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.