In a recent interview hosted by The Indian Express, senior journalist, Adrija Roychowdhury conducted an extensive conversation with the cultural historian, Professor (Dr) Arup K. Chatterjee on the ongoing debate over the status of Katchatheevu Island. The discussion delved into the historical, legal, and geopolitical dimensions of the island’s ownership, with particular focus on its relationship to Adam’s Bridge and Indo-Sri Lankan maritime politics.
Professor Arup K. Chatterjee, who teaches at O.P. Jindal Global University, is a scholar of Indian geopolitical history. His recent book on Adam’s Bridge (Ram Setu) explores the cultural, geological, and political entanglements of the region and provides a contextual backdrop for understanding the significance of Katchatheevu. Roychowdhury’s questions structured the conversation to elicit both historical explanation and legal interpretation.
Katchatheevu, located approximately 20 miles north of Adam’s Bridge, lies strategically between Dhanushkodi on the Indian side and Talaimannar on the Sri Lankan coast. As Professor Chatterjee explained, the island was formed by a 14th-century volcanic eruption and became part of the Ramnad zamindari under the Sethupathi dynasty. From the 15th century onward, it was administered by the Sethupathis—local rulers who maintained political alliances with the Nayaks of Madurai and controlled 69 townships and 11 islands, including Katchatheevu.
Professor Chatterjee highlighted copper plate grants issued in the 1620s by the Sethupathis, which provide evidence of their territorial authority. He noted that colonial powers, including the Dutch and British, entered into lease agreements with the Sethupathis, reinforcing rather than negating their ownership.
When asked about the 1974 and 1976 bilateral agreements between India and Sri Lanka, Chatterjee clarified that while the island was officially transferred to Sri Lanka, the treaties allowed Indian fishermen and pilgrims unrestricted access. He argued that these provisions were critical during the era of the Blue and Pink Revolutions, when prawning techniques and marine harvesting technologies were advancing rapidly.
The conversation addressed the fact that the dispute over Katchatheevu is not solely a post-colonial phenomenon. Chatterjee traced its roots to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when colonial administrators in British India and Ceylon began efforts to delineate maritime boundaries in the Sethusamudram region. A key moment, he pointed out, was the 1921 claim by B. Horsburgh, a British official in Ceylon, who argued that because St. Anthony’s Church on Katchatheevu was managed by the Catholic Diocese of Jaffna, the island should be considered Ceylonese territory. Though ultimately unsuccessful, this claim introduced a narrative of ecclesiastical proprietorship that shaped subsequent legal debates.
Chatterjee also discussed the abolition of the zamindari system in 1951, which weakened the legal standing of the Sethupathi claims. This development was later cited by Sri Lanka as justification for asserting sovereignty. He further connected the island’s fate to India’s territorial agreements with Pakistan and Bangladesh during the same period, suggesting that Sri Lanka may have perceived a strategic opening for negotiation.
The discussion also examined the role of Indira Gandhi’s foreign policy. According to Chatterjee, Gandhi’s decision to cede the island in 1974 was shaped by the Cold War context, particularly the need to neutralize naval presence in the Indian Ocean and to position India as a non-aggressive power at the United Nations. Gandhi’s pact with Sirimavo Bandaranaike, then Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, was also meant to stabilize regional relations and counter Communist activity within Sri Lanka.
Roychowdhury raised the matter of Tamil Nadu’s political response, particularly opposition from parties like the DMK, which viewed the transfer as unconstitutional due to the absence of parliamentary consent—a requirement established by the Berubari Union case (1960). Chatterjee noted that for Tamil Nadu’s political leadership and fishing communities, the island remains a symbol of maritime and cultural identity.
He also reflected on the halted Sethusamudram shipping project, which has remained a core issue for Tamil Nadu. Chatterjee suggested that renewed political attention to Katchatheevu may function as a discursive counterweight to Tamil Nadu’s demands for the resumption of the shipping corridor. Both concerns, he maintained, are tied to maritime sovereignty and must be addressed through bilateral consensus rather than nationalist rhetoric.
In conclusion, Chatterjee recommended further reading for viewers, including works by V. Suryanarayan and his own book on Adam’s Bridge, which contains a detailed chapter on Katchatheevu. The interview offered a multi-scalar analysis of an issue that sits at the crossroads of regional history, international diplomacy, and postcolonial legal frameworks.
Arup K. Chatterjee 