கச்சத் தீவு மீட்சிக்கு இந்தியாவில் எந்த ஆட்சியும் சிந்திப்பதில்லை

KACHCHATIVU: ISLAND LOST

"We are tracing the Kachchativu conflict from its past to present" Dravida Peravai

In Indian Parliament on July 23, 1974 Government of India made a statement on

THE RE-AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SRILANKA ON BOUNDARY IN THE HISTORIC WATERS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES AND RELATED MATTERS

Then Minister of External Affairs Mr.Swaran Singh will make a statement, The Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha announced.

Mr.Madhu Limayi M.P (Banka constituency) rose and said " On point of order, I had already given notice." Mr.K.Manoharan M.P( DMK Parliamentary Party Leader): "Each member must be given proper opportunity to express his views".

Mr.Era.Sezhiyan M.P (DMK): Before the Hon'ble Minister makes his statement, I want to submit that we should have been consulted and the House should have been taken into confidence before they entered into this unholy agreement for the surrender of territory by India. While we are anxious that friendly and cordial relations should be maintained with Srilanka the legal and constitutional properties involved have to be taken into account. This agreement goes against the interests of the country since it amounts to pure surrender of our territory without going through any norms. This is an unholy and disgraceful act of statesmanship unworthy of any government. Therefore we do not want to associate ourselves with the statement that is going to be made by the Hon'ble Minister, and we want to disassociate ourselves by walking out of the House.

K.Manoharan.M.P(DMK): Please allow one member from each party to express his views. We have decided to stage a walk out and therefore before we walk out we want to tell you the reasons which have prompted us to walk out. The agreement entered into between Srilanka Government and the Government of India is anti national and unpatriotic, it is the worst agreement ever signed by any civilized country of the world. I do not like to insult or hurt the feelings of either the people of Srilanka or the Prime Minister of Srilanka.

Hon'ble Speaker: Hon.members are going to have a debate on foreign affairs when they can raise all these points.

K.Manoharan M.P(DMK) : I must be permitted to speak now. Through this unholy agreement, the Srilanka Prime Minister has emerged as victor and the Prime Minister of India as a pathetic vanquished. It is an assault on the integrity of the country. In view of this, we have decided to stage a walk out and we are walking out.

Mr.Speaker: " He has a right to make a statement in the House"

Then in Hindi spoke Mr.ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE, Member of Parliament from Gwalior. In his speech he claimed that the original name of Kaccha Theevu was Valideep, an island where Sri Rama and Vali fought.

After exchanges in Hindi, the turn of another Tamil Nadu Member came.

P.K.THEVAR M.P. (Forward Block) (Ramanathapuram): Kachchativu forms part of my constituency. You are acting like a dictator. You are speaking like a democrat, but at the same time you are acting like a dictator. The whole life of thousands of fishermen...... today the Ceylon Government has moved their forces, their military, towards that island. Thousands of mechanized boats were stopped, movements were restricted. Their lives are in danger. You have simply betrayed. You have no sympathy and courtesy to consult those people.... It is going to be the basis for future war. It is going to be the base and challenge for the life of the nation. I have to warn all these things because in the past it has been the tradition of our government to give bhoodan of the northern borders. ( Interruptions).

Mr. Speaker: Kindly sit down.

Mr.P.K.N.Thevar : The division of India has cost the life of Mahatma Gandhi. It is not a part of Tamil Nadu but it is apart of the holy land of India. You are betraying...On behalf of my constituency and on behalf of the Forward Block, I walk out.

Mr.Muhamed Sheriff (Periakulam): Even on the 1 st April 1968, I produced sufficient records in this House to show that Kachchativu belongs to the Raja of Ramnad. Government has failed to go through these records. I was the elected representative of that constituency here previously. It is a shame on the part of the Government that they have not consulted the people of this place and the Chief Minister of the State. We condemn this action of Government and along with my friends, I also walk out in protest.

(P.K.N.THEVAR & MUHAMMAD SHERIFF THEN LEFT THE HOUSE)

Then Madhu Limayi spoke in Hindi.

