Features
Modi reopens settled dispute with Lanka to woo Tamil voters
India and Sri Lanka signed an agreement in 1974 recognizing Sri Lankan sovereignty over the tiny island of Katchatheevu
By Rathindra Kuruwita
Most Sri Lankans were unpleasantly surprised when Narendra Modi, who is campaigning aggressively to return to power for a third consecutive term as India’s prime minister, raked up the long-settled India-Sri Lanka dispute over the Katchatheevu Island.
Citing a report in Times of India, Modi posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the “Congress callously gave away Katchatheevu…” to the Sri Lankans in the early 1970s. He went on to slam the Congress, India’s main opposition party and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s main rival in the upcoming general election for “weakening India’s unity, integrity, and interests.”
A day later India’s Foreign Minister Jaishankar said that the Katchatheevu issue is a “live issue. It is an issue which has been very much debated in Parliament and in the Tamil Nadu circles. It has been the subject of correspondence between the Union government and the state government….”
What Jaishankar was saying is that the dispute over Katchatheevu was not a settled one, although India and Sri Lanka have signed agreements accepting Sri Lankan sovereignty over the island.
Katchatheevu is a 285-acre uninhabited island in the Palk Straits located close to the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) of Sri Lanka and India. The island only comes alive during the annual feast of St. Anthony, when fishermen from Sri Lanka and India visit the island.
However, the dispute over fishing rights in the area has led to tensions between the fishing communities since 2009. Between January 1 and March 21 this year, the Sri Lanka navy seized a total of 23 Indian trawlers and 178 Indian fishermen, who were poaching in Sri Lankan waters. Indian fishermen did not take part this year in the annual festival at Katchatheevu, alleging that Sri Lankan naval personnel harass them when they cross over to Sri Lankan waters.
The confusion over the island’s sovereignty goes back to British attempts to divide the maritime boundary of India and Sri Lanka to demarcate the fishing industry. On October 24, 1921, delegations from colonial India and Ceylon (as Sri Lanka was known previously) tried to come up with a “Fisheries Line” to deal with the overexploitation of resources in the seas and determine the ownership of Katchatheevu.
Principal Collector of Customs B. Horsburgh, who led the Ceylonese delegation, staunchly opposed Indian claims that the island was part of Indian marine territory because it belonged to the zamindari of the Raja of Ramnada (Tamil Nadu politicians bring up this argument even today). Horsburgh furnished evidence demonstrating that Katchatheevu, including St. Anthony’s Church, was considered the estate of the Jaffna Diocese. After much deliberation, the two delegations agreed on a border that “passed three miles west of Katchatheevu.” This placed the island well within Ceylonese territory.
Neither side ratified the agreement, and the secretary of state didn’t officially approve it, but following discussions, an ad hoc imagined maritime boundary came into being. The British-Indian delegation caveated, that this “Fisheries Line” can’t be considered a territorial boundary “so as not to prejudice any territorial claim which the Government of Madras or the Government of India may wish to prefer in respect of the island of Kachchativu.”
The matter rested in this manner for several decades but in 1956, both Ceylon and India realized that they needed to come up with a maritime boundary. India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was also the country’s Minister of External Affairs, felt that this tiny island was not a matter of “national prestige.” The Indian leadership of that era understood that its smaller neighbors were wary of the Indian juggernaut throwing its weight around and they believed that handing this “barren rock” to Sri Lanka would demonstrate to the world India’s unambiguous willingness to preserve bilateral goodwill with Sri Lanka.
According to The Indian and Foreign Review (an official publication by the Indian government) of July 1974, the “chief value” of the agreement to the Indian government was that it helped “‘destroy the canard that India behaves overbearingly towards its small neighbours…
Sri Lanka’s possession of this ‘barren rock’ island cannot militate against the Sethusamudram project. The notion that the Chinese will establish a base there is fantastic. On the whole, it is a comparatively small price to pay for good relations with Sri Lanka.”
In 1974 and 1976, India and Sri Lanka signed agreements to demarcate the sea boundaries between the two countries. The 1974 Agreement formally confirmed Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Katchatheevu island. With the 1976 agreement, India lost access to Sri Lankan waters, and Sri Lanka lost access to Pedro Bank, Wadge Bank and the continental shelves off Cape Comorin at the southern tip of India. The Wadge Bank, situated in a significantly strategic maritime area, is known as one of the most lucrative fishing grounds in the world. Moreover, the agreement conferred upon India the authority to explore the Wadge Bank for petroleum and other valuable mineral reserves.
