However, as a goodwill gesture,

 However, as a goodwill gesture, India may permit licensed boats to fish there for three years. After this period, Sri Lankan fishing boats are prohibited from fishing in the Wadge Bank area.

3. Sri Lankan fishing boats must accept the fees and conditions imposed by India for this purpose. 4. If India intends to explore the Wadge Bank area for petroleum or other minerals, Sri Lanka will be informed. Sri Lankan boats must cease coming to the area on the date specified by India. 5. Since Sri Lankan boats are prohibited from fishing in the Wadge Bank area, India will assist Sri Lanka in creating new fishing zones, as stated in the letter. W.T. Jayasinghe wrote a reply letter accepting these terms. Under this agreement, the Wadge Bank area was acquired by India. However, this brought neither eligibility nor profit to India. The Wadge Bank, also known as Ravanan Medu or Kumari Medu, is a resource-rich bank where large trawlers harvest abundant marine life. Four large trawlers from Colombo continuously fished in that bank. In 1973, Balasubramanian, a senior official from Tamil Nadu at the Indian Embassy in Colombo, met his friend Kanthalagam Sacchithananda and obtained all details regarding fishing in Ravanan Medu or Kumari Medu. At that time, Sacchithananda was a scientific researcher at the Colombo Fisheries Research Institute. The library of the Colombo Fisheries Research Institute contained research papers and project reports with statistical data on Wadge Bank fishery, which are still available there today and accessible to everyone. Those details were useful to the Indian government at the time. Even today, trawlers from Colombo, Negombo, and Panadura come to Ravanan Medu, known as Kumari Medu, to fish. Kanyakumari fishermen are witnesses to this, yet they show no concern. In Tamil Nadu, Erode Nallasivan, a Socialist Party MLA at the time, strongly opposed this. Jana Krishnamoorthy (BJP) filed a case in the Chennai High Court regarding this, and Nedumaran and I provided him with all the data we had. Vajpayee instructed to file the case. At that time, the establishment Congress, Swatantra, Communist parties, Abdul Samad’s Muslim League, and Forward Bloc opposed handing over Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka. Indira Congress and its leader Ramaiah also opposed it. However, Bhaktavatsalam and C. Subramaniam supported giving Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka. In the first agreement, fishing rights allowed Tamil Nadu fishermen to go up to Katchatheevu, but these provisions were removed in the second agreement, which was a deceitful act. The Union Minister stated that over 20 years, 6,184 fishermen were arrested, and 1,175 boats were seized. He did not mention the deaths of fishermen due to shootings. This should be accounted for from 1963. Beyond negotiations and filing cases in international courts, considering China-U.S. dominance, India could even wage war to reclaim Katchatheevu. Diplomatically and geopolitically, this would not be wrong. Precedents exist in cases at The Hague’s International Court, where judgments have been delivered. If we consider the impact on Indian fishermen since 1964, the numbers would be double. There is ample evidence to claim Katchatheevu belongs to India. The arguments are strong and well-armed. What Prime Minister Modi and External Affairs Minister Jaishankar said is true. Tamil Nadu fishermen face daily distress due to actions by the Sri Lankan Navy, as reported in newspapers. Fishermen have been attacked multiple times. During Karunanidhi’s rule, the agreements signed on 22.6.1974 and during the Emergency on 23.1.1976 were made without considering the welfare of Tamils, leading to numerous complications. Over 115 attacks by the Sri Lankan Navy have resulted in the deaths of 300 Tamil Nadu fishermen, and many boats have been attacked and destroyed. Tamil Nadu fishermen have been severely affected. Even the right to attend the St. Anthony’s Church