(MENAFN- Colombo Gazette) By N Sathiya Moorthy
It is inevitable that in the heat of an electoral battle, neighbours get mentioned, if not hurt. It is election time in India, to be followed by one or two in Sri Lanka – for the presidency and Parliament, though which would come first is known only to Mr God and President Ranil Wickremesinghe. But the question arises that in a large and diversified nation like India, where electoral issue are dime a dozen, whether the ruling BJP at the Centre should be raking up the long-settled 'Katchchatheevu dispute' with Sri Lanka.
For the record, Foreign Minister Ali Sabry has stated that Colombo is not perturbed at the turn of events in India. Media reports have further indicated that the weekly Cabinet meeting did not discuss the issue, as there was nothing to discuss. By implication, the Indian electoral rhetoric and counters have been about who 'gave away' the tiny islet to Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, and the responses and counters to the same.
Just now at the very least, it is not about the current ownership of the islet, which lies with Sri Lanka, as jointly notified to the UNCLOS, on formation in 1982 – eight years after the first bilateral agreement in 1974 and six after the second one in 1976. Tamil Nadu's DMK chief minister M K Stalin, whose party is at the receiving-end of the BJP criticism along with the Congress, poll ally, has asked why did not the centre not take up the 'retrieval' question with Colombo during the past 10 years in government. His question is directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who spearheaded the BJP's attack, which now includes External Affairs Minister (EAM) S Jaishankar, among other ministers and leaders of the ruling party.
Void, voidable
Yes, the Sri Lankan media has gone hammer and tongs against the events and developments now across the Palk Strait, pertaining to Katchchatheevu. They may have a point. But as they would have noticed, many veteran diplomats in India have cautioned the ruling party in the country about questioning the integrity of an international agreement or talking as if the whole agreement was voidable, if not ab initio void.
But the future concern need not be about what PM Modi and his party colleagues say in political platforms consumed as they now are by electoral heat. In matters of bilateral relations only what is officially conveyed matters. That is what Minister Ali Sabry too has implied in his response – that there was nothing at present for them to act or react.
Surprisingly, the media reaction to the Katchchatheevu-related electoral conundrum confined to India is not matched by traditional anti-India political attacks in Sri Lanka. It still can be expected to come out in the open, in the current long run-up to the presidential and parliamentary polls, due respectively by October this year and August next year. What shape and size it may take is not exactly a predicted table at the moment.
But what is even more surprising is the fact of the current controversy in India diverting national attention in both countries to the larger issue of 'fishermen's disputes' that has been evading a solution for more than a decade now. After Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda, who had moved a Cabinet paper for creating a 'civil defence force of fishers', the parliamentary sectoral committee addressing the economic recovery process has sought recommendations from the ministry for stopping alleged 'poaching' by the Indian fishers. In doing so, the committee also heard the affected fishers from the Tamil North.
In context, the panel chair expressed dissatisfaction about the lack of official data on the impact of banned trawler-fishing by Indian fishers in the affected seas in the country while the departments concerned had collected data on fish-wealth and allied matters within 24 nautical miles of the nation's waters elsewhere in the country. It remains to be seen how the Cabinet handles the minister's proposal, which has the inherent potential for mid-sea clashes by the fishermen from the two countries, with one side claiming greater legitimacy, derived from their new-found official status – if any. This can have very serious diplomatic consequences than any other bilateral issue between the two nations in recent years and decades.
Independent of the internal Indian discourse pertaining to Katchchatheeu and yet not relating to its current ownership, you have Minister Jaishankar telling the media that New Delhi would seek from Colombo, the right for their fishers to fish in the waters around the islet. Sri Lankan Tamil fishers have since added an additional angle to their protests against 'poaching' by Indian fishers in their waters, by referring to the Kachchatheevu discourse as an avoidable diversion. Their Indian counterparts are yet to comment on any of these.
Concern, non-concern
But there is a real concern that the Indian strategic community had flagged after the Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka first invited China to undertake the Hambantota Port Project. On paper, Colombo had offered the project to India, twice or even thrice, but New Delhi had declined the proposal. Pragmatism pertaining to the economic viability of the project combined with the traditional neighbour's concern about burdening Sri Lanka with a huge debt over the project prevailed in New Delhi. When China took up the project, there were equal concern and non-concern, depending on how one viewed Hambantota's long-term use, misuse and abuse by China or any other country in its place.
Though the anxieties of the Indian strategic community became subdued after China began work, it resurfaced again, even more vehemently, after the successor Government of President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (now President), converted the huge Chinese debt into a 99-year-lease agreement. It meant that China was in possession of a piece of Sri Lankan territory. Thankfully, those like then Ports Minister, former cricketer Arjuna Ranatunga, reportedly protested against keeping the SrI Lanka Navy off Hambantota as a part of the lease-deed – as used to be the case wherever the US set up bases, or wherever American soldiers are allowed to set foot.
Democracy juggernaut
Indian strategic thinkers had raised the red flag over the future possibilities over Katchchatheevu, closer to the Indian shores, first when Colombo invited China to Hambantota, and more so when handed over that piece of Sri Lankan real estate to Beijing for keeps, so to say. Opinion was divided if China would want the miniscule islet whatever the reason and purpose after coming to 'own' the larger Hambantota property with a sea-front.
