renewed negotiations occurred between 1968 and 1969 under Ceylonese Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake, who held multiple rounds of discussions with Indian counterparts, but these stalled amid domestic political pressures in India and unresolved evidentiary disputes.[34] Under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, bilateral maritime boundary talks intensified in the early 1970s, influenced by Ceylon's (renamed Sri Lanka in 1972) firm stance on historical precedents and India's interest in stabilizing relations amid regional geopolitical shifts.[37] In 1973, Indian Foreign Secretary Kewal Singh informed Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi of progress in discussions, where India provisionally accepted Sri Lanka's sovereignty claim subject to retained Indian rights for pilgrimage and limited fishing, setting the stage for formal agreement the following year.[35] These negotiations deviated from median-line principles under emerging international law, favoring ad hoc equitable adjustments based on historical usage, though critics in India later argued the concessions overlooked stronger zamindari-based title evidence.[37]The 1974 Cession Agreement
Key Provisions and Negotiations
The negotiations for the 1974 Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime Agreement were conducted bilaterally between Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi of India and Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka, amid post-independence efforts to resolve longstanding territorial ambiguities in the Palk Strait and Adam's Bridge region.[38] These talks addressed competing historical claims, with Sri Lanka asserting sovereignty over Kachchativu based on colonial-era delineations and India weighing its traditional ties to the island through Tamil Nadu's fishing communities and pilgrimage practices.[39] Indian Foreign Secretary Kewal Singh emphasized to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi that India's legal position was weak and that conceding the uninhabited island served broader national security interests by securing maritime clarity, despite domestic opposition from regional leaders concerned about fishermen's livelihoods.[39] The process culminated in the agreement's initialing in Colombo on June 26, 1974, and signing in New Delhi on June 28, 1974, prioritizing boundary delimitation over territorial retention to prevent escalation into international arbitration.[5] The agreement's core provisions established a precise maritime boundary in historic waters via six Great Circle arcs connecting geographic coordinates, ranging from 10° 05' N, 80° 03' E in the Palk Strait to 09° 06' N, 79° 32' E near Adam's Bridge, as mapped on an annexed chart authenticated by both governments.[5] Article 4 affirmed sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction for each state over islands, waters, continental shelf, and subsoil on its respective side of the line, effectively ceding Kachchativu—a 163-acre coral island—to Sri Lanka while assigning certain adjacent areas, such as portions of the Wadge Bank, to Indian control.[5] This delimitation deviated from a strict median line under emerging international norms, opting instead for an adjusted boundary informed by historical evidence to equitably resolve overlapping claims.[5] Article 5 preserved access rights for Indian nationals, stipulating that fishermen and pilgrims could visit Kachchativu "as hitherto" without requiring visas or travel documents from Sri Lankan authorities, thereby safeguarding annual Catholic pilgrimage traditions centered on St. Anthony's Church while limiting the scope to non-sovereign activities like net-drying incidental to visits.[5] Article 6 maintained traditional vessel navigation and fishing rights in the other's territorial waters, allowing limited cross-boundary practices predating the agreement but without conferring exclusive or preferential fishing zones around Kachchativu itself.[5] Article 7 required mutual consultation for exploiting cross-boundary resources, such as potential petroleum deposits, with provisions for joint development and equitable profit-sharing.[5] The treaty was subject to ratification by both parliaments and entered into force on July 10, 1974, following the exchange of instruments in New Delhi, marking a swift implementation to stabilize bilateral maritime relations. This ratification process bypassed extensive domestic legislative debate in India, contributing to later controversies over constitutional propriety, though the agreement's terms reflected a pragmatic exchange prioritizing defined boundaries over maximalist territorial assertions.[40]Legal Validity and Ratification Process
