Connect with us

Features

Modi reopens settled dispute with Lanka to woo Tamil voters

Published

on

Fishermen at Kachchathivu Island

India and Sri Lanka signed an agreement in 1974 recognizing Sri Lankan sovereignty over the tiny island of Katchatheevu

By Rathindra Kuruwita

Most Sri Lankans were unpleasantly surprised when Narendra Modi, who is campaigning aggressively to return to power for a third consecutive term as India’s prime minister, raked up the long-settled India-Sri Lanka dispute over the Katchatheevu Island.

Citing a report in Times of India, Modi posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the “Congress callously gave away Katchatheevu…” to the Sri Lankans in the early 1970s. He went on to slam the Congress, India’s main opposition party and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s main rival in the upcoming general election for “weakening India’s unity, integrity, and interests.”

A day later India’s Foreign Minister Jaishankar said that the Katchatheevu issue is a “live issue. It is an issue which has been very much debated in Parliament and in the Tamil Nadu circles. It has been the subject of correspondence between the Union government and the state government….”

What Jaishankar was saying is that the dispute over Katchatheevu was not a settled one, although India and Sri Lanka have signed agreements accepting Sri Lankan sovereignty over the island.

Katchatheevu is a 285-acre uninhabited island in the Palk Straits located close to the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) of Sri Lanka and India. The island only comes alive during the annual feast of St. Anthony, when fishermen from Sri Lanka and India visit the island.

However, the dispute over fishing rights in the area has led to tensions between the fishing communities since 2009. Between January 1 and March 21 this year, the Sri Lanka navy seized a total of 23 Indian trawlers and 178 Indian fishermen, who were poaching in Sri Lankan waters. Indian fishermen did not take part this year in the annual festival at Katchatheevu, alleging that Sri Lankan naval personnel harass them when they cross over to Sri Lankan waters.

The confusion over the island’s sovereignty goes back to British attempts to divide the maritime boundary of India and Sri Lanka to demarcate the fishing industry. On October 24, 1921, delegations from colonial India and Ceylon (as Sri Lanka was known previously) tried to come up with a “Fisheries Line” to deal with the overexploitation of resources in the seas and determine the ownership of Katchatheevu.

Principal Collector of Customs B. Horsburgh, who led the Ceylonese delegation, staunchly opposed Indian claims that the island was part of Indian marine territory because it belonged to the zamindari of the Raja of Ramnada (Tamil Nadu politicians bring up this argument even today). Horsburgh furnished evidence demonstrating that Katchatheevu, including St. Anthony’s Church, was considered the estate of the Jaffna Diocese. After much deliberation, the two delegations agreed on a border that “passed three miles west of Katchatheevu.” This placed the island well within Ceylonese territory.

Neither side ratified the agreement, and the secretary of state didn’t officially approve it, but following discussions, an ad hoc imagined maritime boundary came into being. The British-Indian delegation caveated, that this “Fisheries Line” can’t be considered a territorial boundary “so as not to prejudice any territorial claim which the Government of Madras or the Government of India may wish to prefer in respect of the island of Kachchativu.”

The matter rested in this manner for several decades but in 1956, both Ceylon and India realized that they needed to come up with a maritime boundary. India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was also the country’s Minister of External Affairs, felt that this tiny island was not a matter of “national prestige.” The Indian leadership of that era understood that its smaller neighbors were wary of the Indian juggernaut throwing its weight around and they believed that handing this “barren rock” to Sri Lanka would demonstrate to the world India’s unambiguous willingness to preserve bilateral goodwill with Sri Lanka.

According to The Indian and Foreign Review (an official publication by the Indian government) of July 1974, the “chief value” of the agreement to the Indian government was that it helped “‘destroy the canard that India behaves overbearingly towards its small neighbours…

Sri Lanka’s possession of this ‘barren rock’ island cannot militate against the Sethusamudram project. The notion that the Chinese will establish a base there is fantastic. On the whole, it is a comparatively small price to pay for good relations with Sri Lanka.”

