Parliament debates and events taken place on 23.07.1974 on 1974 Agreement.
Mr. SPEAKER: Now, Shri Swaran Singh will make a statement…..
SHRI MADHU LIMAYE (Banka) : On a point of order. 1
had already given you notice, SHRI K. MANOHARAN (Madras North): Each Member
must be given a proper opportunity to express his views.
SHRI SEZHIYAN (Kumbakonam): Before the Hon. Minister makes his statement, I want to submit that we should have been consulted and the House should have been taken into confidence before they entered into this unholy agreement for the surrender of territory by India. While we are anxious that friendly and cordial relations should be maintained with Sri Lanka, the legal and constitutional proprieties against the interests of the country since it amounts to pure surrender of our territory without going through any of the norms. This is an unholy and disgraceful act of statesmanship unworthy of any Government. Therefore, We do not want to associate ourselves with the statement that is going to be made by the Hon. Minister, and we want to disassociate ourselves by walking out of the House.
SHRI K. MANOHARN : Please allow one Member from each party to express his views. We have decided to stage a walk-out, and therefore, before we walk out we want to tell you the reasons which have prompted us to walk out. The agreement entered into between Sri Lanka Government and the Government of India is anti-national and unpatriotic; it is the worst agreement ever signed by any civilised country of the world. 1 do not like to insult or hurt the feelings of either the people of Sri Lanka or the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka….
MR. SPEAKER : Hon. Members are going to have a debate on , foreign affairs when they can raise all these points.
SHRI K. MANOHARAN ; I must be permitted to speak now. Through this unholy agreement, the Sri Lanka Prime Minister has emerged as victor and the Prime Minister of India as a pathetic vanquished. It is an assault on the integrity of the country. In view of this, we have decided to stage a walk out and we are walking out.
SHRI P.K.MOOKIAH THEVAR (Ramanathapuram) :
Katchativu forms part of my constituency. You are acting like a dictator. You are speaking like a democrat but at the same time you are acting like a dictator. The whole life of thousands of fishermen….. Today the Ceylon government has moved their forces, their military towards that island. Thousands of mechanized boats were stopped; movements were restricted. Their lives are in danger. You have simply betrayed. You have no sympathy and courtesy to consult those people. You are thinking of it as a part of Tamil Nadu. Do not think it as part of Tamil Nadu. It is going to be the base for a torture war. It is going to be the base and challenge the life of the nation. I have to warn all these things because in the past it has been the tradition of our Governement to give bhoodan of the northern borders. (Interruptions)
Mr. SPEAKER: Kindly sit down
SHRI P.K.Mookiah THEVAR : The division of India has cost the life of Mahatama Gandhi. It is not a part of Tamil Nadu but it is a part of the holy land of India. You are betraying. On behalf of the constituency and on behalf of the Forward Block, 1 walk
out.
SHRI MUHAMMED SHERIFF (Periakulam): Even on the 1st April 1965, 1 produced sufficient records in this House to show that Kachchativu belongs to the Raja of Ramnad. Government has failed to go through those records. 1 was the elected representative of that constituency here previously. It is a shame on the part of the Government that they have not consulted the people of the place and the Chief Minister of the State. We condemn this action of Government and along with my friends, 1 also walk out in protest. (ShriP.K.N.Thevar and Shri Muhanimed Sheriff then left the House).
SHRI P.K. DEO (Kalahandi): On a point of order, Sir. The statement that the Foreign Minister is going to make deals with cession of Indian territory, in this regard, two important issues are involved. The first is the constitutional issue. Article of the Constitution says: “The territory of India shall comprise
a. the territories of the States;
b. the Union Territories specified in the First Schedule;
and
c. such other territories as may be acquired”.
So, further acquisiton of territory can be accepted, but nowhere does the Constitution provide for cession of even an inch of Indian territory- The Kachchativu controversy was raised only a few years ago by the Ceylonese Government when the Bandaranaike Minister came into power. All the revenue records of the Madras Government corrobo¬rate that Kachchativu was a part of the former Ramnad Zamindary and an integral part of this country. So, under no circumstances the Government has got any power under the Constitution to cede even an inch of our country.
