The fishers believe that the department might be thinking that a low number of mechanised boats might reduce ‘poaching’ incidents and also bring down the subsequent arrests that have been a burning issue along the coastal belt across the state. However, fishers are now planning to approach the court, appealing to insist that the state government commence new registrations.

The Palk Bay, a narrow strip of mostly shallow water that separates Tamil Nadu in India and the Northern Province of Sri Lanka, has a total length of 137 km, and the width varies between 64 and 137 km. The bay divides both countries with the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL). The bay extends from Nagapattinam, Thiruvarur, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai to Ramanathapuram in Tamil Nadu, while in Sri Lanka, the bay extends from Jaffna, Mannar to Kilinochchi districts.

Despite a Maritime Boundary Agreement between India and Sri Lanka during 1974-76, there were complaints of the fishermen from both countries violating the agreement and poaching in the respective waters. 

The Indian fishers were often claimed to cross the IMBL for a better catch as the marine wealth was available in abundance close to Sri Lankan waters. Sources said that the access from the respective countries was easy between 1983 and 2009, but the security was tightened since then due to the situation prevailing post civil war in Sri Lanka.

In this scenario, the fishers from the region said that several of their counterparts had lost their mechanised boats during the Gaja cyclone devastation, and many of the families involved in fishing traditionally had to switch to alternate employment owing to heavy loss. Now, after finding adequate sources, those families which lost their boats had started buying boats (either new or used ones), unwilling to quit their traditional profession. But the registration for these boats has been restricted, and their wait for months has become futile, they complain.

“We suspect that there was a mutual consent between India and Sri Lanka on the restriction of the number of mechanised boats, and so, we are not given proper response from the officials on the new registration or name transfer of the boats. How would a reduced number of mechanised boats prevent violations? If the Sri Lankan government does not charge Indian fishermen with false claims, it would prevent the mid-sea violence, and so it is in the hands of the Sri Lankan government,” said A Thajudeen, General Secretary, Tamil Nadu Meenavar Peravai and President of Mechanised Boat Owners Association.

Thajudeen pointed out that there are more than 440 mechanised boats seized and kept under the possession of Sri Lanka till last year, and arrests of more than 3,000 fishermen have taken place to date. “Though the Sri Lankan government allows the release of arrested fishermen after legal proceedings, they are hesitant to release the boats that they had seized, and they get ruined there. Each boat costs between Rs 40 lakh and Rs 90 lakh based on the size and engine power. Once the boat is seized, the family too lose their livelihood”, Thajudeen said.

He said that the fishermen are keen on rebuilding their livelihood lost after Gaja cyclone devastation and started to resume the traditional profession but the failure in registration of boats prevents even the new player in the field. “For instance, there were around 300 mechanised boats at Mallipattinam fishing harbour in Thanjavur district till the Gaja cyclone, and now, only 140 are operational. The remaining people were limping up from their loss and started purchasing boats, either a new or a used one, but the officials unusually denied the registration. Only after the registration alone, the boats can venture for fishing”, he said.

The fishermen leaders sought permission to meet the Fisheries Minister in the Secretariat, and they were given time to meet him last week. “We went to the Secretariat last week with our grievances, sought expeditation of the registration process, and safe fishing by curbing frequent mid-sea attacks. But even after a long wait, the minister did not appear, nor was the department secretary present, and at around 1.30 pm, we were directed to meet the Additional Director of Fisheries, and we handed over the petition to him. We hope our demand will be fulfilled; otherwise, we find no option but to seek the support of the court,” Thajudeen said.