Content

1. The way forward on Katchatheevu, Palk Strait disputes
2. To build roads is to build peace

The way forward on Katchatheevu, Palk Strait disputes

Background Context

• India’s foreign policy traditions: Panchsheel (1954), Non-Aligned Movement (1961), SAARC (1985), Neighbourhood First Policy (2014+).
• India–Sri Lanka relations shaped by cultural, religious, linguistic ties, but also political sensitivities (Tamil issue, fisheries, maritime boundaries).
• Recent trigger: PM Modi’s April 2025 visit to Colombo; focus on fisheries crisis & Katchatheevu sovereignty debates.

Relevance :

• GS II: India–Sri Lanka ties, Neighbourhood First Policy, treaty obligations, state–centre role (TN).
• GS III: Marine ecology (UNCLOS, FAO), bottom trawling ban, sustainable fisheries, deep-sea fishing.

Practice Question: “The Neighbourhood First Policy requires balancing legal obligations with humane diplomacy.” Discuss with reference to India–Sri Lanka ties.(250 Words)

Fisheries Crisis – Core Dimensions

• Ecological Issue: Indian trawlers use bottom trawling in Sri Lankan waters → destroys coral beds, shrimp nurseries, fish stocks.
• Legal Issue:
  • UNCLOS stresses equitable + sustainable use of marine resources.
  • FAO Code (1995) deems bottom trawling destructive.
  • Sri Lanka banned bottom trawling in 2017, but violations persist.
• Livelihood Conflict:
  • Artisanal fishers (small boats, traditional methods) vs mechanised trawler operators.
  • Irony: Tamil Nadu artisanal fishers and Northern Sri Lankan Tamil fishers, both historically dependent on the same waters, now in conflict.
• Social-Historical Context: Northern Sri Lankan fishers suffered decades of sea-access restrictions during the civil war (1983–2009); still recovering economically.

Katchatheevu Issue – Myths vs Legal Reality

• Geography: Tiny, uninhabited island (0.5 sq. miles), barren except for St. Anthony’s Church.
• 1974 India–Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary Treaty: Island ceded to Sri Lanka; Treaty legally binding under pacta sunt servanda.
• Misconceptions: “Indira Gandhi gifted the island” → myth; sovereignty records favoured Sri Lanka (Portuguese, Dutch, Jaffna kingdom administration).
• International Law Precedents:
  • Minquiers & Ecrehos case (France v. UK, 1953) – administrative control > historic claims.
  • Rann of Kutch Arbitration (India–Pakistan, 1968).
• Indian Legal Tradition: Historic waters doctrine upheld in Annakumaru Pillai v. Muthupayal (1904).
• Conclusion: Katchatheevu sovereignty is settled; fishing rights ≠ sovereignty issue.

Way Forward – Sustainable & Cooperative Solutions

• Livelihood Balance: Differentiate artisanal vs commercial trawler needs; quotas and seasonal rights for artisanal fishers with Sri Lankan consent.
• Joint Management:
  • Shared quotas and regulated access (Baltic Sea model).
  • Joint marine research station on Katchatheevu.
  • Promote deep-sea fishing in India’s EEZ to reduce pressure.
• Community Dialogue: Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan Tamil fishers → build empathy; highlight hardships of Northern fishers during war.
• Political Prudence: Move beyond populist rhetoric in Tamil Nadu politics; treat Katchatheevu as settled, focus on fisheries.
• Legal-Environmental Compliance: Respect UNCLOS Art. 123 on semi-enclosed seas → joint conservation mandatory.

Broader Implications

• Regional Diplomacy: Smaller disputes risk overshadowing India’s neighbourhood leadership role.
• India’s Image: Handling fisheries crisis with compassion + legality reinforces “Vishwa Mitra” image.
• Humanitarian Lens: Humane approach prioritises vulnerable artisanal fishers, not commercial profiteers.
• Cultural Fraternity: Shared Tamil heritage → must foster empathy, not competition.
• Strategic Stability: Avoid setting precedent of reopening settled boundaries (China’s frontier revisionism parallel).

Conclusion

• Fisheries = core issue, not Katchatheevu sovereignty.
• Requires joint conservation regime + livelihood protection for artisanal fishers.
• By addressing ecological imperatives, legal obligations, and human dignity, India–Sri Lanka can turn a conflict zone into a model of regional cooperation under Neighbourhood First Policy.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.

To build roads is to build peace

Context

• Maoist insurgency (Left-Wing Extremism): Concentrated in the “Red Corridor” (Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, parts of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh).
• Tribal Hinterlands: Historically neglected → weak state presence, poverty, lack of infrastructure, health, and education.
• Insurgency Governance: Maoists often fill governance vacuum with informal courts, taxation, and rudimentary services.

Relevance :

• GS II (Governance): State legitimacy, federal & local coordination, tribal integration.
• GS III (Internal Security): Counter-insurgency strategy through development.

Practice Question : Critically analyze the role of road connectivity in reducing the influence of non-state actors in Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) areas.(150 Words)

Key Arguments

• Roads as Emissaries of the State: Roads signal governance arrival in regions isolated from the state.
• Impact of Roads:
  • Improve electricity, employment, and security.
  • Reduce influence of insurgents who thrive in isolation.
• Extralegal Governance:
  • Maoists provide parallel “services” (healthcare, justice, welfare) → aimed at legitimacy, not charity.
  • Informal courts (jan adalats) often deliver violent, arbitrary punishments.
  • Governance without accountability = coercion, not legitimacy.
• Infrastructure = Political: Not just transport but precondition for lawful authority, rule of law, and democratic accountability.

Comparisons & Evidence

• Studies:
  • Jain & Biswas (2023): Road connectivity reduces crime, improves services.
  • Prieto-Curiel & Menezes (2020): Poor connectivity correlates with higher violence globally.
• Historical/Global Parallels:
  • Sicilian Mafia (Diego Gambetta) filled governance vacuum where state retreated.
  • Similar patterns seen in fragile/conflict states globally.

State’s Response

• Chhattisgarh Model (B.V.R. Subrahmanyam): Infrastructure-first strategy → roads, followed by schools, clinics, and police stations.
• Each road sends message: state is present and permanent.

Safeguards / Challenges

• Roads can be symbols of inclusion or repression.
• Without justice systems, healthcare, and community participation, infrastructure risks becoming tools of control.
• Even outside Maoist influence, informal justice systems (khap panchayats, caste councils) can be exclusionary, patriarchal, and violent.

Conclusion

• Roads = foundation for state presence, rule of law, and peace.
• Must be combined with justice, healthcare, education, and constitutional safeguards.
• Goal is not just movement but belonging and legitimacy → “To build roads is to build peace.”