………………………………
………………………………
Sir they cannot consider this country as the zamindari of the congress party. A few days back the Coco Island, which is party of the Andaman group of islands, was ceded to Burma. The question of Beru Bari was raised by the previous speaker. Now has come the question of Kachchativu. If we go on ceding our territory like this, what will be left of this country? Secondly, it is utter contempt and disrespect shown to this House by not taking the House into confidence and facing us with a fait accompli. The shutting out of the views of the opposition parties in this manner is most anti-democratic. So, 1 would say that the statement which is going to be laid on the Table of the Lok Sabha is not worth the paper on which it has been typed. Therefore, I would submit that the External Affairs Minister should consider these matters and should not lay the statement on the Table of the House. Otherwise, we will be forced to take the extreme step of walking out.
SHRI SEZHIYAN : But the agreement is unconstitutional.
MR. SPEAKER : How can we know it?
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE:
It is published in newspapers.
MR. SPEAKER: How can the house be seized of the matter unless the Minister makes a statement?
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE: Can they violate the Constitution?
MR. SPEAKER : I have given the ruling, the Minister. (At this stage Shri Kachwai tore up some papaers and threw them away). (Some Hon. Members left the House at the stage).
SHRI K. LANKAPPA : Sir the tearing of papers by an Hon. Member is contempt of the House. I want your ruling on this.
…………………….
…………………….
MR. SPEAKER: My ruling is that tearing of papers is not in keeping with the decorum or dignity of the House.
THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI SWARAN SINGH) :
Over the years, since our independence, there have been a number of questions and discussions in the House regarding the Island of Kachchativu. Government have of course fully shared this interest and concern for arriving at an early and amicable solution of this long-outstanding matter; and I am happy to say that an agreement was signed between the two Prime Minister on 28th June, a copy of which I am laying on the table of the House.
The Island of Kachchativu, about 3/4 of a square mile in extent, is situated in the Palk Bay; it is about 10 1/2 miles for the nearest landfall in Sri Lanka and about 12 1/2 miles from the nearest Indian shore. The Palk Bay, which constitutes historic waters of Indian and Sri Lanka, is some 18 miles wide at its entrance through the Paik Straits, and has an average width of some 28 miles.
The issue of deciding Indian and Sri Lanka claims to Kachchativu was closely connected with determining the boundary line between India and Sri lanka in the waters of the Palk Bay. The entire quetion of the maritime boundary in the historic waters of the Palk Bay required urgently to be settled, keeping in view the claims of the two sides, historical evidence, legal practice and precedent and in the broader context of our growing friendly relations with Sri Lanka. Kachchativu has always been an uninhabited island. Neither Sri Lanka nor India has had any permanent presence there. During the long colonial period the question whether Kachchativu was part of India or part of Ceylon was frequently discussed, with the Government of the day putting, forward claims and counter claims, in recent years, both countries had agreed that there should be no unilateral action which would seek to change the undetermined status of Kachchativu pending a final solution to be reached through amicable bilateral efforts.
…………………………
…………………………
I would particularly like to draw the attention of Honourable Memebers to the fact that when two sides have a good arguable case on a particular issue, and the problem cannot be resolved expeditiousiy through bilateral negotiations, there is inevitably an attempt to seek outside intervention by appeal either to the International Court of Justice or to third party arbitration. For our part, we have always been firmly of the view that in any differences with our neighbouring countries, we should seek to resolve them through bilateral discussions without outside interference, on the basis of equality and good will. It is a matter of satisfaction to us that our Prime Minister’s resolve to settle this issue through direct bilateral talks met with an equaly warm response from the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, and the agreement could be reached in an atmosphere of friendship and mutual understanding. Exhaustive research of Historical and other records was made by our experts on Kachchativu and every available piece of evidence collected from various record offices in India, such as in Tamil Nadu, Goa and Bombay, as well as abroad in British and Dutch archives. An intensive examination of evidence and exchange of views took place, specially during the past year, between senior officials of the two Governments. This question of Kachchativu, for the reasons I have just explained, had necessarily to be dealt with as part of the broader question of the boundary in the Palk Bay so as to eliminate the possibility of any further disputes on similar matters in these historic waters.