In 1974 and 1976, India and Sri Lanka signed agreements to demarcate the sea boundaries between the two countries. The 1974 Agreement formally confirmed Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Katchatheevu island. With the 1976 agreement, India lost access to Sri Lankan waters, and Sri Lanka lost access to Pedro Bank, Wadge Bank and the continental shelves off Cape Comorin at the southern tip of India. The Wadge Bank, situated in a significantly strategic maritime area, is known as one of the most lucrative fishing grounds in the world. Moreover, the agreement conferred upon India the authority to explore the Wadge Bank for petroleum and other valuable mineral reserves.

However, in the decades since the agreements were signed, Tamil politicians in India have been insisting that they got a bad deal. For example, in 2011, the Tamil Nadu government under the leadership of Jayalalithaa Jayaram lodged a petition in the Supreme Court of India, requesting the declaration of the 1974 and 1976 agreements as unconstitutional.

In response, the Indian government stated that “No territory belonging to India was ceded, nor sovereignty relinquished, since the area was in dispute and had never been demarcated” and that the dispute on the status of the island was settled in 1974 by an agreement.

It must also be noted that the debate on the ownership of the island became more intense following 2009. Sri Lankan fishermen were barred from entering the country’s own northern seas from the 1980s to 2009 due to the war with the LTTE. During this period Indian fishermen operated in the Sri Lankan northern seas with impunity. Tensions arose when Sri Lankan fishermen returned to the northern seas and found their counterparts from India poaching on Sri Lankan waters.

Over the last 15 years, Sri Lankan fishermen have been urging their political leaders and the government to take more stern action against the Indians. Even now thousands of Tamil Nadu trawlers engage in fishing over a wide arc from Chilaw in the West to Mullaitivu in the East.

Under the Modi administration, senior leaders of BJP are reiterating positions taken by Tamil Nadu politicians and this is causing concern in Colombo.

This is not the first time that Modi has spoken about Katchatheevu. In 2023, he told parliament that the Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (DMK), the party in power in Tamil Nadu, was asking him to reclaim Katchatheevu, which former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of the Congress Party had given away to Sri Lanka. It was when Gandhi was prime minister that the Katchatheevu deal was done. Incidentally, the DMK, now an ally of the Congress party, was in power in Tamil Nadu when that agreement was signed with Sri Lanka.

The BJP’s latest attack is not only aimed at the Congress and the Gandhis, but also at the DMK. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, whose father Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi was aligned with Indira Gandhi when the Katchatheevu agreement was reached.

The current Sri Lankan government, which has allied itself with the Modi administration, has tried to downplay this development. On January 5, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Ali Sabry said that the Katchatheevu issue was settled 50 years ago and that it is not unusual to hear politicians making such claims during Indian elections.

“There is no controversy. They are having an internal political debate about who is responsible. Other than that, no one is talking about claiming Katchatheevu,” he told journalists in Colombo.

Sri Lankan Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda, whom northern fishermen have pressured to take action against Indian fishermen who poach in Sri Lankan territorial waters, was more candid. He pointed out that India secured Wadge Bank, which extends over a larger area and is richer in marine resources than Katchatheevu.

He told reporters in Jaffna that he believed “India is acting on its interests to secure this place to ensure Sri Lankan fishermen would not have any access to that area and that Sri Lanka should not claim any rights in that resourceful area.”

Indian journalists for the most part maintain that the recent developments will not affect “robust” relations between India and Sri Lanka.

However, despite what many Indian journalists assert, relations between India and Sri Lanka are not without problems. Although the Ranil Wickremesinghe administration is close to the Modi government, anti-Indian sentiment in Sri Lanka is at its highest for a while. In recent months, environmental groups, civil society organizations and opposition politicians have raised their voices against India’s Adani Group taking control over Sri Lankan ports, renewable energy, and airports, as well as the sale of the National Livestock Development Board to India’s Amul. A few weeks earlier, former President Maithripala Sirisena dropped a bombshell claiming that India was behind the easter Sunday attacks.

Many Sri Lankans believe that the BJP is indirectly holding out the prospect of reclaiming Katchatheevu to attract the votes of Tamil Nadu fishermen. The BJP’s stance also serves as justification for allowing Indian fishermen, who have long been encroaching on Sri Lankan waters, to continue with their illegal activities.

