1996 :DRAVIDA PERAVAI TO UNION HOME MINISTER ON TAMILNADU ENCLAVES WITHIN PONDICHERRY

15 YEARS AGO DRAVIDA PERAVAI SYMPOSIUM ON HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

வாஜ்பாய் மூட்டுவலிக்கு புதுவை சித்த மருத்துவரின் தைலம் ;2003

21.03.2003 BRAZIL PANNEERSELVAM SPOKE IN PONDICHERRY

BEFORE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR LAW OF SEA IN 2009 DRAVIDA PERAVAI

THE REGISTRAR

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF SEA

Am Internationalen Seegerichtshof 1

22609- HAMBURG

GERMANY

Before the Respected Judges of the Tribunal

Subject: Action against Srilanka for killings of hundreds of Indian Tamil fishermen and compensation sought for lives lost in genocide beyond borders, and the redrawing of the maritime borders to protect the fishing rights of Indians regarding...

The maritime belt of the coastal India was based on the canon shot principle till 1956.Jurist Bynkershoek laid the foundation for this rule, when he enunciated that the breadth of maritime belt extends to the distance where a canon can fire i.e. 3 miles of maritime belt. This principle based on canons that were in usage in eighteenth century existed till twentieth century. The Hague Conference of 1930 which tried to extend the maritime belt did not yield results and hence Conference on Law of Sea at Geneva attempted to revise the breadth of maritime belt. India which was following this 3 mile maritime belt for centuries till 1956 extended the maritime belt by 6 miles through Presidential Proclamation. In the year 1967 it was extended to 12 miles.

Subsequently Indian Representative at UN Dr.Pannikkar made a statement before the Sub-Committee of the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and Ocean Floor beyond the limits of National jurisdiction on 17^th August 1971, wherein  [ Ref :UN Doc.A/C 1331] for extending the maritime belt in view of the discovery that Indian territorial waters contained huge quantities of thorium.

We Indian citizens, who rediscover the past, are baffled at the statement tabled in Indian Parliament on July 23 1974 by then Indian External Affairs Minister Mr.Swaran Singh [Lok sabha debates cols 186-201] for Re-Agreement between India and Srilanka on boundary in historic waters between the two countries and related matters. India must be aware what its own representative sought before UN Sub-committee on the need to extend its maritime belt in view of thorium find in Indian territorial waters.

When we had national interest to extend our maritime belt, only a nincompoop would opt for an agreement that will hand over Indian island of Katcha Theevu to Srilanka by way of this agreement.

We would like to remind that one Member of Indian Parliament, speaking on the floor of the house on 23^rd July 1974 raised a point or order. Mr.P.K.Deo, Member from Kalahandi of Indian State of Orissa said “Nowhere the Indian Constitution provide for cession of even an inch of Indian Territory. All the Revenue records of Madras Government, a state of India, corroborate that Katcha Theevu was part of former Ramnad zamindary and an integral part of this country. So under no circumstances the Government has got any power under the Indian Constitution to cede even an inch of our country. A few days back the Coco islands which is part of Andaman group of islands belonging to India was ceded to Burma. Now it is Katcha Theevu. It is utter contempt and disrespect shown to the House [Indian Parliament] by not taking the house into confidence and facing us with a fait accompli”

After fixing the maritime belt in 1967, India realized the need to protect every inch of our territorial waters in view of finds of precious metals within our waters, yet it conceded Katcha Theevu to Srilanka. But in 1976, Article 297 of Constitution of India was amended for fortieth time “ All lands, minerals, and other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial waters or the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zones of India shall be such as may be specified from time to time, by or any law made by the Parliament.”

In 1976 again Indian Parliament passed The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act 1976. The act fixed the limit of territorial waters as the line every point of which is at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of appropriate baseline.”

In his book entitled: Conflict Over Fisheries In the Palk Bay Region (Lancer, New Delhi, 2005) Prof V Suryanarayan says that it is very important for India to find ways for fishermen from Tamil Nadu to fish in Palk Bay/Palk Strait (up to 5 nautical miles from the north Sri Lankan coast) and around Katcha Theevu, because this is a traditional right as well as an economic necessity. According to him, a grave injustice was done to Tamil Nadu fishermen in 1974, when New Delhi decided to give in to the Sri Lankan government's contention that Katcha Theevu was part of Sri Lanka, and agreed to draw the maritime boundary line in a such a way that the island was included in the Sri Lankan side.

