It is often argued, in the context of India-Sri Lanka fishers' issue, that fish know no political/international borders, and fishers go where fish go. Taking off from here, it is also often proposed that a negotiated settlement to the decades-old dispute could be found through a cooperative venture involving fishers from the south Indian State of Tamil Nadu, and their 'umbilical cord' brethren from across the Palk Strait in Sri Lanka's Northern Province (NP).
The former argument is fallacious, rendering the latter a possible non-starter. The fish that the Tamil Nadu fishers catch in Sri Lankan waters do not traverse the seas, as is believed. They are 'native' to those seas, and are found only in the shallow waters, near the coast. Hence, there is the temptation for the fishers from the general area of Tamil Nadu's Rameswaram coast and immediate neighbourhoods to risk their lives for the sake of a relatively prosperous livelihood.
This one is different from the fishing issue involving Tamil Nadu fishers from up north, say, from the Nagapattinam area. They go well into Sri Lankan waters, where in all likelihood the argument of 'historic waters' could not have been applied, given the kind of vessels and gears that were available in the distant past. In a way, the induction of motorised fishing vessels may have preceded the bi-lateral agreements of international maritime border line (IMBL) of 1974 and 1976 by a couple of decades at best.
Yet, as in the case of game-hunters and traders, who cannot violate international land boundaries when finalised without risking arrest and prosecution, these fishers do not have a
locus standi to claim right to fishing in what essentially has been accepted by their Indian Government as 'Sri Lankan waters'. Arguments such as those relating to the ownership of Kachchativu islet, and the legality of the 1974-76 agreements in context too are not available to the 'Nagapattinam fishers'
This is also different from the case of Sri Lankan fishers, mostly from the southern Sinhala-speaking region and community, who too are often detained in the Indian waters. These fishers actually 'chase' fish like tuna that know no international boundaries, and take specific routes in large shoals, almost through the year. There still cannot be an argument about the 'fishers going wherever fish go', given again the available technology and markets, if any, in the historic past.
'Historic waters' and 'traditional rights'
It is in the case of the 'Palk Strait fishers' of India that the argument of 'historic waters' and 'traditional rights' is often presented -- but may not apply. Their 'traditional rights' to fish in the 'historic waters' is contestable, in the absence of proof to the existence vessels and technology that was available and also employed in those 'historic times'. While the Chola kings of the yore and the overseas traders of Tamil Nadu of the times had deployed large vessels across these seas and beyond, whether the technology was used for fishing purposes, particularly in the absence of overseas markets of the present-day kind, in turn causing 'over-exploitation' of the fish resources, is arguable, too.
The 27 January 'interim agreement' between the fishers' representatives from the two countries at Chennai seems to have been misunderstood to mean that if the Tamil Nadu fishers did not cross the IMBL for 30 days in a row, they would be entitled to fishing in the Sri Lankan waters, almost eternally. This also seems to have become a part of the underlying logic, if it was one, for the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) to detain the 'violators' of the agreement, if one were to go by official statements from that country.
Going by media reports, the 30-day fishing holiday by the Tamil Nadu fishers was sought and obtained by their Sri Lankan counterparts, particularly from the North, as a confidence-building measure (CBM), to prove that the former could be trusted with implementing any agreement of the 2010 kind. As may be recalled, the NGO-driven 2010 agreement, without official blessings thus far, proposed a 4-3 day fishing schedule between the community in the Palk Strait region of the two countries in Sri Lankan waters, provided the Tamil Nadu fishers did not go too close to the Sri Lankan coast, nor did they resort to bottom-trawling of every kind and deploy gears that too are banned in that country.
Any impression to the contrary, flowing from any misunderstanding of the January agreement is flawed, both in construct and application. What the Tamil Nadu fishers could hence hope for at best is freedom to fish in the Sri Lankan waters, provided they accept the conditions of the kind outlined in the 2010 agreement - if not more stringent ones. If enforced effectively, any such agreement would make fishing in the Sri Lankan waters without bottom-trawling and pair-trawling unattractive for the Tamil Nadu fishers.
The question of a cooperative model too may not interest them, unless it relates to deep-sea fishing and/or 'mother-ship' concept. The technology for either is not readily accessible to the Rameswaram fishers, nor have they adapted themselves to the possibilities of staying away from their native shores for days and weeks together. In a way, the solution, if any, rests in facilitating and preparing them for such kind of relatively durable and sustainable fishing, off the Palk Strait, particularly off the shore-line Palk Bay area of Sri Lanka's North.