Sri Lankan think tank Pathfinder claims that Indians are poaching in an area “covering more than 450 kilometers of Sri Lankan coastline.” If Sri Lanka concedes Katchatheevu, the poaching could increase drastically, crippling Sri Lanka’s entire fisheries sector.

As fellow South Asians, Sri Lankans know that politicians make outrageous statements when elections approach. However, local and small-time politicians usually make the most inflammatory statements. This gives senior leaders in the party plausible deniability about these claims.

In the Katchatheevu case, it is the Indian prime minister and the foreign minister who have reopened a settled dispute. It is understandable then that Sri Lankans are taking these statements seriously.

As Austin Fernando, a former Sri Lankan defense secretary and high commissioner to India observed, although Indian political parties think of the Katchatheevu issue as a “vote-puller,” once the BJP reasserted India’s claim over the islet, it will be “difficult” for the Indian government to go back on its leaders’ statements made during elections, as it is the BJP that is likely to return to power. That is “the problem,” he said.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The call for review of reforms in education: discussion continues …

Published

on

PM Harini Amarasuriya

The hype around educational reforms has abated slightly, but the scandal of the reforms persists. And in saying scandal, I don’t mean the error of judgement surrounding a misprinted link of an online dating site in a Grade 6 English language text book. While that fiasco took on a nasty, undeserved attack on the Minister of Education and Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, fundamental concerns with the reforms have surfaced since then and need urgent discussion and a mechanism for further analysis and action. Members of Kuppi have been writing on the reforms the past few months, drawing attention to the deeply troubling aspects of the reforms. Just last week, a statement, initiated by Kuppi, and signed by 94 state university teachers, was released to the public, drawing attention to the fundamental problems underlining the reforms https://island.lk/general-educational-reforms-to-what-purpose-a-statement-by-state-university-teachers/. While the furore over the misspelled and misplaced reference and online link raged in the public domain, there were also many who welcomed the reforms, seeing in the package, a way out of the bottle neck that exists today in our educational system, as regards how achievement is measured and the way the highly competitive system has not helped to serve a population divided by social class, gendered functions and diversities in talent and inclinations. However, the reforms need to be scrutinised as to whether they truly address these concerns or move education in a progressive direction aimed at access and equity, as claimed by the state machinery and the Minister… And the answer is a resounding No.

The statement by 94 university teachers deplores the high handed manner in which the reforms were hastily formulated, and without public consultation. It underlines the problems with the substance of the reforms, particularly in the areas of the structure of education, and the content of the text books. The problem lies at the very outset of the reforms, with the conceptual framework. While the stated conceptualisation sounds fancifully democratic, inclusive, grounded and, simultaneously, sensitive, the detail of the reforms-structure itself shows up a scandalous disconnect between the concept and the structural features of the reforms. This disconnect is most glaring in the way the secondary school programme, in the main, the junior and senior secondary school Phase I, is structured; secondly, the disconnect is also apparent in the pedagogic areas, particularly in the content of the text books. The key players of the “Reforms” have weaponised certain seemingly progressive catch phrases like learner- or student-centred education, digital learning systems, and ideas like moving away from exams and text-heavy education, in popularising it in a bid to win the consent of the public. Launching the reforms at a school recently, Dr. Amarasuriya says, and I cite the state-owned broadside Daily News here, “The reforms focus on a student-centered, practical learning approach to replace the current heavily exam-oriented system, beginning with Grade One in 2026 (https://www.facebook.com/reel/1866339250940490). In an address to the public on September 29, 2025, Dr. Amarasuriya sings the praises of digital transformation and the use of AI-platforms in facilitating education (https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14UvTrkbkwW/), and more recently in a slightly modified tone (https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/PM-pledges-safe-tech-driven-digital-education-for-Sri-Lankan-children/108-331699).