On the basis of dispassionate examination of the historical records and other evidence, and keeping in mind the legal principles and also keeping in mind our policy and principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, I feel confident that the Agreement demarcating the maritime boundary in the Palk Bay, will be considered as fair, just and equitable to both countries.
At the same time, I wish to remind the Hon’ble Members that in concluding this Agreement the rights of fishing, pilgrimage and navigation, which is a victory of mature staternanship, a victory in the cause of friendship and cooperation in the area. A potential major irritant in relations between the two countries, which had remained unresolved over the years, has now been removed, and both countries can now concentrate on the exploitation of economic and other resources in these, now well-defined, waters and generally on intensifying cooperation between themselves in various fields. The Agreement marks an important step in further strengthening the close ties that bind India and Sri Lanka. (The provisions of the Agreement are given in Appendix I).
SHRI M. KALYANASUNDARAM (Tiruchirapalli) : Sir, while my party welcomes the Agreements reached between Sri Lanka and India, there are problems to come up during the implementation of the Agreement. So far, our fishermen had a right to go even beyond Kachchativu, fish and come back. The Hon. Minister says that these rights are fully protected. But there are problems which we would like our Government to take up with Sri Lanka and seek their discussion on this statement, I have given notice of a motion. I would request you to allow a discussion on that.
MR. SPEAKER: The general debate on foreign affairs is coming up next week.
SHRI DINEN BHATTACHARYA (Serampore) : 1 want to seek one clarification. In the statement he has metioned that Kachchativu has always been an uninhabited island. But an Hon. Member had said that it was within his constituency. If that is so. I do not know how it could be said that it has not been inhabited by any human being. How could it then be a part of his constituency?
SHRI M. KALYANASUNDARAM : The Tamil Nadu Government has a grievance that it has not been consulted properly. May I know what is the actual fact in regard to that? I also want to know the details about the protection given with regard to fishing rights.
SHRI SWARAN SINGH: The Hon Member would no doubt be aware that in the year 1921 when both Sri Lanka and India were under British rule, fishery line had been decided by the British Governement because they had control over both Sri Lanka as weli as India. 1 am sure that the Hon, Member knows that the 1921 fishery line was aline which was about three or three and a half miles west of the Kachchativu. That is, to the western side of the fishery line was the exclusive fishery right of the Indian citizens and to the east of that was the right of Sri Lanka fishermen. But in spite of that division, the fishermen generally were free to fish even round about Kachchativu and they also used the Kachchativu island for drying their nets. As would be known to the House there is no fresh water available there. Mostly they used it for spreading their nets and trying to dry the nets, etc., About the traditional rights, if the Hon. Members goes through the terms of the Agreement, a copy of which has been placed on the Table of the House, he will get the answer because it is mentioned there that, although Sri Lanka’s claim to sovereignty over Kachchativu has been recognised, the traditional navigation rights exercised by India and Sri Lanka in each other’s water will remain unaffected (interruption).
MR. SPEAKER: Later on we may have debate on this, but now I am not allowing any more.
MR. KUREEL.
Source: Lok sabha Debates, July 23,1974, Cols. 186-201.
KATCHATHEEVU AND THE INDIAN TAMILS OF SRILANKA
The Congress Rulers never considered Tamils as Indians and Tamil Nadu a part of India. Ten Years earlier to the Indira Gandhi – Srimavo traitorous agreement of 1974, during the year 1964, Sastri the then Prime Minister of India Made a betrayal agreement with the same lady Srimavo Pandaranaike which made lakhs and lakhs of Indian Tamils of Srilanka Stateless. These Tamils were taken to Ceylon under the protective umbrella of British since 19th Century and they formed a bulk labour which turned the malaria infested forests of Srilanka in to a smiling plantations of tea which sustained the Srilankan economy up to modern times. Under the British Rule these Indian Tamils of Srilanka enjoyed the same legal status what the Singhalese and the Srilankan Tamils enjoyed. After Independence, the Srilankan Government declared that all the Srilankan Indian Tamils are stateless by passing an act by name The Ceylon Citizenship Act 1948.