After his lengthy speech Mr.P.K.Deo M.P( Kalahandi): One point of order, Sir. The statement that the Foreign Minister is going to make deals with cession of India territory. In this regard, two important issues are involved. This is the constitutional issue. Article 1 of the Constitution says: " The territory of India shall comprise the territories of the states, The Union Territories specified in the First Schedule, and such other territories as may be required. So further acquisition of territory can be accepted, but nowhere does the constitution provide for cession of even an inch of Indian territory. The Kachchativu controversy was raised only a few years ago by the Ceylonese Government when Bandaranaike came to power. all the Revenue records of the Madras Government corroborate that Kachchativu was a part of the former Ramnad Zamindary and an integral part of this country. So under no circumstances the Government has got any power under the constitution to cede even an inch of our country. Sir they cannot consider this country as Zamindary of the Congress party. A few days back the Coco island which is part of the Andaman group of islands was ceded to Burma. The question of Beru Bari was raised by the previous speaker. Now has come the question of Kachchativu . If we go on ceding our territory like this what will be left of this country? Secondly it is utter contempt and disrespect shown to this House by not taking the House into confidence and facing us with a fait accompli. The shutting out of the views of the opposition parties in this manner is most anti-democratic. So I would say that the statement which is going to be laid on the table of the Loksabha is not worth the paper on which it had been typed. Therefore I would submit that the External Affairs Minister should consider these matters and should not lay the statement on the Table of the House. Otherwise we will be forced to take the extreme step of walking out.

Then ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE intervened and spoke one sentence in Hindi.

Mr.Speaker: " My ruling is that the Minister has a right to make a statement. When the Governments enter into an agreement, that must come before the House. the Members must be informed of what is taking place.

Mr.Sezhiyan: But the agreement is unconstitutional

Mr. Speaker: How can we know it ?

Mr.Atal Bihari Vajpayee:" It is published in the news papers."

Mr. Speaker : " How can the House be seized of the matter unless the Minister makes the statement ?

Mr.Atal Bihari Vajpayee: " Can they violate the Constitution ?"

Mr.Speaker : I have given the ruling. Now, the Minister...

Then Mr.Atal Bihari Vajpapee and another Member intervened. Meanwhile Mr.Kachwai tore up some papers and threw them away. Some members left the House at this stage.

Mr.L.Lakkappan: Sir the tearing of papers by a Hon'ble Member is contempt of the House. I want your ruling on this.

Mr.Speaker: 'My ruling is that tearing of papers is not keeping with decorum or dignity of the House.

THE MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MR.SWARAN SINGH :

Over the years, since our independence, there has been a number of questions and discussions in the House regarding the Island of Kachchativu. Government have of course fully shared this interest and concern of arriving at an early and amicable solution of this long standing matter, and I am happy to say that an agreement was signed between the two Prime Ministers on June 28 th, a copy of which I am laying on the table of the House.

The Island of Kachachativu about 3/4 of a square mile is situated in the Palk Bay. It is about ten and half miles for the nearest landfall in Srilanka and about twelve and half miles from the nearest Indian shore. The Palk Bay which constitutes the historic waters of India and Srilanka is some 10 miles wide at its entrance through the Palk Straits and has an average width of 28 miles. The issue of deciding Indian and Srilankan claims to Kachachativu was closely connected with determining the boundary line between India and Srilanka in the waters of Palk Bay. The entire question of the maritime boundary in the historic waters of the Palk Bay required urgently to be settled keeping in view the claims of the two sides, historical evidence, legal practice and precedent and in the broader context of our growing friendly relations with Srilanka. Kachchativu has always been an uninhabited island. Neither Srilanka nor India had any permanent presence there. During the long colonial rule period the question whether Kachachativu was part of India or part of Ceylon was frequently discussed with Governments of the day putting forward claims and counter claims. In recent years both countries had agreed that there should be no unilateral action which would seek to change the undetermined status of Kachchativu pending a final solution to be reached through amicable bilateral efforts.