The Indo-Sri Lankan Agreement on the Boundary in Historic Waters, signed on June 28, 1974, explicitly stated that it was subject to ratification and would enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification.[5] This exchange occurred in New Delhi on July 10, 1974, after which the agreement became operative internationally, delineating the maritime boundary in the Palk Strait and Palk Bay while recognizing Katchatheevu as Sri Lankan territory.[41] Both governments treated the ratification as complete through executive channels, with no formal legislative process required under their respective domestic laws for such bilateral maritime delimitations at the time. In India, however, the agreement's domestic validity has been contested due to the absence of parliamentary approval or a constitutional amendment, despite involving the effective relinquishment of claims over Katchatheevu, an island historically administered from India.[42] Critics, including Tamil Nadu political leaders, argue that ceding territory necessitates parliamentary ratification under Article 253 of the Constitution or an amendment per the 1960 Berubari Opinion, which held that altering boundaries requires legislative consent beyond executive treaty-making powers.[43] The central government maintained it was an executive decision recognizing pre-existing Sri Lankan historic waters, not a outright cession of undisputed Indian soil, thus bypassing Parliament.[33] Legal challenges in the Indian Supreme Court, initiated as early as 2008 by Tamil Nadu petitioners, seek to declare the 1974 and supplementary 1976 agreements unconstitutional for lacking such ratification.[44] As of March 2025, the Court has scheduled a hearing for September 15, 2025, but has not issued a ruling invalidating the accords, which both nations continue to uphold in practice.[45] Sri Lanka affirms the agreement's full legal force, viewing challenges as internal Indian matters without impact on its sovereignty.[46]Religious and Cultural Role
St. Anthony's Shrine and Traditions
The St. Anthony's Church, the sole permanent structure on Katchatheevu island, serves as a Catholic shrine dedicated to St. Anthony of Padua, the patron saint of fishermen and lost causes, reflecting the island's historical ties to maritime communities. Constructed in the early 20th century—specifically around the beginning of that period—by a merchant from Ramanathapuram named Seenikuppan, the church emerged from the devotional practices of local Catholic fisherfolk who sought divine protection against sea perils.[47] [48] Its modest architecture, including a simple sanctuary housing the saint's statue, underscores its role as a focal point for intercessory prayers amid the island's otherwise barren landscape of coral reefs and scrub vegetation.[49] Central traditions revolve around veneration rituals emphasizing St. Anthony's reputed miracles for safeguarding lives at sea and resolving disputes among fishermen, with devotees attributing safe returns from voyages to the saint's intervention. These practices include offerings of nets, boats' models, and ex-voto items left at the altar, alongside recitation of novenas for protection and prosperity, drawing from longstanding Catholic customs adapted to the fishing-dependent livelihoods of Tamil communities on both sides of the Palk Strait.[50] The shrine's cultural significance lies in its function as a neutral spiritual anchor, temporarily bridging ethnic and national tensions through shared faith, as evidenced by joint rituals where Indian and Sri Lankan fisherfolk participate in prayers despite ongoing maritime frictions.[47] The annual feast day observance, distinct from the global June 13 commemoration of St. Anthony, aligns with local liturgical calendars and typically spans two to three days in February or March, featuring high masses, processions with the saint's statue carried along the shoreline, and communal feasts prepared from dried fish and provisions ferried to the island.[51] [3] This event, recorded to attract over 1,000 participants in recent years including clergy from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Jaffna, reinforces traditions of temporary settlement with thatched shelters erected for the duration, symbolizing the shrine's enduring pull as a site of hope amid geopolitical isolation.[52] Historical accounts note that such gatherings historically included barter exchanges of goods like salt and spices between attendees, though these have diminished due to modern restrictions.[53]Pilgrimage Rights and Practices
