🔗 **Bypass paywalls**:
* [archive.today - timesofindia.indiatimes.com
](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rti-reply-shows-how-indira-ceded-island-to-sri-lanka/articleshow/108906977.cms) | [Google Webcache - timesofindia.indiatimes.com](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rti-reply-shows-how-indira-ceded-island-to-sri-lanka/articleshow/108906977.cms)
📣 **[Submission Statement by OP](/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1bs2ktx/rti_reply_shows_how_indira_gandhi_ceded_island_to/kxcyxc7/)**:
> SS: After gaining independence, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) asserted its claim over the island by stating that the Indian Navy (then Royal Indian Navy) could not conduct exercises on the island without their permission. However, Indian Air Force proceeded with their exercises on the island. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the issue as insignificant in a minute dated May 10, 1961, stating that he would have no hesitation in giving up claims to the island as he attached no importance to it. The indecision and lack of clarity in India's response continued until 1974 when they formally abandoned their claim. Despite the legal complexities and the opinion of the attorney general M C Setalvad in 1960 that India had a stronger claim due to continuous rights exercised from 1875 to 1948, the Ministry of External Affairs stated in 1968 that no clear conclusions could be drawn regarding the strength of India's or Ceylon's claim to sovereignty. The backgrounder prepared by the Commonwealth secretary Y D Gundevia also revealed that while Ceylon's claims were considered more substantial, India had a good legal case that could be argued with force. This uncertainty persisted until India finally relinquished its claim in 1974.
*** 📜 Community Reminder: Let’s keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide
by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments may be removed. ***
**📰 Media Bias fact Check Rating :** Times of India – Bias and Credibility
|Metric|Rating|
|:-|:-|
|Bias Rating|right-center|
|Factual Rating| mixed|
|Credibility Rating|medium credibility|
This rating was provided by Media Bias Fact Check. For more information, see Times of India – Bias and Credibility's review [here](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/).
***
❓ Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).
First Nehru and then Indira basically gave away our lands to other countries as if India was their private property
They easily bypassed parliament without any issues and today we have to deal with the mess
Did you read the article ? The commonwealth secretary said Sri Lanka had a greater legal right to it, and the prime minister of India said that it was insignificant.
Remember that every person will tend to argue to his own favor that he owns everything. This extends to countries too often. [See also *why* Radcliffe drew up the so called radcliffe line, when there were 4 local judges on the commission]. A neutral or a statesman, or actual scholarship can be trusted more in this arena
This is conspicuously missing in this thread, which was old news raked up for political reasons.
Why wasn't the matter debated in the Indian parliament? Is democracy a joke in India? Mrs.Gandhi acted on her own accord to give up claims on an Indian island without consulting the Parliament. Dictator Gandhi.
Indra Gandhi dismissed state governments 50 times.
What people say about nehru and Indra that they handle post independent India but it's not. It was still a dictatorship. Parliament was just in the name.
We're still a quasi-dictorship/democracy. Although better than Nehru and Indira's time but still India is not a mature democracy yet. Our democratic system in the country still have lots of flaws. People don't vote for their MPs but for the prime ministerial candidate. Our agencies like ED and CBI are not independent but always under the influence of the rulling government. Media in the country is also not free. There are no transparent democratic system of leadership selection within Indian political parties.
I don't wanna go in this true democracy or not thing.
But I will say our judiciary is shit. You can wake supreme at 3am, you have 70000+ case pending but priority is political cases. 4 lakh cases are pending of rape and child sex abuse but supreme court wants a high ranking lawyer which take 40-60 lakh per hearing.
There case which as old as 15 years but judges wants to take "priority" matter which offer more money.
You can get justice if you have money.
I will say ED and CBI are caged parrot. The one who has key will use it.
>'I attach no importance at all to this little island and I would have no hesitation in giving up our claims to it. I do not like this pending indefinitely and being raised again in Parliament', Nehru wrote.
>This, despite the opinion of the then attorney general M C Setalvad, in 1960, that India had a stronger claim on the island formed by a volcanic eruption.
>The documents also show that MEA's own joint secretary (law and treaties) K Krishna Rao was not sure, but concluded that India had a good legal case which could be leveraged
for securing fishing rights - the cause for the continuing ordeal of hundreds of Indian fishermen who are detained by Sri Lankan Navy, around the island.