Instead of warning the Srilankan Government to withdraw the above act, the Congress Government went on negotiating with Srilanka on this issue and finally Sastri accepted to get 5-25 lakhs of Srilankan Indian Tamils back to India out of 9.75 lakhs of Indian Tamils in Srilanka. It is to be noted that 90% of them did not want to return to India because they had been there in Srilanka Since 19th Century.
At that time Shir. C. Raja Gopalachari, once a Prominent leader of congress Party righty echoed the feelings of Tamils as follows. “Why should nearly a million of children and grand children born in Ceylon to parents who toiled and sweated for Ceylon and who had gone there from south India and settled down in the plantations be disentitled to be citizens of Ceylon? Why should a single child born in Ceylon and desiring to be in Ceylon and be a working citizen thereof be turned to wander as homeless refugees in India?”
As usual the congress Rulers ignored all objections and protests. Ultimately lakhs and lakhs joined families of Indian Tamils in Srilanka departed each family in to two or more and 60% of them were forced to return to India as refugees. Thereafter, the Srilankan Tamil refugees in India and their blood relations in Srilanka used to meet and recall their memories once in a year at Katchatheevu during the “Antoniar Festival” without Visa or any other travel documents. After Indira Gandhi gifted Katchatheevu to Srimavo for the reasons described in the previous chapters the Srilankan Government once for all locked the Antoniar Temple and stopped the Antoniar Festival Since 1978 and detained the Pilgrims to visit katchatheevu.
Thus the meeting opportunity of the Srilankan Tamil Refugees in India and the Indian Tamils in Srilanka once in a year at Katchatheevu was buried because of the ceding of Katchatheevu to Srilanka through the traitorous, betrayal and unpatriotic agreement made by Indira Gandhi during the year 1974.
What remarkable here is that Shri. K. Kamaraj the Then All India Congress party leader who made Sastri as Prime Minister after Nehru and Indira as the Prime Minister after Sastri is a Tamil.
THE DICTATORIAL ACT OF CONGRESS AND THE LOSS OF KATCHATHEEVU ISLAND
India is a country with different rationalities people of which have formulated a Constituion to protect the interest of each and every citizen. It is no less an act of betrayal, and anti national, when a territory belonging to people of a particular nationality being ceded to a foreign power, that too without obtaining the consent of that people. This could be summarized as a dictatorial act. Katchatheevu Island was ceded to Sri Lanka by the then Congress Government through the 1974 agreement, which agreement had not even been ratified by the Indian parliament. Traditionally Katchatheevu Island had been the territory of Tamils. The foregoing chapters dealt in detail the Tamils traditional right over Katchatheevu Island. The Sinhalese were often found staking a claim over Katchatheevu Island. During 1920, the Sinhalese made a claim with the British rulers over the Katchatheevu Island. Even then Katchatheevu Island continued to remain a territory of Tamils.
After independence, during 1951 and again in 1954, Sri Lanka laid a claim over Katchatheevu Island. Dudly Senanayake and John Kothalawala were the Srilankan Prime Ministers, and Jawaharlal Nehru was the then Indian Prime Minister. Jawaharlal Nehru did not show any interest over Katchatheevu Island. This emboldened the Sri Lankans to conduct a Military exercise in Katchatheevu Island in 1955. When this was raised in Parliament, Jawaharlal Nehru would only say that the issue is being analyzed. In the mean time Sri Lanka agreed to wait for a final decision on Katchatheevu Island and announced “postponement of military exercises” till then. Again during 1968 the issue on Katchatheevu Island was raised in Parliament. Mrs.lndira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, following the footsteps of her father Jawaharlal Nehru did not pay much attention and replied that she is awaiting details on Katchatheevu Island from the Government of Tamilnadu. During the same period, on 02.03.1968, the Samyuktha Socialist Part, which had only 2 members in the Tarnilnadu assembly moved an adjournment motion on the issue of Katchatheevu Island, Pulavar Govindan, the then Deputy Speaker, (who was then in Chiar) said that the issue of Katchatheevu Island is an external affairs issue to be addressed by the Central Government.
