Papers laid on the table

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, put your questions. ...(Interruptions)... Put your questions.

श्री तरुण विजय : सर, मैं आदरणीय मंत्री जी से यही प्रार्थना करूंगा कि वे भारतीयों के सम्मान की रक्षा करें और संबंधों को भी बनाए रखें। मैं उनसे यह जानना चाहूंगा कि भारतीय मछुआरों को जो जीपीएस देने की बात कही गयी थी, वह आप उन्हें देंगे या नहीं?

(समाप्त)

SHRIMATI VASANTHI STANLEY (TAMIL NADU): Sir, our Party DMK, under the leadership of Dr. Kalaignar Karunanidhi, through this august House, has been raising this issue, time and again, writing to the Prime Minister and seeking the Centre’s intervention to end the increasing incidents of detention of Indian fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy. I am really thankful to the two brothers who have brought in this discussion. We have also given our notice on this issue; so, I would like you to give me more time to speak on this issue.

Sir, I just wonder how the hon. Minister, in para 5, says that such incidents of attack have come down, and the Sri Lankan side is saying that there is no incident of harassment or intimidation or attack on Indian fishermen. How has the hon. Minister stated such a thing in his Statement? Sir, the latest news is, nine boats and 65 fishermen from Nagapattinam alone have been taken into custody by the Sri Lankan Navy on 30^th July. To be precise, from July 25th to August 3^rd, Sir, nearly 159 fishermen have been taken into custody by the Sri Lankan Government. More than 200 fishermen are still behind the bars, especially in that, five fishermen have been denied their bailing rights in the last one-and-a-half years. Sir, their bail petitions have been rejected 24 times.

(Contd. by 2j-kls)

KLS/2J-2.15

SHRIMATI VASANTHI STANLEY (CONTD): If this be the condition, how can we say that they are not being harassed and all that? The External Affairs Minister of Sri Lanka has categorically said that Indian fishermen will not be let up. This is despite our Prime Minister's request. He has come to this soil, to our motherland and from the capital he says that our Indian fishermen will be prosecuted. In such a situation, how is it possible to give such a statement from the Sri Lankan side stating that there is no alleged attack having taken place in the Indian waters? There is a national issue, for example, our leader also mentioned about this. The Prime Minister came to this House and spoke very tough to ensure the return of two Italian marines when Italy refused to send them. Will the Government be tough by taking such a stand on the Indian fishermen issue also, Sir? At this juncture, I would like to say one more thing that when situations are like this, when there are more than 200 people not being released and when the Sri Lankan Government has categorically said that they have no idea of releasing them and also when they want to penalize them and prosecute them, is it fair for our country? (Time-bell) Is it fair on the part of India? They have not yet announced whether they are going to participate in the Commonwealth Summit that is scheduled at Sri Lanka. It will definitely be against the sentiments of Tamil people. (Time-bell) Certainly, India should not in any form participate over there. Thank you.

(Ends)

SHRI PRAKASH JAVADEKAR (MAHARASHTRA): Sir, I will not take much of your time. I will put only two specific queries. Sir, I object to the statement and item No.9 where the Minister says that there is need for creating greater awareness among our fishermen to avoid crossing over to Sri Lankan waters. Sir, the whole issue is because of the way you dealt with Kachchatheevu issue. I remember when you did agree on the Kachchatheevu, Atalji raised this issue in Parliament very vociferously and said that this would create a problem for everyday life and would also create problems for fishermen. That is what is exactly happening. So, my first query is when you are going to solve it. You solve that issue of Kachchatheevu which is Indian. It is an Indian ownership. It is the Indian landlords who had land there in their names. So, everything there is Indian. But you have handed over it and now that handing-over has created this problem. So, how are you going to approach this issue in order to solve it? This is my first query. Another query is- my other colleagues have sought on other issues -- what is the role of China? There are reports of Chinese vessels or Chinese direct participation in action even against fishermen. So, if the reports are true, it is very serious. So, I would like to seek a specific clarification on China's role in the whole Sri Lankan affair and even in this issue of fishermen. Thank you.

(Ends)

THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI SALMAN KHURSIHD): Hon'ble Deputy Chairman, Sir, I am very grateful for sensitive concern expressed by hon. Members. As I said earlier, this is a matter of enormous importance to all of India, to all people across and to all Members of the House because it concerns many dimensions. It concerns the livelihood of an important segment of fishermen, folk of our coastal areas, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry. Indeed it concerns also the larger context of our relationship with Sri Lanka. Between friends even issues that create difficulties and issues or problems have to be resolved in a manner which is becoming of relationship between friendly countries. I acknowledge with gratitude what hon. Member, Shri Venkaiah Naidu said that we have long-term relationship with Sri Lanka.