New Delhi had callously overlooked the fact that Katcha Theevu had been part of an Indian "Zamindari" and that Indian fishermen had, from time immemorial, fished in the waters around it, Suryanarayan says. The area around the island and beyond, nearer the Sri Lankan coast, is rich in prawns, and prawns are the main source of income for these fishermen since 1969. The annual fish production in the Palk Bay region is 85,000 tones today. Over a 100 fishermen have been killed, and catch and equipment worth millions of rupees, have been lost in the process. But the fishermen are undaunted. Although the Art 73 of the UN Law of the Sea prohibits shooting of straying fishermen, the Sri Lankan Navy had been quite trigger- happy. The Government of India could do little to stop it.

He argues that Art 5 of the 1974 maritime boundary agreement, read with statements of Indian ministers in parliament, gives Indian fishermen the right to fish around Katcha Theevu.

Given the deaths and the political fallout in Tamil Nadu, a State of India in 1991, the state Chief Minister, J Jayalalitha, called for the "retrieval" of Katcha Theevu from Sri Lanka. His suggestion is to take the island on "lease in perpetuity." In this case, sovereignty over the island will rest with Sri Lanka, but India will get the right to use the island and the waters around it. Suryanarayan recalls that in 1974, India gave Bangladesh Tin Bigha on such a lease, to settle the vexed question of access to enclaves in each other's territories. Why this cannot be replicated in the Indo-Sri Lankan case, he wonders. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa took the cue, and in 1994, asked the Central government to get the island on perpetual lease. She reiterated this demand in 2004 in a letter to the Indian Prime Minister.

 A country of India's size and resources should not only assess the dangers emanating from a changing strategic environment but, it should also zealously safeguard autonomy in decision making. The recently published Indian Maritime Doctrine highlights not only the importance of the control of the seas but also the necessity to deny its use to the adversary

Licensed Indian fishing in Palk Bay region

Suryanarayan strongly urges that India gets Sri Lanka to give in to its demand for licensed Indian fishing in Sri Lankan waters in the Palk Bay/Palk Strait area. He notices that in 2003, Sri Lanka had agreed to consider such a proposal mooted by India at the Prime Ministerial level. This is a "window of opportunity which India should exploit", he says.

To buttress its case, India can point out that in the 1976 maritime boundary agreement, it had unilaterally offered Sri Lanka, licensed fishing for three years in the Wadge Bank area, the experts says. Sri Lankan Tamil fishermen from Jaffna and Mannar are indeed opposed to poaching by Indian fishermen, but they have been practical enough to accommodate it with some conditions. A recent agreement allowed Indian fishermen to fish as close to 3 nautical miles from the North Western coast and 7 nautical miles from the Northern coast, provided the Indians did not use trawlers. Trawling, which sweeps the bottom of the sea, is what the Sri Lankan fishermen are really bothered about, not the traditional fishing methods.

The fishermen of the two sides seem to want to share the marine resources in the restricted Palk Bay area. Why can't the governments of India and Sri Lanka follow suit? Suryanarayan wonders. He is acutely aware that the Sri Lankan Establishment, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Fisheries, is against licensed Indian fishing despite the 2003 offer. In 2003, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was going out of the way to accommodate India and the offer was part of the mood of the time. But the mood had not percolated to officialdom and the rest of political system.

In her Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, Ms. Jayalalitha has appealed to the Supreme Court of India for an appropriate writ order or directive for declaring as unconstitutional the two agreements signed between India and Sri Lanka in 1974 and in 1976, under which the island of Katcha Theevu was ceded to Sri Lanka and the traditional fishing rights of Indian fishermen were given up. She has appealed for a directive to the Union of India to take appropriate steps for retrieving the island or alternately to take steps to obtain or regain the right of access to Katcha Theevu and right to engage in fishing around the island. She has also appealed for a directive to the Union of India to protect the lives and livelihood of Indian fishermen who regularly fish around the island. 

While researching on the subject, we had to face severe limitations. All documents relating to the Zamindari rights of the Raja of Ramand have been taken away to New Delhi and are kept behind the stonewalls of secrecy. However, there are number of secondary sources to prove, without an iota of doubt, that the island was a part of the Zamindari of the Raja of Ramand. The East India Company and the British Government upheld these claims. And when Zamindari was abolished after independence, the revenue jurisdiction came to Madras province. 

New Delhi did not dispute the Zamindari rights of the Raja of Ramand, but it was not certain that the Zamindari rights conferred sovereignty.  No one claimed that Zamindar was sovereign, but what must be highlighted is the fact that the sovereign had delegated the powers of collecting the revenue to the Zamindar. Once the Zamindari was abolished, all rights reverted to the Government. New Delhi’s argument is tantamount to questioning Indian unity. It must be remembered that on the eve of independence, large parts of India were under Zamindari system. In the nine provinces of British India, the Zamindari system covered 57 per cent of the area, the Ryotwari system covered 37 per cent and the Mahalwari system 5 per cent. If New Delhi’s (and Colombo’s) argument is accepted, the very existence of India as a united country will be at stake. 