I would particularly like to draw the attention of Honorable Members to the fact that when two sides have a good arguable case on a particular issue and the problem cannot be resolved expeditiously through bilateral negotiations, there is inevitably an attempt to seek outside interventions by appeal either to International Court of Justice of to third party arbitration. For our part, we have always been firmly of the view that in any differences with our neighbouring countries, we should seek to resolve them through bilateral discussions without outside interference on the basis of equality and goodwill. It is a matter of satisfaction to us that our Prime Ministers resolve to settle this issue through direct bilateral talks was met with an equally warm response from the Prime Minister of Srilanka and the agreement could be reached in an atmosphere of friendship and mutual understanding.

Exhaustive research of historical and other records was made by our experts on Kachachativu and every available piece of evidence collected from various record offices in India, such as in Tamil Nadu, Goa and Bombay as well as abroad in British and Dutch archives. An intensive examination of evidence and exchange of views took place specially during the past year between senior officers of the two governments. This question of Kachachativu, for reasons I have just explained had necessarily to be dealt with as part of broader question of the boundary in the Palk Bay so as to eliminate the possibility of any further disputes on similar matters in these historic waters.

On the basis of dispassionate examination of the historical records and other evidence and in keeping in mind the legal principles and also keeping in mind our policy and peaceful settlement of disputes, I feel confident that the agreement demarcating the maritime boundary in the Palk Bay will be considered as fair, just and equitable to both countries. At the same time I wish to remind the Hon'ble Members that in concluding this agreement on rights of fishing, pilgrimage and navigation which both sides have enjoyed in the past, have fully been safeguarded for the future. It would be wrong to see this agreement as a victory for one side or the other. Both the countries have gained as a result of the agreement which is a result of mature statesmanship a victory for the cause of friendship and cooperation in the area.a potential major irritant in relations between the two countries which have remained unresolved over the years has now been removed and both countries can now concentrate on the exploitation of economic and other resources in these, now well defined waters and generally on intensifying cooperation between themselves in various fields. The agreement marks an important step in further strengthening the close ties that bind India and Srilanka.

Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram (CPI): Sir while my party welcomes the agreements reached between Srilanka and India, there are problems to come up during the implementation of the agreement, so far, our fishermen had a right to go even beyond Kachchativu, fish and come back. The Honorable Minister says that these rights are fully protected. But there are problems which we would like our Government to take up with Srilanka and seek their solution for the reason, I submit, there should be a discussion on this statement. I have given notice of a motion. Would request you to allow a discussion on that.

Mr.Speaker : The general debate on foreign affairs is coming up next week.

Mr. Dipen Battacharya (Serampore) : I want to seek one clarification. In the statement he has mentioned that Kachchativu has always been an uninhabited island, but an Hon'ble Member said that it was within his constituency. If that is so, I do not know how it could be said that it has not been inhabited by any human being ? How could it then be a part of his constituency ?

Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram : The Tamil Nadu Government has a grievance that it has not been consulted properly. May I know what is the actual fact in regard to that ? I also want to know the details about the protection given with regard to fishing rights.

Mr.Swaran Singh: The Honorable Member would no doubt be aware that in the year 1921 when both India and Srilanka were under British rule, fishery line had been decided by the British Government because they had control over both India and Srilanka as well as India. I am sure that the Honorable Members know that the 1921 fishery line was a line which was about three and half miles west of Kachchativu. That is to the western side of the fishery line was the exclusive fishery right of the Indian citizens and to the east of that was the right of Srilankan fishermaen. But in spite of that division the fishermen generally were free to fish even round about Kachchativu and they also used the Kachchativu island for drying their nets. As would be known to the House there is no fresh water available there. Mostly they used it for spreading their nets and trying to dry their nets etc.

About the traditional rights, if the Honorable Members goes through the terms of the agreement, a copy of which has been placed on the table of the House, he will get the answer because it is mentioned there that although Srilanka's claims over sovereignty over Kachchativu has been recognized, the traditional rights of Indian fishermen and pilgrims to visit that island will remain unaffected. Similarly the traditional navigation rights exercised by India and Srilanka in each others waters will remain unaffected (interuptions)

Mr.Speaker: Later on we may have a debate on this but not now. I am not allowing anymore.