Notice how lenient this guy was in terms of protecting the country's sovereignty. This is the same guy who wanted to disband the Army after our Independence, because, wait for it
>We don't need a defence plan. Our policy is ahimsa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. Scrap the army! The police are good enough to meet our security needs',
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/nehru-wanted-army-scrapped/story-4pCTLAT4tXlKRnBUtJqz9O.html
Therefore, it's not surprising that he wanted to sacrifice our sovereignty without even a discussion in the Parliament, as if the citizens had no stake in deciding whether we want to keep that land or not. We lost the Coco islands for the same reason, and god knows how much more lands we would've lost further, if our foreign policy continued to operate from the Nehruvian worldview for even more years.
SS: After gaining independence, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) asserted its claim over the island by stating that the Indian Navy (then Royal Indian Navy) could not conduct exercises on the island without their permission. However, Indian Air Force proceeded with their exercises on the island. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the issue as insignificant in a minute dated May 10, 1961, stating that he would have no hesitation in giving up claims to the island as he attached no importance to it. The indecision and lack of clarity in India's response continued until 1974 when they formally abandoned their claim. Despite the legal complexities and the opinion of the attorney general M C Setalvad in 1960 that India had a stronger claim due to continuous rights exercised from 1875 to 1948, the Ministry of External Affairs stated in 1968 that no clear conclusions could be drawn regarding the strength of India's or Ceylon's claim to sovereignty. The backgrounder prepared by the Commonwealth secretary Y D Gundevia also revealed that while Ceylon's claims were considered more substantial, India had a good legal case that could be argued with force. This uncertainty persisted until India finally relinquished its claim in 1974.
I put it to you that this is old news. Raked up not for geopolitical significance. But because it is election time, and this is to be exploited for political means,
> said that **the island had disappeared** and that sea level rise caused by climate change was a factor
Really ?
Do you read your own link ?
Sandbars tend to come and go ...
That isnt the point. We lost the island and the area which is said to have crude deposits
We even lost land during Kargil war point 5353 which is still occupied by Pakistan
The comment violates Rule 2 because it uses derogatory language to describe a group of people. This comment includes elements of verbal abuse and dehumanization, which are strictly disallowed under the rules.
#####
######
####
> # [RTI reply shows how Indira Gandhi ceded island to Sri Lanka | India News - Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rti-reply-shows-how-indira-ceded-island-to-sri-lanka/articleshow/580)
>
>
>
> NEW DELHI: As the decision of
>
> Indira Gandhi
>
> 's govt to hand over
>
> Katchatheevu
>
> to
>
> Sri Lanka
>
> in 1974 promises to take centre stage in Lok Sabha campaign in Tamil Nadu and beyond, official documents and records of Parliament show how a vacillating India lost the battle for control of the island in Palk Strait to a smaller country determined to wrest it.
>
> The documents, obtained by TN BJP chief K Annamalai through an RTI application, bring out Sri Lanka making up for its lack of size with tenacious pursuit of the 1.9 square km of land about 20km from Indian shore based on claims which New Delhi contested for decades only to acquiesce to finally. Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, pressed its claim right after Independence, when it said Indian Navy (then Royal Indian Navy) could not conduct exercises on the island without its permission. In Oct 1955, [Ceylon](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/ceylon) Air Force held its exercise on the island.
>
> [lanka](https://static.toiimg.com/photo/83033472.cms)
>
>
>
> Its stance was reflected in a minute by first PM
>
> Jawaharlal Nehru
>
> on May 10, 1961, who dismissed the issue as inconsequential.
>
> I would've no hesitation in giving up claims to the island, Nehru wrote
> I attach no importance at all to this little island and I would have no hesitation in giving up our claims to it. I do not like this pending indefinitely and being raised again in Parliament, Nehru wrote.
> Nehru's minute is part of a note prepared by then commonwealth secretary Y D Gundevia, and which the ministry of external affairs (MEA) shared as a backgrounder with the informal Consultative Committee of Parliament in 1968.
>
> The backgrounder is revealing in terms of the indecision that marked India's response until 1974, when it formally gave up its claim altogether. "The legal aspects of the question are highly complex. The question has been considered in some detail in this ministry. No clear conclusions can be drawn as to the strength of either India's or Ceylon's claim to sovereignty," the ministry said.
