SIR CREEK ISSUE
The Sir Creek is a 96 km (60 mile) strip of water disputed between India and
Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch marshlands. The creek, which opens up into the
Arabian Sea, divides the Kutch region of the Indian state of Gujarat with the Sindh
province of Pakistan. It is located at approximately 23°58′N 68°48′E.
The Sir Creek dispute hinges in the actual demarcation "from the mouth of Sir Creek
to the top of Sir Creek, and from the top of Sir Creek eastward to a point on the line
designated on the Western Terminus". From this point onwards, the boundary is
unambigiously fixed as defined by the Tribunal Award of 1968.
Sir Creek is named after the British representative who was requested to mediate in
a dispute between the ruler of Sindh and the Rao of Kutch over a pile of firewood
lying on the banks of the nearby Kori Creek.
The creek itself is located in the uninhabited marshlands. During the monsoon
season between June and September, the creek floods its banks and envelops the
low-lying salty mudflats around it. During the winter season, the area is home to
flamingoes and other migratory birds.
Dispute
The Sir Creek area. The Green Line is the boundary as claimed by Pakistan, the red
line is the boundary as claimed by India. The black line is the undisputed section.
The dispute lies in the interpretation of the boundary line between Kutch and Sindh
as depicted in a 1914 and 1925 map. At that time, the region was a part of Bombay
Presidency of undivided India. After India's independence in 1947, Sindh became a
part of Pakistan while Kutch remained a part of India.
Pakistan lays claim to the entire creek as per paras 9 and 10 of the Bombay
Government Resolution of 1914 signed between then the Government of Sindh and
Rao Maharaj of Kutch.
The resolution, which demarcated the boundaries between the two territories,
included the creek as part of Sindh, thus setting the boundary as the eastern flank of
the creek. The boundary line, known as the "Green Line", is disputed by India which
maintains that it is an "indicative line", known as a "ribbon line" in technical jargon.
India sticks to its position that the boundary lies mid-channel as depicted in another
map drawn in 1925, and implemented by the installation of mid-channel pillars back
in 1924.[5]
India supports its stance by citing the Thalweg Doctrine in International Law. The law
states that river boundaries between two states are divided by the mid-channel.
Though Pakistan does not dispute the 1925 map, it maintains that the Doctrine is not
applicable in this case as it only applies to bodies of water that are navigable, which
the Sir Creek is supposedly not. India rejects the Pakistani stance by maintaining the
fact that the creek is navigable in high tide, and that fishing trawlers use it to go out
to sea. Several cartographic surveys conducted have upheld the Indian claim.
Another point that irks Pakistan is that Sir Creek has changed its course considerably
over the years. If the boundary line is damarcated according to the Thalweg
principle, Pakistan stands to lose a considerable portion of the territory that was
historically part of the province of Sindh. Agreeing to India's contention would also
result in the shifting of the land/sea terminus point several kilometres to the
detriment of Pakistan, leading in turn to a loss of several thousand square kilometres
of its Exclusive Economic Zone under the United Nations Convention on Law of the
Sea.
In April 1965, a dispute there contributed to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, when
fighting broke out between India and Pakistan. Later the same year, British Prime
Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both countries to end hostilities and
set up a tribunal to resolve the dispute. A verdict was reached in 1968 which saw
Pakistan getting 10% of its claim of 9,000 km² (3,500 sq. miles). The majority of the
area thus remained with India.
The disputed region was at the center of international attention in 1999 after Mig-21
fighter planes of the Indian Air Force shot down a Pakistani Navy Breguet Atlantique
surveillance aircraft over the Sir Creek on August 10, 1999, killing all 16 on board.
India claimed that the plane had strayed into its airspace, which was disputed by the
Pakistani navy
Economic reasons
Though the creek has little military value, it holds immense economic gain. Much of
the region is rich in oil and gas below the sea bed, and control over the creek would
have a huge bearing on the energy potential of each nation. Also once the
boundaries are defined, it would help in the determination of the maritime
boundaries which are drawn as an extension of onshore reference points. Maritime
boundaries also help in determining the limits of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)
and continental shelves. EEZs extend to 200 nautical miles (370 km) and can be
subjected to commercial exploitation.
The demarcation would also prevent the inadvertent crossing over of fishermen of
both nations into each others' territories.
Dispute resolution
Since 1969, there have been eight rounds of talks between the two nations, without
a breakthrough. Steps to resolve the dispute include:
1. Allocation
2. Delimitation
3. Demarcation
4. Administration
Since neither side has conceded ground, India has proposed that the maritime
boundary could be demarcated first, as per the provisions of Technical Aspects of
Law of Sea (TALOS).[4] However, Pakistan has staunchly refused the proposal on the
grounds that the dispute should be resolved first. Pakistan has also proposed that
the two sides go in for international arbitration, which India has flatly refused. India
maintains that all bilateral disputes should be resolved without the intervention of
third-parties.
So, keeping the above discussion in mind, we can say that the problem is not so
complex to be tackled. Therefore, Pakistan and India should come forward to resolve
the issue as soon as possible. Because, once the issue is settled it will be beneficial
for both the countries economically as well as militarily.