(Source: Lok Sabha Debates July 23 1974 Cols 186-201)

This will indicate which party stood where and how far they raised their voices.

DMK members fought valiantly in Parliament. DMK Government earned the wrath of the Union Government. In that darkest days of emergency DMK government was dismissed. But almost all Tamil Nadu Governments and parties have raised theit voice against bartering of Kachchativu. Years passed. Meanwhile OUTLOOK magazine published a news story which caught the attention of Dravida Peravai.

This was distributed, mailed, sent to all Members of Parliament with the help of the personal staff of Comrade George Fernandes." Kathiravan"Tamil daily reported about this which is given in the box below:

DEMARCATE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE:

There is an urgent need to sue Srilankan Government in the International Court of Justice for compensation to 980 Indian fishermen killed in the International waters, as well as retrieval of the Katcha Theevu. It is will be appropriate to recall the words of our Present Prime Minister in the Parliament on 23 rd July 1974 (cols 186-201), when the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh made a statement on the Re Agreement between India and Srilanka on the boundary in the historical waters between the two countries and related matters.

Hon'ble Atal Bihari Vajpayee who strongly condemned the bartering away of Katcha Theevu, had said that the old mythological name for Katcha Theevu is VALI DEEP, the island where legendary Rama fought a mythological Vali. Dravida Peravai now reminds the Government headed by the same Atal Bihari Vajpayee to fulfill what he had once demanded while he was in opposition; namely retrieval of the Katcha Theevu islands from the Srilankan government. The lives of 980 of our fishermen is lost due to this agreement imposed during the darkest days of emergency and it is time that we scrap this agreement or take it to the International Court of Justice to get due compensation for our fishermen.

There has been precedents in international inter country matters where issues have been taken to the International Court of Justice.1). In the English Channel there is a rocked island known as Minquires-Enrou. They are far way from the British coast and were closer to the French coast. Since it was near its international waters France staked the claim over that island. Britain showed the documents in its possession and the basis of the documents in 1953 the International Court of Justice decided that this island belongs to Britain. As in this case the documentary proof will be in our favour and we will retrieve KachachaTivu, if we approach the Court.2) An island Clipporton which was closer to Mexican coast actually belonged to France, and since it was far away from French soil no one visited there and hence Mexico claimed right over these islands. But the International Court of Justice decided in the favour of France.

3). Near Philipines an island Palmus Mianjus was in the possession of Spain. Spain one fine morning handed over that island to America. But Netherlands had rights over that island much before Spain had, and in view of this when this matter came before the Court, the Court decided in favour of Netherlands.

These are past precedents. We have recent judgments too wherein decisions by International Court of Justice had been impartial and in the interests of natural justice. Let me quote about a recent judgment in 2002.

The International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today given (17.11.2002) Judgment in the case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia). In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding for the Parties, the Court finds, by 16 votes to 1, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia". Ligitan and Sipadan are two very small islands located in the Celebes Sea, off the northeast coast of the island of Borneo.

Reasoning of Court: The Court begins by recalling the complex historical background of the dispute between the Parties. It then examines the titles invoked by them. Indonesia's claim to sovereignty over the islands is based primarily on a conventional title, the 1891 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands. Indonesia, thus, maintains that that Convention established the 4° 10' north parallel of latitude as the dividing line between the British and Dutch possessions in the area where Ligitan and Sipadan are situated. As the disputed islands lie to the south of that parallel, "[I] t therefore follows that under the Convention title to those islands vested in the Netherlands, and now vests in Indonesia". Malaysia, for its part, asserts that the 1891 Convention, when seen as a whole, clearly shows that Great Britain and the Netherlands sought by the Convention solely to clarify the boundary between their respective land possessions on the islands of Borneo and Sebatik, since the line of delimitation stops at the easternmost point of the latter island. After examining the 1891 Convention, the Court finds that the Convention, when read in context and in the light of its object and purpose, cannot be interpreted as establishing an allocation line determining sovereignty over the islands out to sea, to the east of the island of Sebatik, and as a result the Convention does not constitute a title on which Indonesia can found its claim to Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court states that this conclusion is confirmed both by the travaux préparatoires and by the subsequent conduct of the parties to the Convention. The Court further considers that the cartographic material submitted by the Parties in the case does not contradict that conclusion.