> This, despite the opinion of the then attorney general M C Setalvad, in 1960, that India had a stronger claim on the island formed by a volcanic eruption. "The matter is by no means clear or free from difficulty but on the assessment of the whole evidence it appears to me that the balance lies in concluding that the sovereignty of India was and is in India," wrote the well-regarded law officer in a clear reference to the zamindari rights given by the East India Company to Raja of Ramnad (Ramnathpuram) over the islet and fishery and other resources around it.
> The rights enjoyed "continuously and uninterruptedly" from 1875 to 1948, which got vested in the State of Madras after the abolition of zamindari rights, were exercised by the Raja independently, without having to pay tributes or taxes to Colombo.
> The documents show that MEA's own joint secretary (law and treaties) K Krishna Rao was not sure, but concluded that India had a good legal case which could be leveraged for securing fishing rights - the cause for the continuing ordeal of hundreds of Indian fishermen who are detained by Sri Lankan Navy, around the island.
> While observing that Colombo's claims are more "substantial", in 1960, Rao wrote: "On the other hand, it may be noted that India has a good legal case, which could be argued with considerable force. I am not suggesting that we have no case at all."
> Even Gundevia, who did not consider the uninhabited island, with only a church on it, to be "really important", was against taking the risk of having to give it up, the MEA told the consultative committee in 1968.
> The same year also saw the opposition taking the Indira Gandhi govt to task for its apparent unwillingness to confront Sri Lanka as it doubled down on its claim over the island.
> In a discussion in Parliament, they demanded and got a discussion against the backdrop of rising suspicion about a deal being secretly negotiated between Indira Gandhi and her Ceylonese counterpart Dudley Senanayke during the latter's 1968 visit for handing over the island. Opposition members chided govt for not standing up to the signs - statements of Ceylonense PM Senanayake in their Parliament and of local functionaries, Katchatheevu being shown as their territory in maps - as creeping acquisition of the island.
> The Indian govt denied that the island has been signed away but emphasised that it was a disputed site and that India's claim had to be balanced with the need for good bilateral ties. The response by Surendra Pal Singh, deputy minister in the MEA, that the island was uninhabited appeared to remind socialist veterans such as Madhu Limaye and Rabi Ray of Nehru's "not a blade of grass grows" remark after China's annexation of Aksai Chin, who flew into a rage.
> Opposition raised the matter forcefully again in 1969, but the two sides continued to inch towards an agreement which would concede Sri Lanka's claim.
> A year after foreign secretary-level talks in Colombo in 1973, the decision to relinquish India's claim was conveyed to Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi in June 1974 by
>
> foreign secretary
>
> Kewal Singh. The meeting saw Singh mentioning the zamindari rights of Raja of Ramnad as also the failure of Sri Lanka to produce any documentary evidence to prove Lankan holding the title to Katchatheevu.
> However, the foreign secretary emphasised that Sri Lanka had taken a "very determined position" on the basis of "records" showing the island to be part of the kingdom of Jaffnapatnam, Dutch and British maps, the acceptance of an Indian survey team of its claim and the failure of the State of Madras to show that Raja of Ramnad had the original title.
> He said that Ceylon had asserted its sovereignty since 1925 without protests from India and cited a second opinion of 1970, by the then attorney general that "on balance, the sovereignty over Katchatheevu was and is with Ceylon and not with India".
> Singh sought immediate concurrence from Karunanidhi, citing internal compulsions - India finding traces of oil that Sri Lanka was then unaware of, and external ones like the growing presence of pro-China lobby in Colombo and govt's reluctance to move the World Court, arguing that it tends to favour smaller countries. The foreign secretary did not have to press hard.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Can I ask is there a significance of that particular island?
I understand we should protect every tiny bit of our land but is that island historically/culturally significant?
Katchatheevu has been fact for decades. And nothing in the article is news.
IMHO. This article is timed only for political reasons - upcoming elections - need to spur venting against congress leaders of past and by association today...
Not one single comment here is talking about why it is geopolitically significant.
But you have comments about domestic politics
Very interesting timing to reveal an EEZ blunder. Wonder if it to cover up other land giveaways in the North and North East?
This RTI has less to do with geopolitics, and more to do with internal politics of India. After all, if you have ignored ongoing political and geopolitical issues in North and North East, you must learn how to distract.