The DMK had 138 members in the Assembly at that time. This is the manner in which the DMK, once a patriarch of separate Dravidian land, viewed the issue of Katchatheevu Island. In 1974, the Prime Ministers of both the nations deliberated on handing over Katchatheevu Island to Sri Lanka. On 26.06.1974, Mrs.Bandaranayke, signed the agreement in Colombo and on 28.06.1974. Mrs. Indira Gandhi signed the fateful agreement. On 23.07.1974 a report on this agreement was read over in the Parliament. Till date the agreement has not been ratified by the parliament. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, fairly admitted that Katchatheevu Island was ceded for political reasons and not on documentary evidences.
It is worth mentioning that during the Indo China War and Indo Pak war, Sri Lanka had always supported China and Pakistan. In reciprocation of Sri Lanka’s support during the Bangladesh War, Pakistan gave two planes to Sri Lanka. It is widely reported that after the 1971 Indo Pak War, Pakistan sought to establish an Air base in Sri Lanka and this was vehemently opposed by India. On its part Sri Lanka demanded that, to keep Pakistan in bay, Katchatheevu Island be ceded to it. Mrs. Indira Gandhi is reported to have accepted to this barter. This is the political reason that is widely reported to be the reason for ceding Katchatheevu Island to Sri Lanka. Considering the stature of Mrs.Indira Gandhi and the political power which she wielded during that time, Mrs, Indiara Gandhi was in the height of her political career and it in the next year viz., 1975 she declared Emergency, it is rather doubtful whether Mrs.Indira Gandhi would have yielded to the dictates of Mrs.Bandaranayake.
Mrs.Bandaranayake is considered very close to the Nehru family. Even during the days of Mr.Bandaranayake, there was close relationship between Jawaharlal Nehru family and Bandaranayake family. After, the death of Mr.Bandaranayake, Mrs. Bandaranayake became the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. She had the distinction of being the first Women Prime Minister in the World. The relationship between her and Nehru continued well, till the death of Jawaharlal Nehru. Thereafter, the relationship continued with Mrs.Indira Gandhi. Although, Mrs.Bandaranayake had the distinction of being the World’s first Women Prime Minister, she saw her power fading away at home. So there was a necessity to rejuvenate, which was accomplished by ceding Katchatheevu Island to Sri Lanka. While, Mrs. Indira Gandhi weighed the family relationship more, she failed to realize the trouble ahead for the Tamil Indian Fishermen. In the end, Katchatheevu Island was ceded to satisfy personal desires.
| “Katchatheevu was the most typical case of a personal equation playing the role of diplomacy. When the negotiations had virtually failed, and the Indian official delegation was pressurizing Indra Gandhi not to give up India’s claim on the islet, Srimavo Bandaranaika made a personal appeal to Indira Gandhi to come to her rescue as it would otherwise spell political disaster for her. Indira Gandhi appreciated Mrs. Srimao Bandaranaike’s predicament and manipulated the situation in such a way that it became a fait accompli even before the Indian delegation could react. Srimavo Bandaranaike remembered this gesture as late as 1990 with immense gratitude. Prof. Partha Gosh in his book ” Ethnicity versus Nationalism. |
THE 1974-1976 TRAITOROUS AGREEMENTS
The Island of Katchatheevu is a part of the Indian Union. It is very much within the sovereign and territorial limits of this Nation. Yet, the Central Government refuses to acknowledge this basic fact and transcending all its Constitutional authority, the Centre has allowed Sri Lanka to exercise its suzerainty over Katchatheevu Island. This has emboldened the Sri Lankan navy to continue with its unabated killing of our Tamil Fishermen. While, the Central Government is solely responsible for this malady, the DMK which occupies a predominant position in the Centre remains a mute spectator over the happenings.