However, in the decades since the agreements were signed, Tamil politicians in India have been insisting that they got a bad deal. For example, in 2011, the Tamil Nadu government under the leadership of Jayalalithaa Jayaram lodged a petition in the Supreme Court of India, requesting the declaration of the 1974 and 1976 agreements as unconstitutional.
In response, the Indian government stated that “No territory belonging to India was ceded, nor sovereignty relinquished, since the area was in dispute and had never been demarcated” and that the dispute on the status of the island was settled in 1974 by an agreement.
It must also be noted that the debate on the ownership of the island became more intense following 2009. Sri Lankan fishermen were barred from entering the country’s own northern seas from the 1980s to 2009 due to the war with the LTTE. During this period Indian fishermen operated in the Sri Lankan northern seas with impunity. Tensions arose when Sri Lankan fishermen returned to the northern seas and found their counterparts from India poaching on Sri Lankan waters.
Over the last 15 years, Sri Lankan fishermen have been urging their political leaders and the government to take more stern action against the Indians. Even now thousands of Tamil Nadu trawlers engage in fishing over a wide arc from Chilaw in the West to Mullaitivu in the East.
Under the Modi administration, senior leaders of BJP are reiterating positions taken by Tamil Nadu politicians and this is causing concern in Colombo.
This is not the first time that Modi has spoken about Katchatheevu. In 2023, he told parliament that the Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (DMK), the party in power in Tamil Nadu, was asking him to reclaim Katchatheevu, which former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of the Congress Party had given away to Sri Lanka. It was when Gandhi was prime minister that the Katchatheevu deal was done. Incidentally, the DMK, now an ally of the Congress party, was in power in Tamil Nadu when that agreement was signed with Sri Lanka.
The BJP’s latest attack is not only aimed at the Congress and the Gandhis, but also at the DMK. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, whose father Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi was aligned with Indira Gandhi when the Katchatheevu agreement was reached.
The current Sri Lankan government, which has allied itself with the Modi administration, has tried to downplay this development. On January 5, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Ali Sabry said that the Katchatheevu issue was settled 50 years ago and that it is not unusual to hear politicians making such claims during Indian elections.
“There is no controversy. They are having an internal political debate about who is responsible. Other than that, no one is talking about claiming Katchatheevu,” he told journalists in Colombo.
Sri Lankan Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda, whom northern fishermen have pressured to take action against Indian fishermen who poach in Sri Lankan territorial waters, was more candid. He pointed out that India secured Wadge Bank, which extends over a larger area and is richer in marine resources than Katchatheevu.
He told reporters in Jaffna that he believed “India is acting on its interests to secure this place to ensure Sri Lankan fishermen would not have any access to that area and that Sri Lanka should not claim any rights in that resourceful area.”
Indian journalists for the most part maintain that the recent developments will not affect “robust” relations between India and Sri Lanka.
However, despite what many Indian journalists assert, relations between India and Sri Lanka are not without problems. Although the Ranil Wickremesinghe administration is close to the Modi government, anti-Indian sentiment in Sri Lanka is at its highest for a while. In recent months, environmental groups, civil society organizations and opposition politicians have raised their voices against India’s Adani Group taking control over Sri Lankan ports, renewable energy, and airports, as well as the sale of the National Livestock Development Board to India’s Amul. A few weeks earlier, former President Maithripala Sirisena dropped a bombshell claiming that India was behind the easter Sunday attacks.
Many Sri Lankans believe that the BJP is indirectly holding out the prospect of reclaiming Katchatheevu to attract the votes of Tamil Nadu fishermen. The BJP’s stance also serves as justification for allowing Indian fishermen, who have long been encroaching on Sri Lankan waters, to continue with their illegal activities.
Sri Lankan think tank Pathfinder claims that Indians are poaching in an area “covering more than 450 kilometers of Sri Lankan coastline.” If Sri Lanka concedes Katchatheevu, the poaching could increase drastically, crippling Sri Lanka’s entire fisheries sector.
As fellow South Asians, Sri Lankans know that politicians make outrageous statements when elections approach. However, local and small-time politicians usually make the most inflammatory statements. This gives senior leaders in the party plausible deniability about these claims.
In the Katchatheevu case, it is the Indian prime minister and the foreign minister who have reopened a settled dispute. It is understandable then that Sri Lankans are taking these statements seriously.
As Austin Fernando, a former Sri Lankan defense secretary and high commissioner to India observed, although Indian political parties think of the Katchatheevu issue as a “vote-puller,” once the BJP reasserted India’s claim over the islet, it will be “difficult” for the Indian government to go back on its leaders’ statements made during elections, as it is the BJP that is likely to return to power. That is “the problem,” he said.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
