© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Thursday (October 2) warned Pakistan that “any misadventure in the Sir Creek sector will invite a decisive response”.
“Pakistan must remember that the road to Karachi passes through the Creek,” Singh said while performing shastra puja on Vijaya Dashami at the Bhuj Military Station in Gujarat. Singh also pointed to the “recent expansion” of Pakistan’s military infrastructure in the areas adjacent to Sir Creek.
Sir Creek, originally Ban Ganga, is a fluctuating 96-km tidal estuary along the India-Pakistan border. To its east lies the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat, and to its west, the province of Sindh in Pakistan.
The marshy area around Sir Creek teems with venomous Russel’s vipers and scorpions; every monsoon, the creek floods its banks, enveloping surrounding salt flats. As such, the region is sparsely populated and difficult to police.
Yet it has long been at the centre of an unresolved border dispute between India and Pakistan. This is because it is strategically and economically important for both countries.
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE: As Singh said, Sir Creek is crucial to Pakistan’s defence of Karachi, Sindh’s capital and Pakistan’s economic hub and largest city.
Post Operation Sindoor, Pakistan has built bunkers, radars, and forward bases in the disputed area, capable of launching drone attacks and infantry operations. India too has maintained a strong military presence to deter any Pakistani misadventure.
Indian concerns, however, aren’t merely limited to the Pakistan military. Sir Creek could be used as a launchpad for terror attacks on Indian soil. During the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, Pakistani terrorists had come to Mumbai by boat.
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE: Beyond strategic concerns, it is perhaps the economic importance of Sir Creek that has precluded the resolution of the decades-long border dispute.
The region is said to hold untapped oil and gas reserves which are potentially vital to both countries’ interests. For New Delhi, which has long sought to diversify its oil imports, and which is currently searching for newer sources of cheaper oil beyond Russia, this is particularly important.
The creek also supports vital fishing grounds, crucial for the livelihoods of local fishermen in both Gujarat and Sindh. The absence of a clear boundary results in frequent arrests of fishermen who inadvertently cross into the other country’s waters, disrupting livelihoods and ruining lives.
The definition of international boundary at Sir Creek has a direct impact on the delimitation of both country’s Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) in the Arabian Sea. EEZs extending upto 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) beyond a nation’s territorial waters, within which it has jurisdiction over both living and non-living resources.
Pakistan claims the entirety of Sir Creek, while India sets the boundary along the middle of the navigable channel.
This disagreement stems from a larger disagreement on whether the creek falls under the ‘Thalweg’ principle of boundary demarcation, which provides for making the mid-channel of a given watercourse a boundary. India argues that while fluctuating, the creek falls under the Thalweg principle because it remains navigable and is frequented by fishermen. Pakistan rejects this argument, claiming instead that the creek is not navigable, meaning the principle does not apply.
The dispute actually traces its origins to the early 20th century, when an argument ensued between the rulers of Kutch and Sindh over ownership of a pile of firewood lying on the banks of a creek situated between the two principalities.
Post-Independence, it came to the fore after the India-Pakistan War of 1965, following which Pakistan claimed jurisdiction of over half of the Rann of Kutch. While this dispute was settled by a tribunal in 1968 — India was granted 90% of the Rann and Pakistani claims were largely rejected — Sir Creek was not included in this resolution.
The tribunal had noted, “the question concerning the Sir Creek part of the boundary is left out of consideration.” The dispute has festered since.
India and Pakistan have thus far held several rounds of bilateral discussions on the dispute. During the first round of talks held in Islamabad on 2 June 1989, the two sides managed to discuss the fundamental aspects of the dispute, but without any concrete results.
The second and third rounds of talks in 1990 and 1991 concluded without any progress. A fourth round of talks were held in Rawalpindi in 1991, while the fifth round of talks on this dispute were held in New Delhi the next year, in the presence of technical experts from the Indian Navy.
After six years, India and Pakistan agreed to form a separate working group on the issue. The talks of the Sir Creek working group were held in 1998 in New Delhi, wherein India objected to Pakistan’s bid to internationalise the dispute, reiterating that all differences, after the Simla Accord, had to be resolved bilaterally. Pakistan sought to take the dispute to an international tribunal. Speaking on behalf of the Indian delegation, then Joint Secretary in the MEA, Vivek Katju had said that arbitration was unacceptable under the framework of the composite dialogue between the two sides.
The Ministry of External Affairs had stated in 2019 that the last “formal talks (on Sir Creek) were held in June 2012 and the two sides inter alia discussed the land boundary in the Sir Creek area and delimitation of the International Maritime Boundary between India and Pakistan”.
“In December 2015, it was agreed to start a Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue. This included the Sir Creek issue. However, the terror attack on the Airbase in Pathankot in January 2016 and Pakistan’s continued support to cross-border terrorism against India have prevented holding of any structured bilateral dialogue,” then External Affairs Minister V K Singh had said in his reply to an unstarred question in the Lok Sabha.