The idea of learner- or student-centric education has been there for long. It comes from the thinking of Paulo Freire, Ivan Illyich and many other educational reformers, globally. Freire, in particular, talks of learner-centred education (he does not use the term), as transformative, transformative of the learner’s and teacher’s thinking: an active and situated learning process that transforms the relations inhering in the situation itself. Lev Vygotsky, the well-known linguist and educator, is a fore runner in promoting collaborative work. But in his thought, collaborative work, which he termed the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is processual and not goal-oriented, the way teamwork is understood in our pedagogical frameworks; marks, assignments and projects. In his pedagogy, a well-trained teacher, who has substantial knowledge of the subject, is a must. Good text books are important. But I have seen Vygotsky’s idea of ZPD being appropriated to mean teamwork where students sit around and carry out a task already determined for them in quantifying terms. For Vygotsky, the classroom is a transformative, collaborative place.

But in our neo liberal times, learner-centredness has become quick fix to address the ills of a (still existing) hierarchical classroom. What it has actually achieved is reduce teachers to the status of being mere cogs in a machine designed elsewhere: imitative, non-thinking followers of some empty words and guide lines. Over the years, this learner-centred approach has served to destroy teachers’ independence and agency in designing and trying out different pedagogical methods for themselves and their classrooms, make input in the formulation of the curriculum, and create a space for critical thinking in the classroom.

Thus, when Dr. Amarasuriya says that our system should not be over reliant on text books, I have to disagree with her (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/29/education-reform-to-end-textbook-tyranny ). The issue is not with over reliance, but with the inability to produce well formulated text books. And we are now privy to what this easy dismissal of text books has led us into – the rabbit hole of badly formulated, misinformed content. I quote from the statement of the 94 university teachers to illustrate my point.

“The textbooks for the Grade 6 modules . . . . contain rampant typographical errors and include (some undeclared) AI-generated content, including images that seem distant from the student experience. Some textbooks contain incorrect or misleading information. The Global Studies textbook associates specific facial features, hair colour, and skin colour, with particular countries and regions, and refers to Indigenous peoples in offensive terms long rejected by these communities (e.g. “Pygmies”, “Eskimos”). Nigerians are portrayed as poor/agricultural and with no electricity. The Entrepreneurship and Financial Literacy textbook introduces students to “world famous entrepreneurs”, mostly men, and equates success with business acumen. Such content contradicts the policy’s stated commitment to “values of equity, inclusivity and social justice” (p. 9). Is this the kind of content we want in our textbooks?”

Where structure is concerned, it is astounding to note that the number of subjects has increased from the previous number, while the duration of a single period has considerably reduced. This is markedly noticeable in the fact that only 30 hours are allocated for mathematics and first language at the junior secondary level, per term. The reduced emphasis on social sciences and humanities is another matter of grave concern. We have seen how TV channels and YouTube videos are churning out questionable and unsubstantiated material on the humanities. In my experience, when humanities and social sciences are not properly taught, and not taught by trained teachers, students, who will have no other recourse for related knowledge, will rely on material from controversial and substandard outlets. These will be their only source. So, instruction in history will be increasingly turned over to questionable YouTube channels and other internet sites. Popular media have an enormous influence on the public and shapes thinking, but a well formulated policy in humanities and social science teaching could counter that with researched material and critical thought. Another deplorable feature of the reforms lies in provisions encouraging students to move toward a career path too early in their student life.

The National Institute of Education has received quite a lot of flak in the fall out of the uproar over the controversial Grade 6 module. This is highlighted in a statement, different from the one already mentioned, released by influential members of the academic and activist public, which delivered a sharp critique of the NIE, even while welcoming the reforms (https://ceylontoday.lk/2026/01/16/academics-urge-govt-safeguard-integrity-of-education-reforms). The government itself suspended key players of the NIE in the reform process, following the mishap. The critique of NIE has been more or less uniform in our own discussions with interested members of the university community. It is interesting to note that both statements mentioned here have called for a review of the NIE and the setting up of a mechanism that will guide it in its activities at least in the interim period. The NIE is an educational arm of the state, and it is, ultimately, the responsibility of the government to oversee its function. It has to be equipped with qualified staff, provided with the capacity to initiate consultative mechanisms and involve panels of educators from various different fields and disciplines in policy and curriculum making.