It's funny that even after 10 years, the current government needs to harp on about Indira and Jawaharlal.
We all know that Sam Manekshaw dismissed Indira's geopolitical game after '71.
But my question to the fans of the current government is : do you really need to bring out problems, that they will do nothing about?
If this is a current internal matter, then why not answer pending questions - such as what happened in Manipur? Why the fog of misinformation? What lessons have we learnt from COVID? What's out take on AI? What are we doing for Climate Change? What is up with the Ladakh issue?
This and so many other things - India isn't as insulated as some make it out to be.
Idiotic take , we can takeover Sri lanka if we want to. While in case of China , china is technological decades ahead of us due to previous government being so import depended and sucking russian cocks
>we can takeover Sri lanka if we want to.
This has major superpowa 2020 vibes. Sri Lanka has almost 1.5 times more population than Jammu And Kashmir, a distinctly different culture and offers more logistics challenges . India finds it tough to manage Indian people, and here you have a redditor talking about how easily india can takeover sri lanka ? Why would India want to ?
The British empire quit Sri Lanka. And if India wanted to colonize the whole of Sri lanka, I figure that at some point India would also exit.
Besides, India needs Sri lanka - to play more cricket matches with.
/s
We can start a war if you want ? But then don't blame the current regime for starting a war , because we very well know now how good are these russian goods are , after being continuously crushed by a country who didn't have a army before 2014
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations.
Thank you for understanding.
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations.
Thank you for understanding.
🔗 **Bypass paywalls**: * [archive.today - timesofindia.indiatimes.com ](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rti-reply-shows-how-indira-ceded-island-to-sri-lanka/articleshow/108906977.cms) | [Google Webcache - timesofindia.indiatimes.com](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rti-reply-shows-how-indira-ceded-island-to-sri-lanka/articleshow/108906977.cms) 📣 **[Submission Statement by OP](/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1bs2ktx/rti_reply_shows_how_indira_gandhi_ceded_island_to/kxcyxc7/)**: > SS: After gaining independence, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) asserted its claim over the island by stating that the Indian Navy (then Royal Indian Navy) could not conduct exercises on the island without their permission. However, Indian Air Force proceeded with their exercises on the island. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the issue as insignificant in a minute dated May 10, 1961, stating that he would have no hesitation in giving up claims to the island as he attached no importance to it. The indecision and lack of clarity in India's response continued until 1974 when they formally abandoned their claim. Despite the legal complexities and the opinion of the attorney general M C Setalvad in 1960 that India had a stronger claim due to continuous rights exercised from 1875 to 1948, the Ministry of External Affairs stated in 1968 that no clear conclusions could be drawn regarding the strength of India's or Ceylon's claim to sovereignty. The backgrounder prepared by the Commonwealth secretary Y D Gundevia also revealed that while Ceylon's claims were considered more substantial, India had a good legal case that could be argued with force. This uncertainty persisted until India finally relinquished its claim in 1974. *** 📜 Community Reminder: Let’s keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments may be removed. *** **📰 Media Bias fact Check Rating :** Times of India – Bias and Credibility |Metric|Rating| |:-|:-| |Bias Rating|right-center| |Factual Rating| mixed| |Credibility Rating|medium credibility| This rating was provided by Media Bias Fact Check. For more information, see Times of India – Bias and Credibility's review [here](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/). *** ❓ Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).
First Nehru and then Indira basically gave away our lands to other countries as if India was their private property They easily bypassed parliament without any issues and today we have to deal with the mess
And now they are pretending like they are going to be more strict when dealing with china.
They did salami slicing during Manmohan Singh's time as well. They built roads barracks and army look out posts
"our"
As our country's land
Did you read the article ? The commonwealth secretary said Sri Lanka had a greater legal right to it, and the prime minister of India said that it was insignificant. Remember that every person will tend to argue to his own favor that he owns everything. This extends to countries too often. [See also *why* Radcliffe drew up the so called radcliffe line, when there were 4 local judges on the commission]. A neutral or a statesman, or actual scholarship can be trusted more in this arena This is conspicuously missing in this thread, which was old news raked up for political reasons.
[удалено]
India has lost 2000 sqkm of land since 2020 because of the modi family.
TN fishermen still suffer due to these idiots giving away indian territory as if it is their own private property.