A few other relevant points must be highlighted. If any Indian territory is to be ceded to a foreign power, the Constitution needs to be amended. In order to avoid such a contingency, New Delhi adopted the stance that Katcha Theevu was a “disputed territory”.  Indira Gandhi sought legal opinion whether India had historical claims on the island, but the opinion was not unanimous. While Niren De, then Attorney General was of the view that “on balance, the sovereignty over Katcha Theevu was and is with Sri Lanka”, MC Setalvad, former Attorney General, upheld India’s claims. Adding insult to injury, the principles of equi-distance and median line, the fundamental principles of delimitation of maritime boundaries, was not adhered to in the case of Katcha Theevu.  According to SP Jagota, then Director of the Legal and Treaties Division, “the boundary line between India and Sri Lanka followed the median line except as adjusted in the Palk Bay in relation to the settlement on the question of the Island of Katcha Theevu”   

And a careful reading of Articles 5 and 6 of the 1974 Agreement, in conjunction with Indian External Affair Minister Swaran Singh’s clarification in Lok Sabha, clearly reveal that Indian fishermen continued to enjoy these rights in and around Katcha Theevu. But unfortunately these rights were bartered away by the 1976 Agreement, that too when India was under emergency clamped to freeze democracy.

It is surprising that no Government in  Indian State of Tamil Nadu have thought it fit to challenge the cession in the Supreme Court as the Government of West Bengal did at the time of the proposed transfer of Berubari to East Pakistan. Can they do so now after the lapse of 34 years?  It is possible that they may apprehend the law of limitation, but the time limit of 30 years, prescribed by Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a suit in the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. The matter can be argued whether Katcha Theevu had always been a disputed territory or it was a part of India or a no man’s island.

If the State Government in India is unable or unwilling to move the Supreme Court, it is open for a concerned citizen to seek judicial remedy through public interest litigation. The question will also arise whether the two international agreements, a matter relating to Public International Law, can be questioned in a Municipal Court. The answer is clear. No treaty can override the Constitution of India, which is the supreme law of the land.

But this issue could not be settled by the Supreme Court of India. The Srilankan Government is on record in its Parliament that:

However, a decision given by a Court of law in a jurisdiction outside Sri Lanka would not be binding on Sri Lanka. Any such Court Order or judgment will not alter or have an impact on a bilateral treaty concluded between two sovereign States. 

Hence our petition to the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea is mailed today as last resort. Since all avenues to settle the maritime boundary and fishing rights of Indian Tamil fishermen are exhausted bilaterally and through legal framework of India, we are seeking justice from International Tribunal of the Law of Seas.

Indian fishermen are getting killed by Srilankan navy over years without any provocation just because of their ethnicity. These Indian citizens are neither terrorists nor freedom fighters seeking a homeland for Tamils. For thousands of years they have been fishing in the Bay of Bengal and Indian ocean, and not even colonial powers venture to kill them. Srilanka which tries to escape its Tamil genocide hiding behind India, can neither justify its killings of Indian Tamils nor India can too long hide the skeletons it its cupboards. The time for humanity to ask India, why you tolerated the killings of your own citizens for decades had come. If stray violence erupts in Australia Indian Prime Minister acts fast. If it is Mumbai blasts his government gathers momentum, but when it comes to periodical killings of Indian citizens by Srilanka, India freezes into slumber, and this prejudice against Tamils should change, civilized democracies in UN must advice India. Having waited for India to protect the interests of Indian Tamil fishermen’s fishing rights, we had to knock global institutions to secure justice and compensation for Indian citizens from the trigger happy Srilankan Government.

The global efforts led to the Convention of the Law of the Sea which had been signed and ratified by India on 29^th June 1995 and by Srilanka on 19^th July 1994. After this milestone in international law, there arose a necessity to re-demarcate Indian territorial waters. Dravida Peravai, an Indian political party launched a campaign among the Members of Indian Parliament on the necessity to redraw the maritime belt and to retrieve Katcha Theevu bartered to Srilanka in 1974.

Srilanka had been killing Indian Tamil fishermen for decades in the Palk Straits. It cannot claim right over Indian Territorial waters, or in international waters of Palk Straits in Bay of Bengal. As per International Court of Justice Rep 1951 page 116: “The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, Court observed that the states are not completely free in respect of delimitation of territorial waters with regards to other states .The delimitation of Sea areas has always been an international aspect, it cannot merely be dependent on the will of the coastal state as expected in its municipal laws. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act because only the coastal state is competent to undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regards to other states depends upon international law.

