Answer

Introduction

India and Sri Lanka, bound by cultural and maritime ties, face recurring tensions over fisheries in the Palk Strait and Katchatheevu island. Though the 1974 treaty legally settled sovereignty, disputes endure due to livelihood pressures and ecological concerns. Resolving them demands balancing law, history, and the welfare of coastal communities.

Body

Historical and Legal Aspect of India-Sri Lanka Dispute over Palk Strait and Katchatheevu Island

A. Historical Aspect

• Historical Sovereignty Evidence: Records show Portuguese, Dutch, and Jaffna Tamil control of Katchatheevu, strengthening Sri Lanka’s claim, which India considered before signing.
  Eg: Similar reasoning was applied in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case (ICJ, 1953), where sovereignty was awarded to the U.K. based on jurisdictional control.
• Recognition of Historic Waters: The Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannar were recognised as historic waters, granting stronger sovereignty and limiting third-party passage or fishing.
  Eg: The Madras High Court judgment (1904, Annakumaru Pillai case) upheld traditional claims based on pearl and conch fisheries, providing legal precedent.
• Shared Fishing Heritage: For centuries, Tamil Nadu and Northern Sri Lankan fishers shared the Palk Strait, forming cultural and livelihood ties. The dispute breaks this interdependence.

B. Legal Aspect

• 1974 India-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary Treaty: Katchatheevu went to Sri Lanka, with Indian access for St. Anthony’s festival.
  Eg: Despite political rhetoric, India’s acceptance in 1974 was legally binding as under international law, boundary treaties are sacrosanct (Pacta Sunt Servanda).
• Separation of Fishing Rights from Sovereignty: Sovereignty is settled, but fishing rights remain separate, requiring cooperation without permanent Indian rights.
• International Law Framework: The UNCLOS stresses cooperation in semi-enclosed seas like the Palk Bay. India’s acceptance of the maritime boundary aligns with these obligations

Sovereignty over Katchatheevu is settled, but fisheries need cooperative, humane solutions balancing livelihoods, ecology, and cultural ties.

Way Forward to Resolve the Fisheries Conflict while Strengthening Bilateral Ties

• Distinguish Between Artisanal and Trawler Fishers: Artisanal fishers deserve accommodation, while mechanised trawlers must be phased out due to ecological damage.
  Eg: Bottom trawling, banned in Sri Lanka in 2017, continues by Indian vessels, harming coral beds and shrimp habitats.
• Community-Level Dialogue: Joint fisher organisations from Tamil Nadu and Northern Sri Lanka can negotiate regulated seasonal quotas and fishing days until stocks recover.
• Sensitisation and Fraternity Building: Sri Lankan Tamil MPs and media can highlight hardships of Northern fishers during the civil war, building empathy in Tamil Nadu. 
• Joint Marine Resource Management: Set up a Katchatheevu research station to monitor fish stocks, coral health, and promote sustainable fishing, fostering shared ecological responsibility.
  Eg: A bi-national marine biology centre could function like cooperative mechanisms in the European Union fisheries system.
• Promote Deep-Sea Fishing Alternatives: Encourage Tamil Nadu fishers to operate in India’s 200‑nautical-mile EEZ with training and subsidies, reducing dependence on contested shallow waters.

Conclusion

Resolving the India-Sri Lanka fisheries issue requires shifting from sovereignty debates to livelihood and ecological balance. Respecting treaties, fostering empathy, and adopting cooperative steps like quotas, research, and deep-sea fishing can turn disputes into opportunities for peace, prosperity, and regional partnership.

DOWNLOAD PDF