The 1974 Indo-Sri Lankan Maritime Boundary Agreement explicitly preserved access for Indian pilgrims to Katchatheevu, stipulating that they "will enjoy access to visit Kachchativu as hitherto, and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain visas for the purpose."[5] This provision maintained pre-existing practices without mandating travel documents, distinguishing pilgrimage from other cross-border activities.[41] Sri Lanka has upheld this facilitation annually, coordinating with Indian authorities for safe passage, though logistical arrangements such as boat departures from Rameswaram harbor in Tamil Nadu are required.[48] The central practice revolves around the annual festival at St. Anthony's Shrine, a Roman Catholic site dedicated to St. Anthony of Padua, typically spanning three days in late February or early March.[54] Pilgrims from India, primarily Tamil Catholics, and Sri Lanka converge for rituals including flag hoisting, holy mass conducted by clergy from both nations, the Way of the Cross, and a car procession of the saint's statue.[55] These observances draw thousands; for instance, 3,464 Indian pilgrims departed Rameswaram for the 2025 event, while earlier records note up to 3,768 attendees in 2012, including significant numbers from Sri Lanka such as around 2,000 in one documented year.[56][57][58] Access occurs via ferry from Indian ports, with arrivals at a floating jetty on the island, followed by onshore devotions; fishing is prohibited in surrounding waters during these visits to ensure focus on religious observance.[51][58] The tradition fosters inter-community ties, with no reported disruptions to core rights in recent festivals, as evidenced by the 2025 gathering of thousands despite broader maritime tensions.[47]Fishing Rights and Maritime Conflicts
Retained Indian Rights Under the Agreement
Under Article 5 of the 1974 Indo-Sri Lankan Agreement on the Boundary in Historic Waters, Indian fishermen and pilgrims retained the right to access Katchatheevu "as hitherto," without requiring visas or travel documents from Sri Lankan authorities.[5] This provision preserved traditional practices, explicitly allowing Indian fishermen to visit the island for resting, drying nets, and participating in the annual St. Anthony's festival held in late February or early March.[59][28] The agreement did not grant India sovereignty over the island's surrounding waters, which were delineated as Sri Lankan under Article 4, establishing exclusive jurisdiction for Sri Lanka over those areas.[5] However, the retained access rights implicitly supported ongoing traditional fishing by Indian fishermen in the vicinity, as confirmed by interpretations from both governments, though without specifying quotas, methods, or enforcement mechanisms.[60][28] These rights were intended to mitigate immediate disruptions for Tamil Nadu fishermen, who had historically operated in the Palk Strait region, but they remained subject to Sri Lanka's domestic regulations on its territorial waters.[59] Subsequent bilateral understandings, such as joint committees formed in the 2000s, have referenced these 1974 provisions to address arrests, emphasizing non-interference with traditional artisanal fishing while prohibiting mechanized trawling deemed unsustainable by Sri Lanka.[59] The absence of explicit fishing concessions in the 1974 text—beyond island access—has fueled disputes, as Sri Lankan authorities have periodically enforced their maritime claims against Indian vessels venturing into the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit around the island.[37]Ongoing Incidents and Detentions
Indian fishermen from Tamil Nadu, particularly from Rameswaram, frequently enter Sri Lankan waters near Katchatheevu in pursuit of richer fishing grounds, resulting in recurrent detentions by the Sri Lankan Navy for alleged violations of the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) established under the 1974 agreement.[61][62] These incidents persist due to depleting fish stocks in Indian waters and traditional fishing practices predating the boundary demarcation, though Sri Lankan authorities classify them as illegal poaching that harms local fisheries and marine ecosystems.[63][64] In 2023, the Sri Lankan Navy arrested 240 Indian fishermen and seized 35 trawlers for poaching in its waters.[65] This escalated in 2024, with 535 arrests and 198 boat seizures reported near Katchatheevu, alongside 450 total arrests and 61 trawler seizures by October.[64][66] The pattern continued into 2025, with notable incidents including the arrest of 14 fishermen on July 29 for crossing the IMBL, 12 on September 28 near Jaffna, and 47 along with five trawlers on October 9 near Talaimannar, where detainees were handed over to fisheries authorities for legal proceedings.[67][68][69][70]| Date | Number of Fishermen Arrested | Boats Seized | Location | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 29, 2025 | 14 | Not specified | Near Katchatheevu | [67] |
| September 28, 2025 | 12 | 1 | Near Jaffna | [68] |
| October 9, 2025 | 47 | 5 | Talaimannar | [71][72] |