In conclusion, I call upon the government to have courage and patience and to rethink some of the fundamental features of the reform. I reiterate the call for postponing the implementation of the reforms and, in the words of the statement of the 94 university teachers, “holistically review the new curriculum, including at primary level.”

(Sivamohan Sumathy was formerly attached to the University of Peradeniya)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

By Sivamohan Sumathy

Continue Reading

Features

Constitutional Council and the President’s Mandate

Published

on

A file photo of a Constitutional Council meeting

The Constitutional Council stands out as one of Sri Lanka’s most important governance mechanisms particularly at a time when even long‑established democracies are struggling with the dangers of executive overreach. Sri Lanka’s attempt to balance democratic mandate with independent oversight places it within a small but important group of constitutional arrangements that seek to protect the integrity of key state institutions without paralysing elected governments.  Democratic power must be exercised, but it must also be restrained by institutions that command broad confidence. In each case, performance has been uneven, but the underlying principle is shared.

 Comparable mechanisms exist in a number of democracies. In the United Kingdom, independent appointments commissions for the judiciary and civil service operate alongside ministerial authority, constraining but not eliminating political discretion. In Canada, parliamentary committees scrutinise appointments to oversight institutions such as the Auditor General, whose independence is regarded as essential to democratic accountability. In India, the collegium system for judicial appointments, in which senior judges of the Supreme Court play the decisive role in recommending appointments, emerged from a similar concern to insulate the judiciary from excessive political influence.

 The Constitutional Council in Sri Lanka  was developed to ensure that the highest level appointments to the most important institutions of the state would be the best possible under the circumstances. The objective was not to deny the executive its authority, but to ensure that those appointed would be independent, suitably qualified and not politically partisan. The Council is entrusted with oversight of appointments in seven critical areas of governance. These include the judiciary, through appointments to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, the independent commissions overseeing elections, public service, police, human rights, bribery and corruption, and the office of the Auditor General.

JVP Advocacy

 The most outstanding feature of the Constitutional Council is its composition. Its ten members are drawn from the ranks of the government, the main opposition party, smaller parties and civil society. This plural composition was designed to reflect the diversity of political opinion in Parliament while also bringing in voices that are not directly tied to electoral competition. It reflects a belief that legitimacy in sensitive appointments comes not only from legal authority but also from inclusion and balance.

 The idea of the Constitutional Council was strongly promoted around the year 2000, during a period of intense debate about the concentration of power in the executive presidency. Civil society organisations, professional bodies and sections of the legal community championed the position that unchecked executive authority had led to abuse of power and declining public trust. The JVP, which is today the core part of the NPP government, was among the political advocates in making the argument and joined the government of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga on this platform.

 The first version of the Constitutional Council came into being in 2001 with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution during the presidency of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. The Constitutional Council functioned with varying degrees of effectiveness. There were moments of cooperation and also moments of tension. On several occasions President Kumaratunga disagreed with the views of the Constitutional Council, leading to deadlock and delays in appointments. These experiences revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of the model.

 Since its inception in 2001, the Constitutional Council has had its ups and downs. Successive constitutional amendments have alternately weakened and strengthened it. The 18th Amendment significantly reduced its authority, restoring much of the appointment power to the executive. The 19th Amendment reversed this trend and re-established the Council with enhanced powers. The 20th Amendment again curtailed its role, while the 21st Amendment restored a measure of balance. At present, the Constitutional Council operates under the framework of the 21st Amendment, which reflects a renewed commitment to shared decision making in key appointments.

 Undermining Confidence

 The particular issue that has now come to the fore concerns the appointment of the Auditor General. This is a constitutionally protected position, reflecting the central role played by the Auditor General’s Department in monitoring public spending and safeguarding public resources. Without a credible and fearless audit institution, parliamentary oversight can become superficial and corruption flourishes unchecked. The role of the Auditor General’s Department is especially important in the present circumstances, when rooting out corruption is a stated priority of the government and a central element of the mandate it received from the electorate at the presidential and parliamentary elections held in 2024.