(Contd by 2K/USY)

-KLS-USY/ASC/2K/2.20

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID (CONTD.): They are our neighbour and they are friendly neighbour. They have stood by us in very critical moments. There are many issues on which our minds show a degree of concern, but this is one important issue that has been brought to the notice of the House. Therefore, it is important that not only we understand what is happening, but we also take effective steps to address the concerns that have been mentioned once again I am sorry if hon. Members, Shri D. Raja and Dr. Maitreyan, feel that we have discussed this many times and replies have repeatedly been given that sound like the replies given in the past. You can, at least, not accuse us of being inconsistent in our response. We are consistent in our response even if, sadly, we are unable to satisfy you fully with what we have been able to achieve. A Joint Statement was made was in 2008. I must clarify one thing that that Joint Statement has become a basis, as we had expected. We largely believe in addressing this issue between the fishing communities of the two countries. When I give figures, I will stand by these figures. The Joint Statement and the Agreement reached in the Joint Statement have been an advance and a movement forward. But we must distinguish between two very clear things – one, actual attacks by the Sri Lankan Navy in which there is an imminent threat or danger to lives and properties of Indian fishermen; second, actual taking people in custody. You might be able to say that force is involved in both. But the force, which was mentioned in the Agreement, was pertaining to force where military force or police force is used in a manner that can be threatening to the safety and the wellbeing of the person concerned. Of course, people have been taken into custody on both sides. But we have attempted and ensured that there is humane treatment. And, I must acknowledge that as far as Sri Lanka is concerned, periodically, we have found improvement and that there is humane treatment and release. We must acknowledge if they have released people; and, a considerable number of people has been released. Today, sadly, 106 remain in their custody. The explanation they give to us is that there is rising of temperature because there are elections now. Because of the consistent positions taken by the Government of India and many other countries, elections will now take place very shortly in the Northern Provinces. And, in the process of elections taking place -- because there are significant vote banks for the political parties that participate in the elections in the Northern Provinces -- they feel that the pressure to act against the fishermen from another country has become much greater and, therefore...(Interruptions)

DR. K.P. RAMALINGAM: Just for the sake of elections, how can they...(Interruptions)

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID: Please allow me to finish. I am giving facts. If hon. Members don't want facts, I will keep them to myself. I am only sharing this with you because I believe that your concern and mine is the same. And, we have said that despite the fact that there are elections, it should not be influenced by the normal tendencies that take over the political parties in the time of elections. It was also urged by us, and we urged very strongly, that in the previous arrangement the people were released shortly after taking them into custody. Of course, in many cases, we intervened and intervened immediately after the information came to our notice that some fishermen had been taken into custody. As, indeed, the Sri Lankan Government did. And, we responded to them. Today, we do not have a single Sri Lankan in custody in India. And, I believe, that this is not a sign of weakness, but this is a sign of fairness; this is a sign of our insisting that friends must treat each other in this manner, and not bargain against the lives of individuals. Therefore, we do not have a single a single Sri Lankan in custody. They have 106 people in custody. ...(Interruptions)... They have 106 people in custody and we have urged them that they should not change the system of releasing, as we used to release without any judicial or quasi judicial procedure. They have said that they have, now, institute a quasi judicial procedure, by which they have to appear before a Magistrate,......

(Contd. by 2l – PK)