The other side argued that it was not the question of China wanting to possess it, but to deny access to India or Indians, starting with fishers. Some even argued that getting that much closer to India than Hambantota facilitated would be in China's mind and maybe in strategic interest, too.
Today, the Katchchatheevu controversy, as it has emerged on multiple planes in India, may die down sooner than believed. But the question of Indian fishers' access to the Sri Lankan waters may be revived, as it already is. The Indian Government has informed the Madras High Court how it intended proposing a meeting of the official Joint Working Group (JWG) on the fisheries issue. That may not happen until after the Indian elections are over with the announcement of results on 4 June, after the seven-phase polling spread over 45 days, beginning 19 April.
Tamil Nadu, which is at the centre of the Katchchatheevu issue, now and otherwise, is voting in the first phase. The rest of India will forget as the world's largest democracy juggernaut begin making its giant strides all over again, this time with a massive 960 million voters registering their preference. Who knows, five years down the line, the number could cross the landmark one-billion mark, which may add up to the population of very many countries. Today, the 27 EU member-states have a total population of 448 m.
Presence, dominance
Right now, these figures by themselves should overawe and overwhelm the rest of the world. But on the more pragmatic side lies the unmentioned Indian concerns about China laying its hands on Katchchatheevu. Of course, the strategic community is alive to it, especially after Sri Lanka, followed by Maldives, could not resist Beijing overtures – or, whatever it be – and permitted controversial Chinese research/ship ships into their waters, against New Delhi's reservations and consequent requests. The issue is not only about Katchchatheevu but more about the hosts' inability or unwillingness to resist the temptation offered by China, whatever that be.
Not long after China came to Hambantota, Indian fishers used to report the sighting of Chinese-looking fishers in their boats in the neighbourhood waters. Those were the early days of China's quarrels over the exclusive ownership of South China Sea, where many South-East Asian nations had territorial claims. Those were also the days when Sri Lanka's Fisheries Minister, Dr Rajitha Senaratne set ambitious targets for marine exports, yes, in terms of forex earnings, and opened up the nation's EEZ for licensed fishing by foreigners with their deep-seat mother ships, et al.
The fishers that Indian counterparts sighted were Taiwanese, who held the licence for deep-sea fishing in Sri Lankan EEZ, but there were still doubts if they were owned or financed by Chinese. Whatever that be, licensed fishing ended after a short time after fishers from Sinhala South protested. Their complaint was that the catch from licensed boats/ships was finding their way into the local markets – thus cutting into their custom and costs. With that also ended reports of Indian fishers sighting 'Chinese' in the nearby seas.
But that won't be the case if there are even vague rumours or irresponsible social media posts in either country about even a chance visit by Chinese-looking men setting foot on Katchchatheevu. At present, there is nothing for either side to suspect each other, but over the medium and long terms, the constant appearance of strains in bilateral relations to the increasing presence and dominance of China in Sri Lanka – as viewed by India and Indians – can have consequences for both, and more so their centuries-old ties.
How the two nations work it out - when may be too early to predict or force. But there is a need for both to address the issue, which at present is a non-issue. It has to be addressed in ways that become an international commitment on the lines of the IMBL agreements of 1974 and 1976. It is not going to be as easy as it would have been even a fortnight back, after the Indian PM flagging the issue, though for a domestic audience.
No marks for guessing
By sheer coincidence of the venue of his attack on his electoral rivals in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, a venue far away from the scene of action, namely, Tamil Nadu, Narendra Modi has sort of made it a 'national issue'. From now on, every time the word 'Katchchatheevu' appears in newspaper headlines and television news bulletins, most, if not all, Indians would be cued to it. Their understanding may not be the same, but their 'nationalist' fervour would have been whipped up still.
Less said about 'Sinhala nationalism' that masquerades as 'Sri Lankan nationalism', more often than not, across the Palk Strait. Just at present, even without it all, with the run-up to the presidential poll at least commencing very long ago, forgotten anti-India sentiments are being whipped up, for some politicos with lil' credibility and following than in the past, to make it an electoral plank of theirs.
Remember, last month, when an official delegation from New Delhi travelled to Colombo for taking bilateral energy cooperation talks forward, anti-India posters found themselves plastered on walls across the Sinhala South. Clearly, someone was working on the ground and someone (else) was funding it.
No marks for guessing, but that is the ground reality that both sides will have to work with, work on and work against, and collectively so. So what if India had extended the kind of food, fuel and financial assistance at the height of the economic crisis in 2002. So what if no other nation or international agency (read: IMF) has not done so even two years later...
India's stepping in to save Sri Lanka from sheer economic collapse was not to enslave the southern neighbour in a debt-crisis or with white elephant projects that the nation had no need for just at present. It was born out of good-neighbourly concerns, native to the collective South Asian culture, nothing more, and nothing less.
This cultural bonding continues to connect the peoples of the two nations, unlike the kind of developmental funding on the economic fund that has only indebted Sri Lanka even more. Of course, India is not the sinner here, and the Sri Lankan media that targeted Indian leadership on the current Katchchatheevu controversy should also speak up on larger issues that are close to the very survival of Sri Lanka as a nation, with sovereignty and territorial integrity in tact!
(The writer is a Chennai-based Policy Analyst & Political Commentator. Email: ...)
MENAFN07042024000190011042ID1108068068