 So far, the government has taken hitherto unprecedented actions to investigate past corruption involving former government leaders. These actions have caused considerable discomfort among politicians now in the opposition and out of power.  However, a serious lacuna in the government’s anti-corruption arsenal is that the post of Auditor General has been vacant for over six months. No agreement has been reached between the government and the Constitutional Council on the nominations made by the President. On each of the four previous occasions, the nominees of the President have failed to obtain its concurrence.

 The President has once again nominated a senior officer of the Auditor General’s Department whose appointment was earlier declined by the Constitutional Council. The key difference on this occasion is that the composition of the Constitutional Council has changed. The three representatives from civil society are new appointees and may take a different view from their predecessors. The person appointed needs to be someone who is not compromised by long years of association with entrenched interests in the public service and politics. The task ahead for the new Auditor General is formidable. What is required is professional competence combined with moral courage and institutional independence.

 New Opportunity

 By submitting the same nominee to the Constitutional Council, the President is signaling a clear preference and calling it to reconsider its earlier decision in the light of changed circumstances. If the President’s nominee possesses the required professional qualifications, relevant experience, and no substantiated allegations against her, the presumption should lean toward approving the appointment. The Constitutional Council is intended to moderate the President’s authority and not nullify it.

 A consensual, collegial decision would be the best outcome. Confrontational postures may yield temporary political advantage, but they harm public institutions and erode trust. The President and the government carry the democratic mandate of the people; this mandate brings both authority and responsibility. The Constitutional Council plays a vital oversight role, but it does not possess an independent democratic mandate of its own and its legitimacy lies in balanced, principled decision making.

 Sri Lanka’s experience, like that of many democracies, shows that institutions function best when guided by restraint, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to the public good. The erosion of these values elsewhere in the world demonstrates their importance. At this critical moment, reaching a consensus that respects both the President’s mandate and the Constitutional Council’s oversight role would send a powerful message that constitutional governance in Sri Lanka can work as intended.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

Gypsies … flying high

Published

on

The present setup

The scene has certainly changed for the Gypsies and today one could consider them as awesome crowd-pullers, with plenty of foreign tours, making up their itinerary.

With the demise of Sunil Perera, music lovers believed that the Gypsies would find the going tough in the music scene as he was their star, and, in fact, Sri Lanka’s number one entertainer/singer,

Even his brother Piyal Perera, who is now in charge of the Gypsies, admitted that after Sunil’s death he was in two minds about continuing with the band.

However, the scene started improving for the Gypsies, and then stepped in Shenal Nishshanka, in December 2022, and that was the turning point,

With Shenal in their lineup, Piyal then decided to continue with the Gypsies, but, he added, “I believe I should check out our progress in the scene…one year at a time.”

The original Gypsies: The five brothers Lal, Nimal, Sunil, Nihal and Piyal

They had success the following year, 2023, and then decided that they continue in 2024, as well, and more success followed.

The year 2025 opened up with plenty of action for the band, including several foreign assignments, and 2026 has already started on an awesome note, with a tour of Australia and New Zealand, which will keep the Gypsies in that part of the world, from February to March.

Shenal has already turned out to be a great crowd puller, and music lovers in Australia and New Zealand can look forward to some top class entertainment from both Shenal and Piyal.

Piyal, who was not much in the spotlight when Sunil was in the scene, is now very much upfront, supporting Shenal, and they do an awesome job on stage … keeping the audience entertained.

Shenal is, in fact, a rocker, who plays the guitar, and is extremely creative on stage with his baila.

‘Api Denna’ Piyal and Shenal

Piyal and Shenal also move into action as a duo ‘Api Denna’ and have even done their duo scene abroad.

Piyal mentioned that the Gypsies will feature a female vocalist during their tour of New Zealand.

“With Monique Wille’s departure from the band, we now operate without a female vocalist, but if a female vocalist is required for certain events, we get a solo female singer involved, as a guest artiste. She does her own thing and we back her, and New Zealand requested for a female vocalist and Dilmi will be doing the needful for us,” said Piyal.

According to Piyal, he originally had plans to end the Gypsies in the year 2027 but with the demand for the Gypsies at a very high level now those plans may not work out, he says.

Continue Reading

Trending