The Palk Strait is a strait that lies between the Tamil Nadu state of India and the island nation of Sri Lanka. It connects the Bay of Bengal to the northeast with the Gulf of Mannar to the south. The strait is 40 to 85 miles (64-137 km) wide. The strait is named after Robert Palk, who was a Governor of Madras Presidency (1755-1763) during the British Raj period. Srilanka is not free to delimit its territorial waters and it is bound by international law, as per the judgment in The Anglo Norwegian case in the International Court of Justice.

The question of delimitation of Sea between states with opposite or adjacent states as prescribed in Article 15 of the Convention on the Law of Sea states: “where the coasts of two states are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two states is entitled failing agreement between them to contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the meridian line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest point of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two states is to be measured. The above position does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason or historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two states in a way which is at variance therewith.’

A] Srilanka had been unilaterally delimiting its territorial waters. The faux pas committed by India in handing over Indian island of Katcha Theevu had created more confusion. Further India has many islands belonging to its territory in the Gulf of Mannar. The Gulf of Mannar has a chain of 20 islands located between 8 º 48' N, 78 º 9' E and 9 º 14' N, 79 º 14' E on the southwest coast of India. All islands in the Gulf of Mannar have fringing reefs. In addition, there is a 8 km long reef in the Palk Bay adjacent to the Gulf of Mannar, as well as patching coral formation in the passage (Adam's Bridge) between India and Sri Lanka.The Gulf of Mannar is particularly important for Green turtle and sea cow population, both of which depend on the large sea grass beds particularly around Musal, Appa and Balayamunai islands. Olive Ridley turtle is also occasionally found in this area. The pro-chordate Balanoglossus is found in the northern reefs. Mangroves are found on all islands and are particularly extensive in the Mandapam group. Most of the islands have no freshwater and are therefore uninhabited. The most productive chank and pearl oyster beds in India are found near Tuticorin and Kilakarai. The Windowpane oyster Placuna placenta is also found in the same area. Large quantities of molluscan shells for the ornamental trade are collected in this area. Recently, native people of this area have begun developing tourism also.

The delimitation of Indian territorial waters or Srilankan territorial waters had not taken into account these islands that belong to India. Hence we urge the International Tribunal on Law of the Sea to go for rational delimitation of the territorial waters of both countries. In case Srilankan state refuses to abide by such delimitation, we urge India to take the issue before International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice on 15^th March 2001 in the Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial questions Quatar and Bahrain had cited Article 15 and also pointed out that it is virtually identical to Article 12 paragraph 1 of the 1958 Convention of the Territorial Sea. The Court said that the contiguous zone is to be regarded as having customary character. It often referred to the equal-distance/ special circumstances rule. India had forgotten to restrain Srilanka from its unprovoked killing of hundreds of Indian Tamil fishermen, in view of the ambiguity over territorial waters.

Katcha Theevu is 17 kilometers from Indian town of Rameswaram. It comes under the contiguous zone even if 12 nautical miles is accepted as territorial waters from the coast. But Katcha Theevu had been an Indian Territory for centuries. It was one among the 8 islands belonging to the Tamil Kingdom of Ramnad. As per the copper plate inscriptions unearthed as archaeological findings of 1531 it was in the possession of Sethupathy Kings who ruled Indian state of Ramnad. The Sea between India and Srilanka is even today known as Sethu Samudram, which means the Seas of Sethupathy kings. This toponomical evidence also proves it to be Indian Territory. The East India Company of the Britain had obtained this Katcha Theevu Island on lease in 1822 from the Sethupathy King. In 1880 one Abdul Kader of Kilakkarai, a village in Tamilnadu state of India had obtained on lease Katcha Theevu, Kuthukaal Tivu, and Mannali tivu from the District Collector of Ramnad, under Madras Presidency of India. In 1913 The Government of Madras Presidency had obtained lease of Katcha Theevu from the King Sethupathy of the Princely State of Ramnad, and had given fishing rights to fishermen of Madras Presidency.

In 1947 one Mr.Mohammed had taken lease of the island of Katcha Theevu which was registered in the Sub-Registrar’s office of Indian town of Rameswaram [Ref: Reg.No. 278/1948. After India attained independence the Indian State of Madras by way of Government Order No: 2093 dated 11.8.1949 declared that Katcha Theevu as barren land under Rameswaram revenue village Survey Number: 1250 in an area of 285 acres and 20 cents. Thus for centuries   Katcha Theevu was under the Princely state of Ramnad in British India, and under Government of Madras in Independent India.