PK-LP/2L/2.25

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID (CONTD.): ...enter into bonds, compound, or get bailed or plead guilty and be released immediately. I think, our fishermen have, on the advice given to them by the Counsel as well as the advice given to them by their friends refused to plead guilty. Twice, the matter has been adjourned, because our fishermen rightly, I believe, in their assessment, believe that they should not be pleading guilty. Because, if they plead guilty, it is not only a matter of concern to them, but also the impact of that information is being used against India. Therefore, I urged the Minister yesterday that there must be another manner in which we must find a solution, which is a humanitarian solution, to ensure that these fishermen are allowed to come back to India as quickly as possible. I do want to share that from 2008 onwards, the important thing that has happened is that the number of incidents that used to be reported has come doown. In 1992 there were as many as nine; in 1993, there were 14, in 1994 and 1995, there were 16; in 1996 and 1997, they had gone up to 19, but since 2008, they have come down from nine to one in 2009, eight in 2011, six in 2012, and as I said, because of the increasing temperature of the political processes, they have gone up, up to August, 2013, to a total number of eight incidents. Eight incidents are too many; even one incident is too much, and it is our attempt to ensure that we are able to address this problem in a manner which is sustainable, permanent, fair and which also allows for the livelihood concerns of our fishermen to be addressed. If we have at all said that we need greater awareness, it is for the purpose of ensuring that our fishermen don’t get into situations where it becomes difficult for them to be able to return home immediately. I think it is important for us to understand that while livelihoods are of paramount importance, particularly, for the people who live virtually on marginal existence, it is very important for us to stand by them, to give them all the political support, diplomatic support and when need be, even the financial support, the Consular support which we continue to extend. It is also important that they should, at least, know what are the international obligations that we have and what are the international obligations that we must observe in order to protect ourselves, if not to oblige whoever else is concerned about it. I will concede that this is not a matter that we can decide only as a matter of one State or two States; this is a matter of concern for all of India. But, because it is most specifically concerned with those States from where these coastal fishermen come, we, therefore, have to respond. Take on board the concerns, suggestions, proposals and ideas that are to be given by the Government of Tamil Nadu or the Government of Puducherry. I do believe that full information about the communication from the hon. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to the hon. Prime Minister is not available with the hon. Members. The Prime Minister has replied to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu vide his letters of 16^th March, 2013 and of 6^th June, 2013.

DR. V. MAITREYAN: From 6^th June till today, most incidents have happened during this period.

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID: I agree. I am obliged, but I am only saying that there has been a response. Maybe, you want more letters.

DR. V. MAITREYAN: There is response during peace time, but there is no response when our fishermen are attacked.

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID: There is a response, and I hope that these letters are comprehensive, but please, take it from me that the importance of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the importance of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, as indeed other senior leaders in the Opposition, is not to be undermined in discussing any issue which concerns the destiny and the future of the people of those States. It is a matter on which the highest degree of sensitivity and response will be given to you. This is only to say that we are also hoping that ultimately this matter can be settled to the satisfaction of all stakeholders by a face-to-face meeting between fishermen’s organisations of the two countries. We have proposed this. We have suggested it. The Sri Lankan Government has accepted it. Now, we are waiting for the final arrangements to be cleared from the Tamil Nadu Government, so that, at least, fishermen can come face to face. I think it is important to remember that many of these fishermen belong to the same background, and, therefore, for us to feel that there is, between them, a great difference would be wrong.

(Contd. by PB/2M)

PB-AKG/2m/2.30

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID (CONTD.): They are the people who shared many attributes in terms of their social background, in terms of their professional practices, their occupational practices, and, ultimately, they share their hunger and they share the dignity of their labour. I hope that we will be able to get them to come together at the earliest so that whatever conclusion they come to is something that the Governments can then support.

I am grateful to the hon. Member, Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar, who has said that it seems strange that I have said that the numbers have come down. I will make the figures available to Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You can write.

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID: Numbers have come down. But our concern is that in recent months that trend is getting reversed, and I will explain as to why I told that that trend is getting reversed. We will address it. We will address that as well. But, certainly, I appreciate, I greatly appreciate Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar having said that we shouldn’t lightly take suggestions such as ‘coercive’ diplomacy. Diplomacy itself has many ways in which it can be ‘persuasive’, and I think ‘persuasive’ diplomacy, perhaps, is a better way of expressing our relationship with a friendly neighbour than we use the word ‘coercive’ diplomacy.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID: I am very grateful to everyone for having made that contribution. A concern was expressed that the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka had come and upon our soil had said something that is not really very positive and not something that takes us forward. We, therefore, discussed it. We discussed this very issue, and frankly, what he had done was, he was not trying to hide something that had happened but sharing it freely with our Press and our Press, being as persuasive as it is, was able to get the entire details from him. We still think and I have suggested to him -- although he himself is a very eminent lawyer – that he should speak with the Attorney-General and find a solution.

Sir, my friend, Shri Prakash Javadekar, has raised two issues. He questioned the need for a greater awareness. This, I said, is only for their safety and security, for them to understand that this is something that they must keep in mind because we have some international obligations that we must fulfil. Of course, there was an issue whether Katchatheevu had been handed over to them in an agreement or whether Katchatheevu was, as a matter of a logical conclusion, drawn from the fact that we were demarking the international boundary, the maritime boundary. These issues are now before the Supreme Court and, I think, all the historical material that is available will be examined by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ... ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no; it is not related to China. ...(Interruptions)..