Having adapted quickly to mechanised fishing first, and trawlers next, from artisanal fishing, there is no reason why they would not take to deep-sea fishing, if it is proved to be 'attractive'. What more, accessing technology, fishers elsewhere in the State, both south and north of the 'Rameswaram belt' - and not excluding the 'Nagapattinam area' - have quickly taken to deep-sea fishing, all the same.
Livelihood issue
At their recent meeting on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC Summit in Myanmar, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly reiterated to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa that they treat the fishers' row as a 'livelihood issue'. In the months after the conclusion of 'Eelam War IV' in 2009, some in Sri Lanka had come up with the specious argument, equating Tamil Nadu fishers' crossing of the IMBL as 'trespassing' and 'poaching', without any reference to the bilateral joint statement of October 2008 to the contrary.
In more recent months and years, the Sri Lankan side has stopped talking about 'trespassing', but not 'poaching'. They have been highlighting the livelihood issues of the war-ravaged Sri Lankan Tamil fishers in the North, and argue, with some conviction, that through indiscriminate bottom-trawling and by using gears that destroy the eco-system and young fish population, denying reproduction on a later date, the Tamil Nadu fishers are taking away the livelihood of not only the present generation of their brethren across the Palk Strait but also that of the latter's later generations, too.
In the past, arguments had been put forth for the Tamil Nadu fishers to approach international legal and human rights systems, seeking redress to their claims on 'historic waters' and 'traditional fishing rights'. Now, possibly also in the light of some Tamil Nadu fishers moving the State police with FIRs against the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN), for arrests and alleged assault on the person and property, the other side has revived talks about moving HR organisations for redress of the loss of their livelihood, reportedly caused by their brethren from across the Palk Strait. This can only complicate matters, resulting in continued loss of livelihood to one side, or the other, or both.
Proving a point
With Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa linking the officially-blessed second round of fishers' talks in Colombo, scheduled for 13 March, to the release of all fishers arrested by the Sri Lanka Navy, including those detained after the 27 January Chennai agreement, questions have arisen about the future course. Both with the upcoming parliamentary polls in mind - and otherwise - the Chief Minister has declared that there cannot be any further talks when the Tamil Nadu fishers were languishing in Sri Lankan prisons.
For obvious reasons, the 27 January agreement did not touch upon arrests and release of fishers from each other's side, as only governments, and not the fishers, have any say, authority and control, in the matter. The Sri Lankan side too otherwise seems wanting to focus on, if not prove, a point - that the Tamil Nadu fishers are incapable of adhering to any promised CBM, hence cannot be trusted with sticking to any long-term commitment.
With the result, any resumption of fishers' talks now may have to be accompanied by commitments of some kind, subsequently and separately, by the governments involved, touching upon arrests and releases, IMBL violations and verifications. Tamil Nadu is not unlikely to throw up a matter, as it has contended before the Supreme Court of India, that Kachchativu, which otherwise is in the ownership and possession of Sri Lanka, was an Indian territory.
Efficiency, efficacy and integrity
Needless to point out that at least some of the Indian fishers arrested both before and after the 27 January meeting have complained that the Sri Lanka Navy had arrested them in the vicinity of Kachchativu. Such an approach runs on thin-ice. If intended, if at all, it will have little legal value or consequence, too. The alternative has been for the Tamil Nadu fishers to submit that the SLN personnel attacked them in Indian waters. It would question the efficiency, efficacy and integrity of the Indian Navy and Coast Guard, which has never ever been in question, on this issue or any other.
Otherwise too, such arguments are not always sustainable. As may be recalled, when it comes to the annual St Antony's Church fete on Kachchativu islet (falling on 16 March this year), which was resumed after the conclusion of 'Eelam War IV' in Sri Lanka, pilgrims from across Tamil Nadu, as also the over-excited media persons from the State, have had no issue, applying for and obtaining the required clearances for participation and coverage from Colombo.
It is here the future role of the Governments concerned becomes crucial for the success of any permanent agreement between the fishers become crucial. At one-level, the national Governments on both sides will have to stick to the letter and spirit of the 2008 statement. On the other, the local/provincial Governments, particularly in Tamil Nadu, have to check against possible violations of the agreement even before fisher vessels from their respective coasts set sail. After all, the Sri Lankan Government too will have to ensure that their fishers, particularly from the South, do not come closer to the Indian coast, though not for reasons of exploiting the local marine resources but to ensure that they do not cause concern on possible 'security breach' of any kind.
(The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Chennai Chapter)
"
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.
PREV
