India has historically shaped regional and global diplomacy through the Panchsheel principles, the Non-Aligned Movement, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, and, most recently, with its “Neighbourhood First Policy”. This stance has generally promoted peace and interdependence in South Asia. However, its unresolved issues with Sri Lanka, as the fisheries crisis in the Palk Straits and the sovereignty of Katchatheevu island, pose challenges.
During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Colombo in April 2025, both governments revisited these long-standing concerns. Mr. Modi emphasised a “humane approach” to the fisheries issue — one that balances livelihoods with conservation. This vision can succeed only if India and Sri Lanka address ecological imperatives and historic grievances in a spirit of cooperation.
Livelihood and conservation at odds
Fishing communities along the Tamil Nadu coast and the Northern Province of Sri Lanka have, for centuries, shared the Palk Straits. But disputes today are exacerbated by Indian vessels carrying out mechanised bottom trawling in Sri Lankan waters.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) lays stress not only on equitable use of marine resources but also their conservation. Similarly, the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 1995 deems destructive practices such as bottom trawling to be unacceptable.
Sri Lanka banned bottom trawling in 2017, but hundreds of Indian trawlers still continue the practice, damaging coral beds, shrimp habitats, and depleting fish stocks. Ironically, Tamil Nadu’s smaller artisanal fishers, who use traditional sustainable methods, also suffer: their near-shore resources have been depleted by the trawler industry, forcing them into contested waters. Thus, this is not just a territorial clash but also a livelihood conflict within the Tamil communities themselves — between business trawler operators pursuing profit and traditional fishers who are dependent on the sea for subsistence.
A sustainable resolution calls for making a distinction between the needs of artisanal fishers and trawler operators. Trawler operators cannot claim empathy as their commercial profits are at the expense of marine sustainability and community welfare. Small boat artisanal fishers have fished in these waters “from time immemorial” and their plight deserves humane accommodation.
This can be worked out through dialogue between Indian and Sri Lankan fisher organisations. With the consent of the Sri Lankan fishers, they can work out quotas or regulated access and set out limited fishing rights on specific days or seasons for Tamil Nadu’s small fishers, until India’s stocks recover.
There should be community sensitisation. Sri Lankan Tamil Members of Parliament and the Tamil media can play a role by highlighting in Tamil Nadu the hardships that the Northern fishermen suffered during Sri Lanka’s long civil war. Many of these families lost decades of income when the military restricted sea access during the conflict. They should not be portrayed as aggressors but as fellow victims of economic loss. Such steps would foster goodwill. It is worth remembering that during the Sri Lankan conflict, Tamil refugees were received in Tamil Nadu with compassion, housed in camps, and given assistance. Preserving these bonds of fraternity is essential.
Clearing the misconceptions
Public debate often portrays Katchatheevu, the tiny uninhabited islet in the Palk Straits, as the root of the fisheries dispute. This is misleading. Katchatheevu is less than half a square mile in area, and is barren except for the church of St. Anthony, which fishermen from Tamil Nadu continue to visit for the annual festival under the 1974 India-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary Treaty. The 1974 boundary settlement placed the islet in Sri Lankan waters. The Treaty is legally binding. Under international law, boundary treaties are sacrosanct (pacta sunt servanda). They cannot be unilaterally repudiated without undermining the global order — just as China’s contestation of its settled frontiers with India generates instability.
Myths such as “Indira Gandhi gifted the island to Sirimavo Bandaranaike” need clarification. In reality, India weighed historic evidence of sovereignty before deciding. Records showed Sri Lankan administrative control dating back to Portuguese and Dutch rule, and, earlier, to the Tamil kings of the kingdom of Jaffna.
International precedents exist in the following cases. In the Minquiers and Ecrehos case (France vs United Kingdom, the International Court of Justice 1953), the ICJ awarded sovereignty to the U.K., despite France’s historical claim through the Duchy of Normandy, because it had exercised administrative jurisdiction. Similarly, India conceded that Sri Lanka had the stronger claim. Another example is the Rann of Kutch Arbitration (1968) between India and Pakistan.
Thus, retrieving Katchatheevu is not a question of justice but of political rhetoric. It remains a settled issue under international law. Importantly, fishing rights are a distinct matter — not linked to sovereignty over the islet.
The Palk Straits and adjacent waters were recognised as “historic waters” under Indian and Sri Lankan law — areas where sovereign rights are even stronger than in normal territorial seas. As such, there is no “right of innocent passage” or third-state fishing rights without explicit consent. Judicial recognition of historic rights dates back to the Madras High Court case of Annakumaru Pillai vs Muthupayal And Ors. (1904), which upheld claims based on traditional pearl and conch fisheries. Therefore, India’s acceptance in 1974 of the maritime boundary was not whimsical but legally consistent with historic precedent.
The UNCLOS (Article 123) encourages cooperation in semi-enclosed seas — such as the Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar. Here, joint resource management is not just ideal but mandatory.
Models exist as in the Baltic Sea Fisheries Convention where Latvia, Poland and the European Union share quotas to conserve resources.
India and Sri Lanka could implement similar frameworks such as equitable quotas for fishing days and catch, a joint research station on Katchatheevu for marine biologists to monitor resources and suggest sustainable practices, and promotion of deep-sea fishing in India’s 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), reducing pressure on near-shore waters and lessening illegal crossings.
Toward good neighbourhood policy
India’s regional leadership is shaped not just by geography but also by cultural and civilisational ties. With Sri Lanka, those ties are especially deep. To protect them, disputes must be addressed without populist rhetoric but through quiet cooperation, legal recognition and shared livelihood security. The way forward involves multiple levels such as government-to-government talks (retaining trust and treaty obligations) and State/Provincial engagement (involving Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka’s Northern Provincial Council and community dialogue, encouraging people-people empathy that overcomes media distortions).
If handled with prudence, the Katchatheevu and Palk Straits issues can become symbols of cooperation rather than conflict.
India and Sri Lanka share not only maritime boundaries but also centuries of cultural, religious, and kinship ties. The fisheries issue requires fairness to both communities, prioritising artisanal livelihoods and ecological sustainability. The Katchatheevu issue, meanwhile, is legally settled — it should no longer cloud the real problem of managing resources. By adopting a collaborative fisheries regime, investing in deep-sea alternatives, and respecting historical legal agreements, the fishers of Tamil Nadu and the Northern province of Sri Lanka could move from confrontation to cooperation. In the long arc of diplomacy, smaller disputes must not overshadow the larger vision: peace, prosperity and mutual respect in South Asia.
Nirmala Chandrahasan is Attorney-at-law, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
Published – September 11, 2025 12:16 am IST