Katchatheevu island | Debate has always been marked by zamindari rights vs. sovereignty

Debate over Katchatheevu islet sovereignty, historical context, and political implications in India-Sri Lanka relations.

The link between the zamindari (estate) right of the Raja of Ramnad and sovereignty, or the absence of it, has all along marked the debate over the contentious Katchatheevu islet. 

The island has become a poll issue ahead of the upcoming general elections in India, with the BJP slamming the Congress government for having ceded the island to Sri Lanka.

Though the 1974 bilateral agreement between India and Sri Lanka settled the issue in favour of the latter, those who even now demand the “retrieval” of the islet cite the historical fact that Katchatheevu was part of the estate of Raja of Ramnad, the position of which was never in doubt. With the abolition of estates immediately after Independence, all the possessions in the form of estates in the State were transferred to the Tamil Nadu government and this was how it had become part of India. Therefore, the agreement between India and Sri Lanka, giving Sri Lanka sovereignty over the island, should never have taken place, is what advocates of the “retrieval” demand say.

However, notwithstanding  the zamindari right of the Raja of Ramnad, Sri Lanka’s stand  has been that there is no confusion over its sovereignty over the islet.  At the beginning of the bilateral talks, before the signing of the pact in 1974, the island nation maintained that its case had been “established through discussion, documentation and correspondence.” What was required to be thrashed out was the apportioning of the historic waters in the Palk Strait and Palk Bay, especially the extent of territorial sea on the west of the islet. 

In fact, while replying to a question of K. Ananda Nambiar, a prominent Communist, in the Lok Sabha in April 1956 about the ownership of the Raja over Katchatheevu, then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru answered  that “the Raja of Ramnad has a zamindari there. The zamindari need not be affected at all by the other question. It may continue whatever the island may be,” as recorded in Volume I of ‘India-Sri Lanka Relations and Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Conflict Documents - 1947-2000,’ (edited by Avtar Singh Bhasin, published by India Research Press, 2001).  When Nambiar further asked the Prime Minister that if the ownership went to the Sri Lankan (then known as Ceylon) government, how could the zamindari of the Raja continue, Nehru replied that “these are doubtful questions. I cannot give a positive answer on these legal issues.” 

Four years later, following the towing of two Indian boats by the Sri Lankan Navy to Talaimannar, in the words of then Parliamentary Secretary to External Affairs Minister Sadath Ali Khan in the Lok Sabha, presumably due to suspicions that the vessels were carrying illicit immigrants, then Speaker Madabhooshi Ananthasayanam Ayyangar told the Prime Minister that “all that the hon. Member [Ramanathan Chettiar] means that it [Katchatheevu] is part of India and not part of Ceylon.” To this, Nehru’s reply was this: “That is the matter in controversy.”  A month after this discussion, the issue cropped up in September 1960 in the Rajya Sabha where Jaswant Singh, who was an independent-member of  the Upper House from Rajasthan during 1952-62, asked Nehru whether the sovereignty was that of Sri Lanka or of some other country, and the Prime Minister’s replied again that “that is a matter under argument.”

Six years later, greater clarity over the difference between the zamindari right and sovereignty was provided by Union Minister of State for External Affairs Dinesh Singh in the Rajya Sabha in May 1966. Pointing out that the political status of the islet had not been finally determined and “no formal representation” had been received from Sri Lanka over ownership, Singh, however, emphasised that “zamindari right does not confer sovereignty. The position is that the zamindari right of the Raja of Ramnad has never been disputed.”  He added that in 1921  when a representative of the erstwhile Madras Presidency government, who was also present in the bilateral talks on the fishery line, had agreed that while the zamindari rights of the Raja would continue, the islet belonged to Sri Lanka. “This fact was not accepted by the Secretary of State for India and since then, this dispute has been going on,” Singh added, while wrapping up the discussion on the matter.