Having rejected this argument by Indonesia, the Court turns to consideration of the other titles on which Indonesia and Malaysia claim to found their sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court determines whether Indonesia or Malaysia obtained a title to the islands by succession. The Court begins in this connection by observing that, while the Parties both maintain that the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan were not terrae nullius during the period in question in the present case, they do so on the basis of diametrically opposed reasoning, each of them claiming to hold title to those islands. The Court does not accept Indonesia's contention that it retained title to the islands as successor to the Netherlands, which allegedly acquired it through contracts concluded with the Sultan of Bulungan, the original title-holder. Nor does the Court accept Malaysia's contention that it acquired sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan further to a series of alleged transfers of the title originally held by the former sovereign, the Sultan of Sulu, that title having allegedly passed in turn to Spain, the United States, Great Britain on behalf of the State of North Borneo, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and finally to Malaysia.

Having found that neither of the Parties has a treaty-based title to Ligitan and Sipadan, the Court next considers the question whether Indonesia or Malaysia could hold title to the disputed islands by virtue of the effectivités cited by them. In this regard, the Court determines whether the Parties' claims to sovereignty are based on activities evidencing an actual, continued exercise of authority over the islands, i.e., the intention and will to act as sovereign. Indonesia cites in this regard a continuous presence of the Dutch and Indonesian navies in the vicinity of Ligitan and Sipadan. It adds that Indonesian fishermen have traditionally used the waters around the islands. In respect of the first of these arguments, it is the opinion of the Court that "it cannot be deduced [from the facts relied upon in the present proceedings] that the naval authorities concerned considered Ligitan and Sipadan and the surrounding waters to be under the sovereignty of the Netherlands or Indonesia". As for the second argument, the Court considers that "activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority". Having rejected Indonesia's arguments based on its effectivités, the Court turns to consideration of the effectivités relied on by Malaysia. As evidence of its effective administration of the islands, Malaysia cites inter alia the measures taken by the North Borneo authorities to regulate and control the collecting of turtle eggs on Ligitan and Sipadan, an activity of some economic significance in the area at the time. It relies on the Turtle Preservation Ordinance of 1917 and maintains that the Ordinance "was applied until the 1950s at least" in the area of the two disputed islands. It further invokes the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in 1962 and another on Ligitan in 1963, that those lighthouses exist to this day and that they have been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence. The Court notes that "the activities relied upon by Malaysia ... are modest in number but ... they are diverse in character and include legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts. They cover a considerable period of time and show a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands". The Court further states that "at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".

The Court concludes, on the basis of the effectivités referred to above, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia".

There are many cases, which can be quoted. But the need here is to stress that India must revoke the Katcha Theevu agreement with Srilanka since it was imposed during emergency and take it to the International Court of Justice to establish India's right over this island. Also As per clause 76 of the International Law of Seas 1982 " The coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the same extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the base lines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured on sub marine ridges. The continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured." Inview of this clause there is a necessity to redraw the territorial waters between India and Srilanka. So we have compulsions as per UN obligations to carve out our Exclusive Economic Zone, and while such opportunity is at our doorstep we must reopen the Katcha theevu issue with Srilanka and get it back.

Tamil Nadu assembly had passed many resolutions demanding the retrieval of Katcha Theevu, and the Miss J.Jayalalitha in a sudden reversal of assembly demand had favoured for taking Katcha theevu on lease.

The lives of 1000 fishermen is lost because of this agreement to barter Katcha theevu and it is time that we claim compensation from Srilanka for the lives lost apart from staking our rights to regain Katcha Theevu.