Over the years the Government of India is making an unfounded statement that it has ceded its rights over Katchatheevu Island. By reciting the same statement over a long period of time, this untrue statement is now made to be believed as true. In the case of Katchatheevu Island this drama is unfolding since 1974. On 31.08.2010, during the discussion in the Lok Sabha and in earlier discussions in the Rajya Sabha, over Katchatheevu Island, the External Affairs Minister Mr.S.M. Krishna, asserted the following as his reply which are in fact false statement:
S.M. Krishna on the right
“Katchatheevu Island belong to Sri Lanka”
“What had been given is given”
“The agreement is solemn”
“It cannot be abrogated”
“It is not possible to provide security to the fishermen who transcend the borders”
“Sri Lanka is our friendly Nation”
What Mr. S.M. Krishna is referring to as solemn is the Agreement of the year 1974. This agreement can at the most be termed as a half printed currency note. It requires patience and endurance to understand the issue of Katchatheevu Island. The Sea between India and Sri Lanka is divided into Three Sectors. 1. The sea between Rameswaram and Talaimannar up to Adams BridgSe, which constitute the Palk Strait. (Katchatheevu Island is situated in this Sector at a distance of 11 nautical miles North East from Rameswaram and 18 nautical miles North West from Sri Lanka’s Talaimannar).
2. The Gulf of Mannar which is situated south of Adams Bridge.
3. The remaining portion excluding the Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannar the Bay of Bengal.
The Government of India and Sri Lanka have executed two agreements one during 1974 and another during 1976, over these three Sectors.
THE FIRST AGREEMENT :
The then Indian Prime Minister Mrs.lndira Gandhi and the then Sri Lankan President Mrs.Bandara Naickae executed the first ever agreement on Katchatheevu Island, in the year 1974, which amongst other things, primarily dealt with demarcating the sea boundary around Palk Strait which comprises the Island of Katchatheevu. This agreement also dealtwith the rights of the respective nations over the demarcated area.
THE SECOND AGREEMENT :
The second agreement was entered into in the year 1976, between the foreign Secretaries of both the nations. It covered the remaining area viz., the Bay of Bengal and Gulf of Mannar, which were hitherto not covered in the earlier 1974 agreement. This agreement dealt with the rights of the respective nations over these sectors. Both the 1974 and 1976 agreements are independent of each other and they deal with two different sectors in the Sea. The covenants and substance of both these agreements are entirely different. Both these agreements are often mistaken as pertaining to one and the same issue and this confusion serves as an asset to the opponent while it is a malady to us. Before venturing to understand the 36 year long continued sufferings of our Tamil fishermen, we should first clear ourselves of our doubt in this issue. The 1974 agreement signed by leaders of both the nations and which is vehemently relied on by Mr.S. M.Krishna, requires an in-depth study.
THE 1974 INDO SRILANKAN MARITIME BOUNDARY AGREEMENT :
This agreement consists of VIII Articles. Article I, deals with demarcating the Maritime Boundary over Palk Straits which comprises the Katchatheevu Island. The principle of Equi-Distance demarcation, normally followed in International treaties was not followed, but instead the demarcation was carried on with a sole object of forgoing Katchatheevu Island to Sri Lanka. As such the Maritime Boundary was drawn above Katchatheevu Island at its West.
If the principle of Equi-Distance demarcation was followed, the Maritime Boundary would have fallen to the East of Katchatheevu Island and the Island would be well within the Indian Maritime Boundary.
The United States did not agree to this demarcation, which did not follow the principle of Equi-Distance demarcation. In a nutshell, the principle of Equi-Distance Demarcation, hundreds of documents from the year 1605 and the uninterrupted possession over the Island over the past thousand years would establish that the Island of Katchatheevu is part of the Indian territory. The fact that Katchatheevu Island is an Indian territory and had been ceded to Sri Lanka is embedded in Article V of the agreement which deals with the traditional rights of the Fishermen and Pilgrims to go over to the Katchatheevu island.