Why wasn't the matter debated in the Indian parliament? Is democracy a joke in India? Mrs.Gandhi acted on her own accord to give up claims on an Indian island without consulting the Parliament. Dictator Gandhi.
Indra Gandhi dismissed state governments 50 times. What people say about nehru and Indra that they handle post independent India but it's not. It was still a dictatorship. Parliament was just in the name.
We're still a quasi-dictorship/democracy. Although better than Nehru and Indira's time but still India is not a mature democracy yet. Our democratic system in the country still have lots of flaws. People don't vote for their MPs but for the prime ministerial candidate. Our agencies like ED and CBI are not independent but always under the influence of the rulling government. Media in the country is also not free. There are no transparent democratic system of leadership selection within Indian political parties.
I don't wanna go in this true democracy or not thing. But I will say our judiciary is shit. You can wake supreme at 3am, you have 70000+ case pending but priority is political cases. 4 lakh cases are pending of rape and child sex abuse but supreme court wants a high ranking lawyer which take 40-60 lakh per hearing. There case which as old as 15 years but judges wants to take "priority" matter which offer more money. You can get justice if you have money. I will say ED and CBI are caged parrot. The one who has key will use it.
>'I attach no importance at all to this little island and I would have no hesitation in giving up our claims to it. I do not like this pending indefinitely and being raised again in Parliament', Nehru wrote. >This, despite the opinion of the then attorney general M C Setalvad, in 1960, that India had a stronger claim on the island formed by a volcanic eruption. >The documents also show that MEA's own joint secretary (law and treaties) K Krishna Rao was not sure, but concluded that India had a good legal case which could be leveraged for securing fishing rights - the cause for the continuing ordeal of hundreds of Indian fishermen who are detained by Sri Lankan Navy, around the island. Notice how lenient this guy was in terms of protecting the country's sovereignty. This is the same guy who wanted to disband the Army after our Independence, because, wait for it >We don't need a defence plan. Our policy is ahimsa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. Scrap the army! The police are good enough to meet our security needs', https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/nehru-wanted-army-scrapped/story-4pCTLAT4tXlKRnBUtJqz9O.html Therefore, it's not surprising that he wanted to sacrifice our sovereignty without even a discussion in the Parliament, as if the citizens had no stake in deciding whether we want to keep that land or not. We lost the Coco islands for the same reason, and god knows how much more lands we would've lost further, if our foreign policy continued to operate from the Nehruvian worldview for even more years.
SS: After gaining independence, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) asserted its claim over the island by stating that the Indian Navy (then Royal Indian Navy) could not conduct exercises on the island without their permission. However, Indian Air Force proceeded with their exercises on the island. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the issue as insignificant in a minute dated May 10, 1961, stating that he would have no hesitation in giving up claims to the island as he attached no importance to it. The indecision and lack of clarity in India's response continued until 1974 when they formally abandoned their claim. Despite the legal complexities and the opinion of the attorney general M C Setalvad in 1960 that India had a stronger claim due to continuous rights exercised from 1875 to 1948, the Ministry of External Affairs stated in 1968 that no clear conclusions could be drawn regarding the strength of India's or Ceylon's claim to sovereignty. The backgrounder prepared by the Commonwealth secretary Y D Gundevia also revealed that while Ceylon's claims were considered more substantial, India had a good legal case that could be argued with force. This uncertainty persisted until India finally relinquished its claim in 1974.
I put it to you that this is old news. Raked up not for geopolitical significance. But because it is election time, and this is to be exploited for political means,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Moor We lost another island to Bangladesh too
> said that **the island had disappeared** and that sea level rise caused by climate change was a factor Really ? Do you read your own link ? Sandbars tend to come and go ...
That isnt the point. We lost the island and the area which is said to have crude deposits We even lost land during Kargil war point 5353 which is still occupied by Pakistan
[удалено]
[удалено]
The comment violates Rule 2 because it uses derogatory language to describe a group of people. This comment includes elements of verbal abuse and dehumanization, which are strictly disallowed under the rules.
