The Centre needs to consider a short-cut into the seas for the most-affected Rameswaram fishers in particular to cut their travel time, diesel storage and the like by 8-10 hours, while going into the deep-seas. It will also be their collective responsibility to motivate, train and equip the southern coastal fishers in deep-sea fishing.
By sending back arrested Sri Lankan (read: Sinhala) fishers in custody, the Tamil Nadu Government may have revived a years-old practice that it had unilaterally suspended after the Jayalalithaa-led AIADMK returned to power in 2011. Sri Lanka has reacted favourably to the new gesture, if it could be called so, by freeing Tamil Nadu fishers in their custody, indicating that more needs to be done to bring permanent peace back to these waters.
Owing to greater dependence on India and possibly not to upset the public mood in southern Tamil Nadu at the height of the anti-LTTE, 'Eelam War IV', the Sri Lankan Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa had been known to free Indian fishers, either detained for inspection or formally arrested and imprisoned on court orders, without much fuss or delay. There had been occasions when the Colombo Government had returned droves of fishers from Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry and their trawlers, after being detained. On occasions, there had been reported instances of such detained fishers being sent back home on Executive orders, only hours or minutes before being produced before courts in Sri Lanka.
In turn, Tamil Nadu, among the Indian States where Sri Lankan/Sinhala fishers used to be detained for crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL), alone had set up a law and order mechanism to clear 'innocent' fishers from among those detained, for periodic return to their country. The Indian Coast Guard (ICG) and the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN), which in the first place had detained those fishers, would undertake the 'swapping exercise' at mid-sea.
The latter was as much a part of their duty, on the orders of the respective governments, as the detention in the first place was a part of their mandates. If in the case of Indian fishers, the Sri Lanka Navy would cite the crossing of the IMBL as the basic offence their Government has often cited the use of banned trawlers and fishing gears, by the Tamil Nadu/Indian fishers. The Sri Lankan Government, as also the Tamil fishers of the nation's Northern Province in particular, would often cite the exploitation and over-exploitation of their marine resources and livelihood, respectively.
Arrests, no killings?
For long, Tamil Nadu fishers have charged the Sri Lanka Navy with mid-sea killing of their colleagues. Though the cited numbers over the past decades are rather high, no evidence of any kind has been produced even in a single case, for the Centre to take it up with the Sri Lankan Government. Instead, the charges of decades-long mid-sea killings have only gone to disprove claims that they were post-war phenomenon.
Whatever that be, very few incidents of mid-sea violence and killings involving the Sri Lanka Navy has been reported after the bilateral government agreement of 2008, which specifically addressed the issue. There was however a 'corresponding increase' in the SLN arrests of Indian fishers from Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Post-2011, AIADMK's Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister cited the Pakistani example, saying that even the 'arch enemy' of India did not open firing on Indian fishers in its waters, but only detained them. Detained, yes, but Indian fishers in Pakistani prisons have been spending 15-20 years at times, with no trace of their whereabouts or no cases being brought against them in local courts.
Little leeway
There is nothing exactly to suggest that this might have been the new justification for Sri Lankan government/courts detaining arrested Indian fishers for longer terms, pending the hearing their cases. What might have contributed to the situation was the Tamil Nadu Government's decision not to have the periodic review of the cases of arrested Sri Lankan fishers, and free them with their boats.
Worse still, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, the other two Indian States where Sri Lankan/Sinhala fishers chasing high-value tuna get arrested by the Coast Guard, the local administration -- top-to-bottom and vice versa -- has seldom bothered to facilitate their early trial and/or release. Despite repeated requests from the Sri Lankan Government and reminders from the Centre, these States, unaffected as they have been by arrest of Indian fishers in Sri Lanka, seldom responded. Or, so it seemed. In one case not very long ago, a group of six Sri Lankan fishers were detained in the Andamans, without charge-sheet or trial for over two years.
It applies to the Sri Lankan courts fining the arrested Tamil Nadu fishers heavily, and also ordering the impounding of their trawlers. That might have started after courts in Andhra Pradesh started fining the arrested Sri Lankan fishers and their boats heavily. It might have also owed to the clause in the Indian law, which does not provide much leeway for the courts in the matter of penalty once the case against the Sri Lankan fishers are found guilty for violating the IMBL and other local laws.
Unilateral, not reciprocal
It's heartening to note that the Tamil Nadu Government finally took the 'unilateral decision' to free the Sri Lankan fishers detained in local prisons. How 'unilateral' the decision can be gauged from the fact that over the past couple of years, Sri Lanka's release of arrested Tamil Nadu/Indian fishers has always been 'unilateral' in the same way, without always standing on 'reciprocity'. Sri Lanka has reciprocated since, though the trawlers of the freed fishers are yet to be released.
In the present case, Sri Lankan reciprocity has covered only the detained fishers from Tamil Nadu. It has not been extended to fishers from the Karaikkal enclave in the Union Territory of Puducherry. It owes to the absence of reciprocity of the kind involving the Sri Lankan fishers detained in the local prisons. The fact that Tamil Nadu has made the beginning, and seems to have taken the Centre's possible advice in the matter seriously after a long time, should set the tone and tenor of future exchanges and consequent interactions of the kind.
IMBL and Katchchativu issue
In context, Tamil Nadu in particular, and Puducherry, maybe, will have to clarify their current position on the IMBL, and consequently on the 'Katchchativu issue' and the enabling bilateral agreements of 1974 and 1976. If at all anything could, such a review - particularly in the context of the pending Supreme Court case, standing in the names of Jayalalithaa as AIADMK General Secretary and rival M Karunanidhi of the DMK -- alone could help and facilitate the Centre to negotiate with the Sri Lanka, for permitting Tamil Nadu fishers to cross the IMBL to practice their trade. Then and only then can the Tamil Nadu fishers hope to fish in the Sri Lankan waters, without having to violate any existing law or penalised for doing so.
It could still only be an interim solution. A permanent solution could be found only in deep-sea fishing for and by the Indian fishers now 'invading' Sri Lankan waters. The Tamil Nadu Government of then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has taken the right step, offered 25 percent subsidy for 'boat-conversion' in 2011, and doubled it to 50 percent this year.
The Centre, for its part, will have to consider a short-cut into the seas for the most-affected Rameswaram fishers in particular to cut their travel time, diesel storage and the like by 8-10 hours, while going into the deep-seas. It will also be their collective responsibility to motivate, train and equip the southern coastal fishers in deep-sea fishing.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
N. Sathiya Moorthy is a policy analyst and commentator based in Chennai.
Read More +
PREV