Srilanka clandestinely sent it troops to that uninhabited island in 1955, for training their naval personnel. There was uproar in Indian Parliament. But Srilanka went on claiming rights over that Indian Territory. In 1974 India conceded that territory to Srilanka through an agreement which India claimed will protect the fishing rights of Indian Tamil fishermen and the right to worship the lone church that was built in 1939. Srilanka misinterpreted the agreement by saying the Indian Tamil fishermen have rights only to dry their nets in the island and Indian Tamil citizens have no right to fishing. Using this misinterpretation, Srilanka till date goes on killing spree of Indian Tamil fishermen.

 Hence we Indian Tamils are urging our Government and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea to redefine our territorial waters to protect the lives of Indian Tamil citizens of India. Srilanka in its madness to ethnic cleanse Tamils of its soil indulges in cross border terrorism to annihilate Indian Tamil fishermen.

We urge the International Tribunal on the Law of Seas to order for:

A] scrapping the Indo—Srilankan agreement on Katcha Theevu signed in 1974.

B] re-demarcating the territorial waters of India, not only taking into account the landmass of the Southern mainland of India  facing Bay of Bengal but also the baselines of the 20 islands of India in the Palk Strait, more particularly in the Gulf of Mannar.

C] defining the equal-distance not from mainland but various points from these 20 islands.

D] ensuring the traditional and historical fishing rights of Indian Tamil fishermen in India’s territorial waters, contiguous areas, and right to enjoy the freedom of seas in international waters.

E] directing the International Criminal Court of Justice to probe the thousand killings of Indian fisherman by Srilankan navy, and to punish the naval authorities and the Srilankan President Mahinda Rajapakshe for the genocide of Indians who were not demanding independent nation, but were in India for centuries enjoying the freedom of seas and pursuing fishing profession in peace.

F] directing the Srilankan Government to pay damages and compensation to all lives killed by Srilankan navy since 1974 to 2009.

Geographic Location of Tamil Nadu:

          Tamil Nadu the Southern most state in India has a geographical extent of 1, 30,058km². It is flanked by Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in the north and North West, the Indian Ocean in the south, Kerala in the west and Bay of Bengal in the east. It is located between 8° 00'-13° 30'N latitude and 76° 15'-80° 18'E Longitudes. Physiographic ally the state can be divided into two broad divisions as the eastern coastal plains and the hills of north and east, which is endowed with a varied coastal habitats like mangroves, corals, seaweeds, sea grass beds, salt marshes, mudflats, sand dunes etc. Tamil Nadu coast is the longest coastline (1076km) in the East Coast of India. Ports, fishing harbors and a variety of coastal industries like nuclear and thermal power plants, refineries, fertilizers and marine chemicals are situated on the coast of Tamil Nadu. Chennai, the capital of Tamil Nadu, is an important coastal city of India having major ports and many industries.

          The state has a number of rivers, estuaries and lagoons. The rivers flow west to east towards the Bay of Bengal. Some of the important rivers are Kaveri, Vaigai, Tampraparni, Periyar, and Pennar. The River Kaveri is the major estuary in Tamil Nadu and the minor estuaries include Vellar, Pazhayar, and Adyar etc. The lagoons are Pulicat Lake (South) and Muthupettai. The state has a maximum temperature of 43° C and a minimum temperature of 18° C. The monsoon season is usually during October to December. Tamil Nadu is well developed in communications, a wide network of national and state highways as well as railway lines serve the state.

                                                                                        

The area of 560 sq.km encompassing 21 uninhabited islands, surrounding coral reef areas and shallow water habitat is found to be the nursery ground for many of the organisms living in Gulf of Mannar and hence declared as Marine National Park in 1986. The 21 islands along the coast between Rameshwaram and Tuticorin as four groups:

1 .Mandapam Group (7 islands): Musal, Manoli, Manoliputti, Poomarichan, Pullivasal, Krusadai and Shingle.

