India Insights: Islandgate – What the India-Sri Lanka Island Dispute Means
Express Image
On March 31, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reignited the issue of the territorial dispute between India and Sri Lanka over the island of Katchatheevu. He shared a news report that said that the Congress Party “callously” gave away Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka, with the assistance of the DMK.
He tweeted:
Modi based his tweet on a document obtained by K Annamalai, the BJP’s chief in Tamil Nadu, under a law that allows Indians to access information from the government. The external affairs minister, Jaishankar, reshared Modi’s post and wrote “It is important that people know the full truth about our past. The facts brought out… should concern every citizen.” Additionally, according to Jaishankar, Nehru gave no importance to the island and did not want any problems with the Sri Lankans. Since Modi’s remarks, this issue has dominated Indian media and public discourse, with implications for India’s domestic politics and foreign policy.
History of the Island
Kaatchatheevu (which means “barren land” in Tamil) is about 1.9 sq km (0.7 sq miles) and located in the Palk Strait, the body of water that divides India and Sri Lanka. The island is only visited during the annual feast of St. Anthony when fishermen and women from India and Sri Lanka visit the Church. Since 1605, the island has belonged to the Ramnad Zamindari, which was established by the Nayak Dynasty of Madurai. Later, the island was a source of revenue for the Sethupathy Dynasty, and in 1767, it was leased to the Dutch and in 1882, the British East India Company. The confusion over the border started when the British wanted to create a maritime border between India and Sri Lanka to demarcate the fishing industry. In 1921, delegations from British India and Ceylon (the old name of Sri Lanka) came up with a border and the delegation from Ceylon opposed the Indian claims that the island was a part of India.
Neither side ratified the treaty and this issue was sidelined until 1956, when newly independent India and Sri Lanka needed to create a border. At the time, there was a mindset in New Delhi where it did not want to be perceived as threatening to its smaller neighbors. Later, in 1974, when Indira Gandhi was prime minister, the Indian government relinquished authority to control the island and two years later, India and Sri Lanka signed an agreement that prevented people from fishing in the other country’s exclusive economic zone. However, today, India claims ownership because, from 1875-1948, it was under an uninterrupted authority of an Indian king. In addition, there have been tensions as Indian fishermen/women were arrested by the Sri Lankan authorities by crossing into Sri Lankan waters to fish, since the island has served as a critical source of food and revenue for fishermen/women
Impact on Domestic Politics
Many argue that Modi bringing up this island dispute is merely a political tactic to give him an advantage during election season since this scandal puts the Congress Party and the DMK in a bad light. For example, Sumanth Raman, in an article for the Deccan Herald wrote, “This may be another salvo to try to tarnish the record of the Congress and the DMK.” The President of the Congress party, Mallikarjun Kharge tweeted “You have suddenly woken up to the issues of territorial integrity and national security in your 10th year of misrule. Perhaps, elections are the trigger. Your desperation is palpable.”
However, it is crucial to note that using territorial disputes for electoral gains is not unique to Modi or the BJP. For example, ever since the island was given to Sri Lanka, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) which governs Tamil Nadu has used this issue to argue that the central government in New Delhi didn’t do enough to prevent the island from going to Sri Lanka. For example, when Jayalalithaa was the chief minister of Tamil Nadu (a chief minister is equivalent to a governor of a state in the U.S), she lodged a petition to the Supreme Court declaring that giving the island to Sri Lanka was “unconstitutional.”
Since taking power in 1965, the DMK has created the narrative that the central government doesn’t care about Tamilians and instituted “anti-Hindi” policies as a way to hold political power. (Hindi is mainly spoken in Northern India, whereas in Southern India, regional languages like Tamil, Kannada, Telegu, and Malayalam are the primary languages). In fact, the founder of the DMK and the Dravidian Movement, Periyar, advocated for an independent Tamil Nadu at the time of independence. Consequently, the rights of Tamilians – and by extension solidarity with Sri Lankan Tamils - was a central platform of the DMK. Consequently, the BJP hasn’t been able to make inroads into Tamil Nadu, such as how in the 2014 election, the BJP and its ally, the PMK, only got one seat for each in the Tamil Nadu state assembly. (The state assemblies in India are similar to how within each state in the U.S., there is a state legislature).
Impact on India’s Relations with Its Neighbors
In addition to the impact on Indian domestic politics, this issue has an impact on India’s relations with Sri Lanka. The response from the Sri Lankan government was that this island issue was already resolved 50 years ago, and there is no need for further dialogue. Additionally, the Sri Lankan media has argued that the Indian government is using communal tensions to help them gain votes in Tamil Nadu. For example, the Daily Mirror, an English-language outlet in Sri Lanka wrote, “Sadly, even the seemingly unflappable Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar has dropped all pretense of statesmanship and has joined hands with his premier to rouse communal feelings in the hope of gaining a few votes in Tamil Nadu.” They then called for India to stop interfering in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka.
More broadly, this dispute reflects the broader state of India’s “Neighborhood First” policy, as there is a growing anti-India movement throughout South Asia. Aside from this island issue, there was opposition inside Sri Lanka to Indian company Adani controlling Sri Lankan ports. In Bangladesh, the “India Out” movement was launched due to criticism of the Indian government for allegedly interfering in Bangladeshi politics to help the ruling Awami League.
In Nepal, anti-India sentiment emerged in 2019 due to a border dispute in which the Indian government released a new map of India which according to Kathmandu, the Indian government incorrectly dew the borders on the district of Kalpani. This incident resulted in anti-India protests throughout Nepal. In the 2022 election, the CPN-UML (Communist Party of Nepal – Unified Marxist Leninist) party used this issue to help them in the polls.
Ever since the election of Mohammed Muizzu in the Maldives, anti-Indian sentiment has been prominent, such as when the Maldivian government ordered Indian troops to leave the country only to sign a “military assistance” agreement with Beijing.
Even though India’s neighbors are too dependent on New Delhi to “decouple” from India, this episode illustrates the growing influence of nationalism around the world, in which governments have the mindset that they can claim a territory because it was “historically theirs.”