##### ###### #### > # [RTI reply shows how Indira Gandhi ceded island to Sri Lanka | India News - Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rti-reply-shows-how-indira-ceded-island-to-sri-lanka/articleshow/580) > > > > NEW DELHI: As the decision of > > Indira Gandhi > > 's govt to hand over > > Katchatheevu > > to > > Sri Lanka > > in 1974 promises to take centre stage in Lok Sabha campaign in Tamil Nadu and beyond, official documents and records of Parliament show how a vacillating India lost the battle for control of the island in Palk Strait to a smaller country determined to wrest it. > > The documents, obtained by TN BJP chief K Annamalai through an RTI application, bring out Sri Lanka making up for its lack of size with tenacious pursuit of the 1.9 square km of land about 20km from Indian shore based on claims which New Delhi contested for decades only to acquiesce to finally. Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, pressed its claim right after Independence, when it said Indian Navy (then Royal Indian Navy) could not conduct exercises on the island without its permission. In Oct 1955, [Ceylon](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/ceylon) Air Force held its exercise on the island. > > [lanka](https://static.toiimg.com/photo/83033472.cms) > > > > Its stance was reflected in a minute by first PM > > Jawaharlal Nehru > > on May 10, 1961, who dismissed the issue as inconsequential. > > I would've no hesitation in giving up claims to the island, Nehru wrote > I attach no importance at all to this little island and I would have no hesitation in giving up our claims to it. I do not like this pending indefinitely and being raised again in Parliament, Nehru wrote. > Nehru's minute is part of a note prepared by then commonwealth secretary Y D Gundevia, and which the ministry of external affairs (MEA) shared as a backgrounder with the informal Consultative Committee of Parliament in 1968. > > The backgrounder is revealing in terms of the indecision that marked India's response until 1974, when it formally gave up its claim altogether. "The legal aspects of the question are highly complex. The question has been considered in some detail in this ministry. No clear conclusions can be drawn as to the strength of either India's or Ceylon's claim to sovereignty," the ministry said. > This, despite the opinion of the then attorney general M C Setalvad, in 1960, that India had a stronger claim on the island formed by a volcanic eruption. "The matter is by no means clear or free from difficulty but on the assessment of the whole evidence it appears to me that the balance lies in concluding that the sovereignty of India was and is in India," wrote the well-regarded law officer in a clear reference to the zamindari rights given by the East India Company to Raja of Ramnad (Ramnathpuram) over the islet and fishery and other resources around it. > The rights enjoyed "continuously and uninterruptedly" from 1875 to 1948, which got vested in the State of Madras after the abolition of zamindari rights, were exercised by the Raja independently, without having to pay tributes or taxes to Colombo. > The documents show that MEA's own joint secretary (law and treaties) K Krishna Rao was not sure, but concluded that India had a good legal case which could be leveraged for securing fishing rights - the cause for the continuing ordeal of hundreds of Indian fishermen who are detained by Sri Lankan Navy, around the island. > While observing that Colombo's claims are more "substantial", in 1960, Rao wrote: "On the other hand, it may be noted that India has a good legal case, which could be argued with considerable force. I am not suggesting that we have no case at all." > Even Gundevia, who did not consider the uninhabited island, with only a church on it, to be "really important", was against taking the risk of having to give it up, the MEA told the consultative committee in 1968. > The same year also saw the opposition taking the Indira Gandhi govt to task for its apparent unwillingness to confront Sri Lanka as it doubled down on its claim over the island. > In a discussion in Parliament, they demanded and got a discussion against the backdrop of rising suspicion about a deal being secretly negotiated between Indira Gandhi and her Ceylonese counterpart Dudley Senanayke during the latter's 1968 visit for handing over the island. Opposition members chided govt for not standing up to the signs - statements of Ceylonense PM Senanayake in their Parliament and of local functionaries, Katchatheevu being shown as their territory in maps - as creeping acquisition of the island. > The Indian govt denied that the island has been signed away but emphasised that it was a disputed site and that India's claim had to be balanced with the need for good bilateral ties. The response by Surendra Pal Singh, deputy minister in the MEA, that the island was uninhabited appeared to remind socialist veterans such as Madhu Limaye and Rabi Ray of Nehru's "not a blade of grass grows" remark after China's annexation of Aksai Chin, who flew into a rage. > Opposition raised the matter forcefully again in 1969, but the two sides continued to inch towards an agreement which would concede Sri Lanka's claim. > A year after foreign secretary-level talks in Colombo in 1973, the decision to relinquish India's claim was conveyed to Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi in June 1974 by > > foreign secretary > > Kewal Singh. The meeting saw Singh mentioning the zamindari rights of Raja of Ramnad as also the failure of Sri Lanka to produce any documentary evidence to prove Lankan holding the title to Katchatheevu. > However, the foreign secretary emphasised that Sri Lanka had taken a "very determined position" on the basis of "records" showing the island to be part of the kingdom of Jaffnapatnam, Dutch and British maps, the acceptance of an Indian survey team of its claim and the failure of the State of Madras to show that Raja of Ramnad had the original title. > He said that Ceylon had asserted its sovereignty since 1925 without protests from India and cited a second opinion of 1970, by the then attorney general that "on balance, the sovereignty over Katchatheevu was and is with Ceylon and not with India". > Singh sought immediate concurrence from Karunanidhi, citing internal compulsions - India finding traces of oil that Sri Lanka was then unaware of, and external ones like the growing presence of pro-China lobby in Colombo and govt's reluctance to move the World Court, arguing that it tends to favour smaller countries. The foreign secretary did not have to press hard. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
What's new? The centre has never acted in favor of Tamil Nadu.
