The inhabitants have lived apart from civilisation for about 60,000 years and number anything between 50 and 150. They are protected by India who prohibits any access to the island. Because of the islanders’ isolation and lack of resistance, there is a fear that any contact with the outside world could result in disease or violence that could wipe them out. The Sentinelese have shown no wish to integrate and the Indian government respects their desire to be completely independent. It's not certain whether Chau, who was a Christian, wanted to visit as a missionary, or whether he was a simple adventurer, but he persuaded fishermen in a hired dinghy to illegally take him close to the island and then kayaked to shore. The Sentinelese reacted with bows and arrows or spears and killed the man.
This is not the first time that the islanders have resorted to force to protect their independence. In 2006, two fishermen accidentally drifted to shore and were also killed. Chau knew that he shouldn't be on the island and had already written about the potential danger to his life. It was wrong of him to be there and he accepted the consequences. The Indian government may charge the fishermen with abetting Chau, but will not charge the killers; due to the inaccessibility, it's virtually impossible to prosecute anyone on the island.
A question I pose, therefore, is whether, because Chau knowingly encroached on a forbidden land, the owners of that land had the right to take the drastic action that they did. In this case, it appears that it was acceptable in the eyes of the law. However, if that is so, when another person in another country trespasses on land, why cannot the landowner have similar rights? To take this further, why can't a burglar wantonly breaking into a house, be stopped by any means by the owner? A householder using force to stop a burglar seems a reasonable action to me. It's not important whether a property is easily accessible or it's a forbidden island, the principle is that the perpetrator shouldn't be there. Maybe killing a burglar sounds drastic, but anyone who has been burgled is likely to feel insecure and angry, especially if the culprit receives a light sentence in court. A harsh sentence, which would act as a deterrent, would at least be more just.
We have the phrase 'a person's home is their castle', but it doesn't mean much any more. We should be able to feel safe in our homes and be allowed to defend ourselves from an intruder with impunity. Maybe the Sentinelese, primitive though they may appear, could teach us all a lesson.