2. Keezhakkarai Group (7 islands): Yaanaipar, Vallimunai, Poovarasanputti, Appa,Thalaiyari, Vaalai and Mulli.

3. Vembar Group (3 islands): Upputhanni, Pulivinichalli and Nallathanni.

4. Thoothukudi Group (4 islands): Vaan, Koswari, Kariyachalli and Velanguchalli.     

Declare Srilanka as Terrorist State

American President Obama

Declare Srilanka as Terrorist State    

   

“KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP, from India urges the President of United States of America Mr.Barack.H.Obama to declare Srilanka as terrorist state. Srilankan state sponsors terrorism against its own Tamil civilian population, which they claim as fight against freedom fighters and its own journalists, opposition leaders and even their kinsmen with conscience for human dignity.  But in no way Srilanka can justify its terrorist attacks on Indian Tamil fishermen. Our fishermen over centuries have been pursuing their professional pursuits like free birds, and these Indian Tamils are at the receiving end of Srilankan State sponsored terrorism in mid-seas pursuing their genocide beyond borders. This is cross border terrorism. "

 19th Feb.2009

President Mr.Barack H.Obama                                                             

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington DC 20520

Respected President

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP, from India urges the President of United States of America Mr.Barack.H.Obama to declare Srilanka as terrorist state. Srilankan state sponsors terrorism against its own Tamil civilian population, which they claim as fight against freedom fighters and its own journalists, opposition leaders and even their kinsmen with conscience for human dignity.

But in no way Srilanka can justify its terrorist attacks on Indian Tamil fishermen. Our fishermen over centuries have been pursuing their professional pursuits like free birds, and these Indian Tamils are at the receiving end of Srilankan State sponsored terrorism in mid-seas pursuing their genocide beyond borders. This is cross border terrorism.

We all know that "State Sponsors of Terrorism" is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to nations who are designated by the Secretary of State "to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

The list began on December 29, 1979 with Libya, Iraq, South Yemen, Syria and Pakistan and now only first 4 are in current list, excluding Pakistan.

The sanctions which the US imposes on countries on the list are: State Sponsors of Terrorism Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors.

Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. The dates of declaration given in the list. Cuba March 1, 1982, Iran January 19, 1984, Sudan, August 12, 1993, Syria December 29, 1979.

On Feb 7 of 2009: The spokesman for India’s ruling Congress party Mr.Manish Tiwari called on the international community to consider declaring Pakistan a terrorist state in the wake of the release of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. “The world should now think whether to declare Pakistan a terrorist state,” Manish Tewari, the party’s spokesman, said in New Delhi. By linking his call to the release of Dr A. Q. Khan, the spokesman ensured that his words were not missed during next week’s visit to the region by US special representative Richard Holbrooke.“Pakistan is not only exporting terrorism, but also posing danger by allowing nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists,” Mr. Tewari told journalists. In separate comments, Gen Deepak Kapoor, the chief of the Indian Army, said the “terror infrastructure in Pakistan is existing and active”. Braving chilly winter agitated Indian Americans gathered in front of the UN headquarters in mid-town Manhattan recently to demand the world body declare Pakistan a terrorist state. Raising anti-Pakistan slogans and displaying banners and placards denouncing the Mumbai terror outrage, Indian Americans alleged that almost all the major terrorists attacks of the world in recent years have their bases in Pakistan. As such it was high time the United Nations, the powerful Security Council in particular, takes measure to declare it as a terrorist state. The peaceful demonstration, which lasted for about two hours, was organized by Overseas Friends of BJP (OFBJP). "Pakistan should immediately be declared as a terrorist State," said Rajesh Shukla of the OFBJP. In a memorandum submitted to the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, the OFBJP urged him to take necessary action to ensure that terrorists from Pakistan do not strike again. "We urge the Security Council to immediately pass a resolution in this regard," the memorandum said.

Taking cue from the initiatives of both the ruling party and opposition party of India, we are now raising the demand to declare Srilankan state as terrorist state by USA and UN and urge the leadership of USA to use its clout in Security Council to impose sanctions on Srilankan Government. The public interview of Srilankan President Mahinda Rajapakshe that he will defy UN and UN has no locus standi to intervene in Srilanka, while it executes Tamils, annihilates Tamils, engage number plate-less white van attacks on its adversaries and media men in broad daylight amidst high security zones, proves that Srilanka is a Terrorist State and need to be branded so by USA and UN with imposition of sanctions.

We urge The USA President Mr.Barack H.Obama, whom 21st century sees not only a leader of a biggest democracy but a new hope, a redeemer, a savior of all oppressed, racially discriminated people in the world, where Tamils are the target of this century like Jews were the targets in 20th century, to declare Srilanka as terrorist state and impose sanction like the ones relevant in USA.

1. A ban on arms-related exports and sales.

2. Controls over exports of dual-use items, requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods or services that could significantly enhance the terrorist-list country's military capability or ability to support terrorism.