ARTICLE V :
Subject to the Foregoing Indian fishermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit Katcha Teevu as hitherto and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel documents or visa for these purposes. Article VI of the agreement protects the Indian fishing vessels right to venture into and stay in Sri Lankan waters.
ARTICLE VI :
The vessels of India and Sri Lanka will enjoy in each other’s waters such rights as they have traditionally enjoyed therein.
Article VII deals with effective utilization by both the countries of Gas and other mineral resources that may be discovered in this Sector. Although, this agreement include ceding Katchatheevu Island to Sri Lanka, in effect this agreement upholds and safeguards the traditional rights of our fishermen over this sector of the Sea, which include Island of Katchatheevu and the area surrounding it. The Island of Katchatheevu had remained within the suzerainty of both the Nations. When two sovereign nations exercise their suzerainty over a land or Island, such joint exercise of power is termed a Condominium. International Law permits exercise of such suzerain power by two or more nations over rivers, Seas and the land mass abutting the sea. The exercise of joint suzerain power by England and France since 1934 over Candon and Endenbury is a best example. The 1974 Indo Sri Lankan Pact, is based on this principle of joint exercise of suzerain power and not a complete ceding of territory as it is being portrayed by Mr.S.M.Krishna.
Even then the act of foregoing the territory of Island of Katchatheevu by Indira Gandhi is an act contrary to the Constitution of India. The Indian Constitution does not permit nor does it authorize any person to cede the country’s territory to any other Nation.
In 1958 when the village of Berubari was to be ceded to Pakistan, the then Indian President make a reference to the Supreme Court, under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India, seeking its view on the constitutionality of ceding the territory. The Supreme Court constituted an 8 member Bench, which after much deliberation, advised the Union Government, to carry out necessary amendments to Article 368 before ceding the territory. Accordingly, the Union Government amended Article 368 and thereafter ceded the territory to Pakistan.
Mrs.Indira Gandhi, who signed the 1974 agreement with Sri Lanka and her other officials as well, are quite aware of the need to obtain a Constitutional sanction before ceding the Island of Katchatheevu. Article VIII of the agreement refers to ratification and exchange of instruments which should take place at the earliest possible time.
ARTICLE VIII :
This agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of the instruments of the ratification which will take place as soon as possible.
Article VIII of the agreement stipulates obtaining a ratification, which could be done by bringing a suitable amendment to the constitution before enforcing the agreement. No such ratification or sanction has been obtained. As such this agreement has lost its sanction, has become inoperative and unenforceable. The statement of External Affairs Minister Mr. S.M.Krishna, before Parliament, that this agreement cannot be abandoned it a contemptuous statement transcending the Constitution, for which act, the External Affairs Minister, the Prime Minister and his Council of Minister should be held responsible. It is this agreement of the year 1974, which has contributed to killing of nearly 500 Indian Fishermen, permanently disabled 1000 of them and disappearance at the same number.
This agreement which makes a mockery of the Indian Constitution, is according to our External Affairs Minister, Mr.S.M.Krishna, as declared by him before the parliament “a solemn agreement.” Mr.S.M.Krishna and his Ministerial counterparts have failed to remember having taken an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. The numerous documents in hand, our Constitutional provisions, the covenants in the 1974 agreement, supports our view that India has a suzerain power over the Island of Katchatheevu, and continues to exercise that power and will continue to exercise the power over Katchatheevu and the surrounding Seas. In effect the Indian fishermen too exercise such rights over the Katchatheevu Island and the surrounding Seas. I challenge Mr.S.M.Krishna to defer with me. If he could disprove my statement I am ready to face the gallows. If my statement is upheld, will Mr.S.M.Krishna, amputate his tongue for having repeated a false and disproved statement.
Recent Comments