REGAIN KACTCHATIVU ISLANDS

Dravida Peravai sent a Memorandum to the Union Minister of External Affairs Mr.Jaswant Singh on 31.07.2000. Personally memorandum was given to the Union Defense Minister George Fernandes. The memorandum in booklet form containing English and Hindi versions were given, mailed, sent to almost all Members of Parliament in India. The memorandum in verbatim is given below;

Subject: Plea to uphold Indian interests in Exclusive Economiv Zone of the Oceans and urgent need to place our claims to demarcate our zone before United Nations Organizations in accordance with the International Law of Seas 1982 regarding...

In a long drawn process through four conventions covering high seas, territorial seas, continental shelf and living marine resources which began in 1958, United Nations Organization had strived to evolve consensus which ended in U.N.O mooting out International Law of Seas 1982. It was ratified by India in 1995.

This Law is a boon to Indian maritime trade, Indian seafood exports, Indian mid-sea oil exploration and more particularly to our Indian fishermen and it is rather unfortunate that Indian Government is making inordinate delays in presenting its case before U.N.O. Though time is still left till 2005, in the interests of boosting Indian economy without wasting a single minute, it is essential, Dravida Peravai urges our government to stake our claim for demarcating our Exclusive Economic Zone.

As per article76 of the International Law of Seas 1982 " The coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the same extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. On the submarine ridges, the continental shelf's outer limit shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the sea is measured."

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PROVISION INDIA IS LIKELY TO GAIN 7 to 9 LAKH SQUARE KILOMETERS. It will not be out of context to invoke the comments of Late Ram Manohar Lohia and our beloved Comrade George Fernandes on the loss of more than 1 lakh square kilometers to our neighbours. This loss can be made good if timely steps are taken to press for our rightful boundaries under the Exclusive Economic Zone.

As a party of the Dravidian Movement we are interested in the revoking of the treaty granting our Kachchativu islands to Srilanka. If the NEW EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE COMES INTO OPERATION INDIA AND SRILANKA HAVE TO FRESHLY DEMARCATE THEIR ZONES. And by natural application of Article 76 of the International Law of Seas India will have to regain Kachchativu.This will also put an end to indiscriminate killing of our Indian fishermen.

(Then the Parliamentary debate of 1974 was quoted verbatim)

We have reproduced the debate with the sole purpose to help the present Government and Parliamentarians gain insight about the views of Thiru.Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Kachchativu.

The External Affairs Minister of the day had agreed that bartering away of Kachchativu is inter linked to the demarcation of our maritime boundary. Now that the time has come in view of the necessity to redraw our maritime boundary Dravida Peravai urges the Union Government

1. To reopen the deplorable agreement signed bypassing the Indian Parliament and without consulting the Tamil Nadu Government. An agreement that intensified the plight of Indian fishermen who fall a prey to the bullets of Srilankan navy in view of the ambiguity prevalent in its definition of our territorial waters.

2.The so called rights of Indian fishermen were never honoured and the Government of India must place a white paper in Indian Parliament on the merciless shootings and killings of fishermen by Srilankan side violating this agreement.

3. The new boundaries as per International Law of Seas 1982 must be redrawn and India should take care to get back Vaalideep, i.e.Kachchativu as called by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as an island where legendary Rama and Vaali fought.

4. Without wasting time Indian Government must stake its claim before United Nations for demarcating our territorial waters.

Dravida Kazhagam General Secretary Dr.K.Veeramani visited Dravida Peravai party office on 18.11.2000 in connection with a meeting of his party. To him Kachchativu issue was brought to notice.

He in a hand written note had said that Dravida Kazhagam had filed a Writ Petition at High Court of Madras.

GO TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE TO RECLAIM KACHCHATIVU

Dravida Peravai Memorandum to Union Defence Minister on 23.09.2003

The Tamil bi weekly in its issue dated 24.12.2003 said "VAJPAYEE WHO FORGOT VAALIDEEP".