3. Prohibitions on economic assistance.

4. Imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions, including:

Requiring the United States to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions; Lifting diplomatic immunity to allow families of terrorist victims to file civil lawsuits in U.S. courts; Denying companies and individuals tax credits for income earned in terrorist-listed countries; Denial of duty-free treatment of goods exported to the United States; Authority to prohibit any U.S. citizen from engaging in a financial transaction with a terrorist-list government without a Treasury Department license; and Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by terrorist-list states are actions, which in whole or anyone appropriate should be imposed on Srilanka, particularly USA must stop Israel and Pakistan supplying arms to Srilankan army and through UN urge other nations including China to stop arms supply to the killer squads called army of Srilanka.

We have been urging Indian Government to sue the Srilankan Government in the International Court of Justice.  Only States are eligible to appear before the Court in contentious cases.  At present, this basically means the 192 United Nations Member States.  We are aware that The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity. However, a State may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter; the dispute then becomes one between States. We are urging India to take the Katcha Theevu maritime boundary dispute to International Court of Justice.

Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned.  Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that “each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”. Judgments are final and without appeal.  If either of the parties challenges their scope or meaning, it has the option to request an interpretation.  In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment. As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not by whatever means are appropriate for them.

 We bring to the notice of Indian Government about some of the recent cases before the International Court of Justice such as Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) - Judgment of 3 February 2009. 18/12/2008 - Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Though with regards to maritime dispute we can urge Indian Government, for the Srilankan State sponsored attacks on Indian Tamils in international waters, we have to urge only the Members of the Security Council and UNO to brand Srilanka as terrorist state and to impose sanctions on it for violating UN directives.

Indian political parties in power in the State of Tamilnadu again and again raised the issue of Indian Tamils right to living and fishing. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi asked then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, to take up with the Sri Lankan authorities the issue of hardships faced by Indian fishermen in enjoying their traditional fishing rights in the waters around Katcha Theevu Island, The Hindu, newspaper report said. In his meeting with the Prime Minister Mr.Karunanidhi said Indian fishermen had the right to fish in the waters around Katcha Theevu Island as per the Indira Gandhi-Srimavo Bandaranaiake settlement of 1974. 

Monday, 21 July 2008  Inaugurating a fast against killing of Tamil fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said on Saturday that Katchatheevu was ceded to Sri Lanka, brushing aside the objection raised by the DMK government in 1974, as reported by The Hindu. Mr. Karunanidhi said though the 1974 agreement between India and Sri Lanka included the rights of the Tamil fishermen to fish in and around Katcha theevu, to pray in the church and to dry the nets, they were taken away when the Emergency was declared in the country. After the DMK government was dismissed, correspondence between Sri Lanka and India led to the rights of Tamil fishermen being deprived in 1976. 

In Indian State of Tamilnadu Opposition leader and AIADMK General Secretary J Jayalalithaa had moved the Supreme Court to retrieve the Katchatheevu Islet from Sri Lanka. The killing of Tamil fishermen, allegedly by the Lankan Navy, on July 9 and 12 had set off a wave of protests in the coastal districts coupled with the demand to retrieve the islet which witnessed a number of shootings at fishermen from the state as well. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, territorial waters means the area from the baseline on the coast to 12 nautical miles into the sea, Jayalalithaa said, adding that as per this definition, the 285-acre, uninhabited Katchatheevu islet, lying at a distance of 11 nautical miles from Ramanathapuram, fell within Indian waters.

Sept 12 2008 Sri Lankan Foreign Affairs Minister Rohitha Bogollagama has said “Katchatheevu is a matter settled. As settled as much as Matara in the south of Sri Lanka to Sri Lanka. That’s how Sri Lanka views Katchatheevu. There is no issue. The fact that Katchatheevu is there in the northern part of Sri Lanka doesn’t mean anything. It is as much as a part of Sri Lanka in every sense of the word, so there is no further discussion needed on that.”

The ruling party of Tamilnadu and Opposition leader of Tamilnadu, a state in Indian Union have voiced concern and are trying to secure the fishing rights of Indian Tamils through representations to Indian Government and Supreme Court of India. These actions apart a reply given by the Indian Government to Indian Member of Parliament Mr. D.Raja National Secretary Communist Party of India, as told by him on January 8th January of 2008 reveals that Indian Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar had written to him stating that as per the agreement the Indian fishermen can only dry their nets and offer prayers at the St Antony's church in the island. "This position is not acceptable," he said and wanted the Centre to renegotiate the issue and arrive at a settlement to restore the rights of Indian fishermen.

Sri Lankan government resorts  to unprovoked firing upon the Indian fishermen, resulting in the loss of lives of fishermen once in few days repeatedly for years together, the Indian government, being a party to the aforesaid agreement, was duty bound to enforce the traditional fishing right of Indian fishermen off the Katchatheevu island.

