Katchatheevu’s sovereignty: A tale of dual claims

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com.)

The disclosure that India ceded the tiny Katchatheevu island, situated off the Tamil Nadu coast, to Sri Lanka in 1974 has stirred controversy. Revelations indicate that as early as 1961, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s inaugural Prime Minister, had expressed a nonchalant attitude towards the islet, potentially with the knowledge of his daughter and successor, Indira Gandhi. Nehru’s words at the time were unequivocal: “I attach no importance at all to this little island. I would have no hesitation in giving up our claims to it.” This seeming disregard for the strategic maritime outpost has reignited debates surrounding the wisdom of India’s decision to relinquish sovereignty over the territory.

The casual approach adopted by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, towards crucial territorial issues has been a subject of criticism. In the late 1950s, during a session of the Lok Sabha, Nehru nonchalantly acknowledged China’s construction of a road in Aksai Chin, a region that was undisputedly a part of Indian territory. However, he trivialised the matter by stating that “not a blade of grass grows there,” implying that the region held no significance.

This dismissive attitude was also reflected in Nehru’s decision to take the Kashmir issue to the United Nations Organization, a move that was purportedly influenced by the advice of Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of British India. Nehru’s rationale for this decision was based on the perception that Sheikh Abdullah, the influential Kashmiri leader, held sway only among the Kashmiri-speaking populace of the region rather than across the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir. Nehru’s seemingly cavalier approach towards territorial integrity and strategic interests has been widely criticized, as it potentially undermined India’s position in crucial geopolitical matters during the formative years of the nation’s independence.

Abdullah’s charismatic appeal failed to resonate with the Punjabi-speaking populace of Muzaffarabad and Mirpur, and he had no inclination to incorporate them into his envisioned realm, leading to the eventual formation of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). When China invaded Arunachal Pradesh in 1962, then known as the North Frontier Agency, it was a moment of profound national humiliation for most Indians. However, apart from the then Defence Minister Krishna Menon, who bore responsibility for the 1962 debacle, not a single official deemed it necessary to tender their resignation, a courtesy expected in the face of such a territorial loss. This apathetic response laid bare the reality that in the fledgling years of our independence, the loss of territory was regarded with a casual indifference, symptomatic of a nation not fully comprehending the gravity and responsibilities that come with sovereignty. Undoubtedly, we had yet to grasp the true essence of what it meant to be a sovereign state.

The groundbreaking Declaration of Independence, issued by the United States in 1776, pioneered the concept of sovereignty as a fundamental tenet of the newly formed nation-state. This notion was further solidified in the French Constitution of 1791, which unequivocally stated, “Sovereignty is one, indivisible, unalienable, and imprescriptible; it belongs to the nation; no group can attribute sovereignty to itself nor can an individual arrogate it to himself.” The origins of this conceptualization can be traced back to the 16th-century French political philosopher Jean Bodin, whose seminal work heralded the transition from the feudal system to the era of nationalism. Bodin’s radical ideas laid the foundation for the emergence of sovereignty as a central tenet of the modern nation-state, signifying the progression from decentralised power structures to a unified, indivisible, and inalienable form of governance.

Mamata Banerjee’s stance on illegal immigration into West Bengal has undergone a remarkable shift over time. During her tenure as an ally of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government, she vehemently protested against the inclusion of Bangladeshi nationals in Indian electoral rolls, even going to the extent of dramatically flinging a sheaf of papers at the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. However, her current position as the Chief Minister of West Bengal appears to be marked by a tacit acceptance, if not outright encouragement, of the unchecked influx from Bangladesh.

This seeming reversal of her earlier hardline stance is not an isolated phenomenon but rather a continuation of a long-standing strategy employed by her political predecessors, the Congress and the Left Front governments. These parties have been accused of systematically facilitating the infiltration of Bangladeshi immigrants into West Bengal, purportedly to bolster their vote banks. Mamata Banerjee’s present approach is viewed by many as a mere emulation of this controversial tactic, albeit with her own political calculations.

The narrative surrounding Jammu and Kashmir remained unchanged for decades until the rise of Narendra Modi. Despite Parliament’s assertion that the entire region, including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), is an integral and inseparable part of India, Article 370 of the Constitution persisted for seven decades. This provision granted J&K a separate constitution, creating a peculiar situation where Kashmiris could purchase property anywhere in the country, while non-Kashmiri Indians faced restrictions in acquiring land or property within the state. It was a long-standing anomaly that defied the principle of unity and equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of their place of origin within the nation’s boundaries.

Past administrations before Modi’s tenure promoted a facade of sovereignty while paradoxically engaging in negotiations that undermined India’s autonomy in the region of Jammu and Kashmir. These governments exhibited no qualms about consulting with separatist elements, including those sympathetic to jihadist terrorism, and even turned a blind eye to Kashmiri separatists fraternising with Pakistani diplomats or visitors from Islamabad. It took the resolute leadership of a genuinely nationalist government, steadfastly committed to upholding India’s sovereignty, to put an end to this deleterious charade. The Congress party has historically exhibited a pro-Muslim inclination, as evidenced by the continued presence of waqf and Muslim personal law within the legal framework. Collectively, waqf properties constitute the largest urban landholdings in India.

The demands made by the Sunni Waqf Boards of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra regarding the Taj Mahal and Bibi ka Maqbara, respectively, are based on the premise that these monuments contain graves. The argument put forth is that, as a sovereign state, the government should nationalize all properties belonging to Allah, who is considered supreme and transcendent of any nation. Concurrently, the continued existence of Muslim personal laws in a country that constitutionally declares itself to be secular raises questions. Additionally, there have been vocal calls from within the Muslim community to establish Sharia courts, known as Darul Qaza, to adjudicate matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, and related issues. These developments highlight the ongoing complexities and debates surrounding the relationship between religion, state, and personal laws within the framework of a secular nation.

India’s sovereignty is a complex and nuanced concept that defies simple categorization. The idea of a “half-sovereign state” was first introduced by the 18th-century German jurist on international law, J.J. Moser. While India possesses certain hallmarks of sovereignty, such as its nationhood and imprescriptibility, the continued existence of Sharia, personal, and waqf laws within its legal framework suggests a shared or divided form of sovereignty. This notion of shared sovereignty was particularly applicable to India prior to 2014. The coexistence of these distinct legal systems alongside the national legal framework implies that India’s sovereignty is not absolute but rather a delicate balance between various spheres of authority and jurisdiction. The concept of sovereignty is absolute and indivisible, allowing no room for sharing with external entities. Numerous Muslim nations have taken the step of nationalising their waqf institutions, bringing them under state control. Thankfully, India’s government since 2014 has held firm to the principle of uncompromising national sovereignty, shaping its actions in accordance with this fundamental tenet. The administration’s stance aligns with the belief that the nation’s sovereign authority must remain unchallenged and undiluted.