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID: Sir, as far as China is concerned, I will request my friend to spend more time with Shri Tarun Vijay. ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no, that is a different issue. You need not reply to that. That is a different issue. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID: Shri Tarun Vijay has a much greater understanding of China than I have and I am sure that if you once discuss this matter with Shri Tarun Vijay, you will also understand the context much better. Thank you very much.

(Ends)

SHRI D. RAJA: Sir, Katchatheevu Agreement was signed in the year 1974. The then External Affairs Minister gave an assurance in the Parliament that the traditional right ...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You have already said it. Why do you repeat it? ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI D. RAJA: Sir, it is because after that the Indian position has changed.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No; you have already said that. What do you want?

SHRI D. RAJA: After that, the Indian position has changed. ...(Interruptions)... The Indian position has changed. Shri S.M. Krishna said that the ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI D. RAJA: .. answer to Katchatheevu is not to be understood as a fishing right. ...(Interruptions)... What is the stand of Government of India? ...(Interruptions)... Mr. Deputy Chairman, you should understand what we are asking. ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is already raised. You are repeating it. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI D. RAJA: The Minister should understand what we are asking. He is not answering our question.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is another thing. I will ask him to answer it. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI D. RAJA: Sir, the Katchatheevu Agreement was signed in 1974. The Government made ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You have made your point. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI D. RAJA: Why is there a change in its position? That is my question. ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You have made your point. Please take your seat. ...(Interruptions)... Dr. Maitreyan.

DR. V. MAITREYAN (TAMIL NADU): Sir, the persuasive diplomacy, about which the Minister spoke eloquently, has not given us any results for decades. In fact, that is why our Chief Minister has specifically, very thoughtfully, used the word ‘coercive’ diplomacy. That is one thing.

Secondly, at least, the fishermen from Tamil Nadu were expecting that after the today’s discussion in the Calling Attention, say, the fishermen who were languishing in Sri Lankan jails, will be released in the next 24 or 48 hours. ...(Interruptions)... But I don’t think the Minister’s reply can give us any assurance over that matter. ...(Interruptions)...

(Contd. by 2n/SKC)

-PB/SKC/2N/2.35

DR. V. MAITREYAN (Contd.): Probably we have to plead more with the Sri Lankans rather than our Government. ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no; only those who spoke....(Interruptions)... It cannot be repeated like this.

DR. V. MAITREYAN: I would also urge the Minister to let us know whether the Central Government would file an affidavit in the Supreme Court regarding Katchatheevu. ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Venkaiah Naidu, you may stand up and ask what you wish to ask. ...(Interruptions)... Yes, Mr. Venkaiah Naidu.

SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU (KARNATAKA): Sir, I have a simple question. The hon. Minister has told the House that from the Indian side, we have released all the Sri Lankan fishermen and no issue is pending with us. Why doesn't he convince or persuade the Sri Lankan counterpart to do the same, while admitting that 106 fishermen are still in Sri Lankan custody, in their jails, and they are using coercive methods to make them sign bonds, etc.? So, on the same analogy, which is being appreciated the world over, why don't you persuade Sri Lanka for a similar response from the Sri Lankan authorities also, temporarily forgetting elections in the Northern Province?

(Ends)

SHRIMATI VASANTHI STANLEY (TAMIL NADU): Sir, what is the plight of the five fishermen who are there in the Sri Lankan jails for more than one-and-a-half years and whose bail petitions have been rejected for more than 24 times? What action has been taken by the Government?

(Ends)

SHRI T.K. RANGARAJAN (TAMIL NADU): Sir, the Minister has said in his reply that the Prime Minister has replied to the Chief Minister. Can he place all the letters in the House?

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: All right.

SHRI T.K. RANGARAJAN: Would you please place all the letters written by the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister?

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Would you like to reply, Mr. Minister? You may reply if you wish to.

SHRI SALMAN KHURSHID: Sir, I am very grateful to all Members for having made very positive contributions and suggestions. Very clearly, there were two Agreements -- the Agreement of 1974 and then there was an exchange of letters in 1976. Both issues are now before the Supreme Court. The Opposition Leader in Tamil Nadu Assembly as well as the hon. Chief Minister have moved applications in the Supreme Court to make them a party in those proceedings. I think it is better if we let the Supreme Court dispassionately decide this issue, which is, of course, of great importance, but since this issue has gone to the Supreme Court, it is best decided by the Supreme Court.

As far as the two letters are concerned, the hon. Member wants copies of those letters. We would certainly give copies of those letters to the hon. Member, though I thought that he would have got copies from the Chief Minister's office. …(Interruptions)… We will make them available.

SHRI T.K. RANGARAJAN: We are able to see the Chief Minister's letters in the Press. ...(Interruptions)...