The Supreme Court of India, in a case relating to the Indo-Pakistan agreement on Berubary Union and exchange of enclaves, ruled that any ceding of Indian Territory to another country resulted in “diminution of the Territory of Indian Union,” and therefore must be endorsed by Parliament through a constitutional amendment as laid down by Article 368. Since no such step was taken by the Indira Gandhi Government or any subsequent Government of India, Dr Manmohan Singh should seriously consider moving the Supreme Court to test the validity of conceding Katcha Theevu to Sri Lanka, the Opposition Leader of Tamilnadu Miss J.Jalalalitha had voiced demand and gone to Supreme Court of India. We are not debating the merits or demerits of a case pending in Indian Courts. We are just narrating the stand of various political parties of India in this regard.

Our prayers to The President is that already Former Attorney General of USA had filed 1000 page charge sheet against two American citizens for committing genocide against Tamils of Eelam who are fighting for a separate homeland.

Bruce Fein, counsel for US-based group Tamils Against Genocide (TAG), recently submitted to United States Attorney General, Mr Eric Holder, the Model Indictment charging U.S. citizen and Sri Lanka's Defense Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and U.S. green card holder and Sri Lanka's Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka, for genocide, war crimes and torture against Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Counsel urged the Department to open a grand jury investigation into the crimes, based on evidence amassed in the three volume 1000-page document which the Counsel said "amply satisfies the Department's threshold for commencing a criminal investigation."

 But Indian Tamil fishermen, more than 1000 people have been killed in mid seas, just because they are Tamils, and this will prove beyond an iota of doubt that Srilanka pursues genocide as its goal. One of the constituents of KUTSG, Dravida Peravai is collecting facts and figures to submit in the same case, to get justice for Indian Tamil lives.

Hence we the the Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group, a non-political peoples movement demanding separate Union Territory status for Karaikal within Unitary Indian state, in view of the economic neglect of the enclave of former French colony Pondicherry ever since its merger with India, are urging you to step in decisively.

It is needless to recall that after African Negroes were liberated from the clutches of slavery, British India only supplied plantation labour to all countries to replace African slaves. When in British Parliament there were protests, the practice ceased in British India.

Instead our Tamil brethren from the then French colony of Pondicherry only slaves were shipped to all Caribbean nations. That curse for Tamils continues even in this century. By genocide Srilankan Government wants to subjugate whole Tamils as slaves in their own homeland.

We hope you will redeem Srilankan Tamils from slavery and write new Profiles in Courage engraving your name in every Tamil heart and history. We only want you to follow the precedent of Franklin D. Roosevelt who brought together other nations to defeat Nazis, who wanted ethnic cleansing of Jews.

It is time you take all steps to stop the genocide of Tamils and save Indian Tamil lives too lost almost once in few days for years together in the mid sea of Bay of Bengal.

With Regards

Yours sincerely

N.Nandhivarman, Hon.President

A.S.T.Ansari Babu, General Secretary.

Ki.Subramanian, Chairman,

V.S.Nallusamy Vice Chairman,

Deputy Secretary Sundarraj.

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP

52, Church Street, Karaikal 609602, India : Tel +091-4368-224599

Hon. President N.Nandhivarman  Chairman .K.Subramanian Vice-Chairman V.S.Nallusamy, General Secretary A.S.T.Ansari Babu Treasurer : S.Radhakrishnan ,Deputy Secretaries : R.Sundarraj, O.S.Uduman, C.Raja , Public Relations Officer: A.A.Rahman, Propaganda Secretary.K.Krishnakumar ,Youth Wing Secretary N.P.Kumanan, Deputy secretaries R.Ayyamperumal, A.Raja Mohammed, T.Dharpareswaran ,Labour Wing Secretary : V.Jyothilingam Agricultural Wing Secretary M.Sheikh Mohammed. Joint Secretary M.Singaravelu, Minority Wing Secretary S.George, Joint Secretary A.Ahamed Maraicar, Organizers: Karaikal North: S.M.Faried, Karaikal South M.I.Samsudeen, Kottucherry: Subha.Sureshrajan Nedungadu: M.Singaravelu, T.R.Pattinam; Karai Jinna, Neravy: T.K.S.M.Kanagasundaram

TO RECLAIM KATCHA THEEVU

GO TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 

TO RECLAIM KATCHA THEEVU

Dravida Peravai Memorandum to Union Defence Minister on 23.09.2003

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 Katcha Theevu, 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 Philippines 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." In view 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.

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