In a recent interview on his widely followed YouTube channel Padhaku Nitin, eminent journalist and anchor, Nitin Thakur, of Aaj Tak, sat down with Professor (Dr.) Arup K. Chatterjee, a cultural historian and the author of Adam’s Bridge: Sacrality, Performance, and Heritage of an Oceanic Marvel, published by Routledge from London, Britain, to engage in a detailed and nuanced conversation about Katchatheevu, Adam’s Bridge, and the larger maritime, religious, and cultural implications of these spaces in South Asian geopolitics. Throughout the interview, Chatterjee maintained a patriotic stance, marshalling plenty of evidence in favor of heritagizing Adam’s Bridge as Ram Setu.
The interview was timely, given the renewed political and cultural debates surrounding Katchatheevu, an island handed over to Sri Lanka in 1974. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent comments in Parliament have revived public discourse around India’s maritime boundaries and their colonial legacies. Thakur began by asking Professor Chatterjee whether the return of Katchatheevu was even feasible, given the current international agreements and historical context.
Chatterjee responded with clarity and precision, emphasizing that while there may be emotive value to such demands, international legal treaties—especially those signed in 1974 and 1976—make reversal nearly impossible. He reminded the viewers that these agreements were not informal gestures but bilateral treaties, which have been reinforced by consistent diplomatic practices since. He also spoke with great passion on the Indic civilizational heritage of Ram Setu.
A Historian’s View on Katchatheevu and Fisherfolk Rights
What emerged from Chatterjee’s answers was a consistent emphasis on contextual history. He foregrounded the fact that Katchatheevu was originally under the domain of the Sethupathi rulers of Ramnad, and had been in Indian administrative control through the Ramnad Zamindari well into the 19th century. However, with the abolition of the Zamindari system in 1951, ownership and governance structures were redefined, eventually culminating in India’s official transfer of the island to Sri Lanka in the 1970s.
Professor Chatterjee also stressed that the agreements allowed Indian fishermen access to the island without visas or legal restrictions. However, as he noted, the real issue is not the land itself, but the maritime ecosystem—and how the lives and livelihoods of Tamil fishermen have been affected by the drawing of new maritime boundaries.
Nitin Thakur maintained a tone of constructive skepticism. In one instance, he asked whether this debate is truly about fishermen’s rights or merely a tool for electoral mobilization. Chatterjee agreed that fishermen have long been used as political pawns, but emphasized that this should not distract from the larger environmental and strategic dimensions of the region.
Linking Ram Setu and the Politics of Myth and Infrastructure
Another key section of the interview explored the Ram Setu or Adam’s Bridge, a stretch of limestone shoals between Pamban Island (India) and Mannar Island (Sri Lanka). Nitin Thakur raised the controversy surrounding its religious and political significance, asking whether it is appropriate to merge mythology with state planning.
Professor Chatterjee, whose book deals at length with this topic, offered a measured response. He described the Ram Setu as a sacred infrastructural narrative—a structure that straddles both spiritual geography and geological history. While pointing out that the Setu Samudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP) was paused due to environmental and religious concerns, he argued that maritime projects in the region can’t simply be dismissed—especially given China’s growing presence in the Indian Ocean through the String of Pearls strategy.
Chatterjee repeatedly brought in comparative frameworks from the 19th and 20th centuries, arguing that colonial-era cartography and maritime governance systems are central to understanding present-day disputes. He also noted that claims of petroleum reserves near Katchatheevu remain unproven, and may be more rhetorical than empirical.
Language, Legacy, and the Limits of Protest
Throughout the interview, Nitin Thakur kept returning to a core question: If Katchatheevu cannot be reclaimed, what are we fighting for? Professor Chatterjee countered that the real battle lies in reframing the narrative. Rather than focusing on territorial possession, he suggested that India and Sri Lanka must work together on shared concerns—marine conservation, livelihood protection, and countering strategic encroachments in the region.
He also added that the issue’s persistence in the Tamil political imagination is a reflection of an emotional geography, and cannot be resolved through legalistic or militaristic rhetoric alone. Both India and Sri Lanka must revisit the original spirit of the 1974 agreement, which emphasized cooperation and humanitarian access.
Cultural Memory and Civil Dialogue
One of the strengths of the interview was its ability to move beyond binaries—of Hindu vs secular, Tamil Nadu vs Delhi, or India vs Sri Lanka. Thakur’s questions were often sharp, but respectful, and Chatterjee’s responses balanced historical depth with contemporary pragmatism.
In conclusion, the dialogue between Nitin Thakur and Arup K. Chatterjee was a model of public intellectual exchange—where scholarship met journalism in a way that enriched the public’s understanding of a complex issue. It reminds us that territorial debates are never just about maps and treaties—they are about people, livelihoods, memory, and the stories we tell ourselves about the past.
For more detailed insights, viewers are encouraged to consult Chatterjee’s book Adam’s Bridge and follow Padhaku Nitin’s channel, where informed and critical discussions continue to find an engaged audience.
Arup K. Chatterjee 