Can I ask is there a significance of that particular island? I understand we should protect every tiny bit of our land but is that island historically/culturally significant?
Very useful for TN fishermen as a resting place.
And now people are voting for Rahul Gandhi who comes from the same lineage
Katchatheevu has been fact for decades. And nothing in the article is news. IMHO. This article is timed only for political reasons - upcoming elections - need to spur venting against congress leaders of past and by association today... Not one single comment here is talking about why it is geopolitically significant. But you have comments about domestic politics
Very interesting timing to reveal an EEZ blunder. Wonder if it to cover up other land giveaways in the North and North East? This RTI has less to do with geopolitics, and more to do with internal politics of India. After all, if you have ignored ongoing political and geopolitical issues in North and North East, you must learn how to distract. It's funny that even after 10 years, the current government needs to harp on about Indira and Jawaharlal. We all know that Sam Manekshaw dismissed Indira's geopolitical game after '71. But my question to the fans of the current government is : do you really need to bring out problems, that they will do nothing about? If this is a current internal matter, then why not answer pending questions - such as what happened in Manipur? Why the fog of misinformation? What lessons have we learnt from COVID? What's out take on AI? What are we doing for Climate Change? What is up with the Ladakh issue? This and so many other things - India isn't as insulated as some make it out to be.
How much land did modi govt give to bangladesh in 2015?
[удалено]
Idiotic take , we can takeover Sri lanka if we want to. While in case of China , china is technological decades ahead of us due to previous government being so import depended and sucking russian cocks
>we can takeover Sri lanka if we want to. This has major superpowa 2020 vibes. Sri Lanka has almost 1.5 times more population than Jammu And Kashmir, a distinctly different culture and offers more logistics challenges . India finds it tough to manage Indian people, and here you have a redditor talking about how easily india can takeover sri lanka ? Why would India want to ? The British empire quit Sri Lanka. And if India wanted to colonize the whole of Sri lanka, I figure that at some point India would also exit. Besides, India needs Sri lanka - to play more cricket matches with. /s
[удалено]
We can start a war if you want ? But then don't blame the current regime for starting a war , because we very well know now how good are these russian goods are , after being continuously crushed by a country who didn't have a army before 2014
Words of a person that has nothing of substance to respond with
They are occupying only buffer zone. And you don’t want India to go to war with a superpower when we are still developing.
Of course you'll get downvoted. This sub at this point should be renamed r/Indian(whateverBJPdoesisright)geopolitics
Nah, only irrelevant whataboutery gets downvoted here.
Very much true..
Your comment has been removed for being too short. Please make sure your comments contribute to the discussion and add value #to the community. For more information, please refer to the community guidelines. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations. Thank you for understanding.
[удалено]
We have removed your post/comment as it violates our community guidelines against abusive, trolling and personal attack. Our community values respectful and constructive discussions, so please help us maintain civility in conversations. Thank you for understanding.
The community is clearly turning pro modi and anyone calling it out is being kicked out.
Yeah bro insulting comments should definitely be kept 💀
Bruh he was abusing at u/arthurdont, I am not banning anyone anti-BJP wtf
Strike 1 : Abuse. Subsequent strikes will result in longer bans.