India up Sir Creek without a paddle
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - Among the many victims of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in
November last year was a possible resolution to the India-Pakistan dispute over
Sir Creek.
The two countries were apparently making progress towards resolving their
differences on demarcating a boundary along the creek when the terrorist
attacks happened. An angry India suspended the composite dialogue with
Pakistan, scuttling the possibility of the two sides hammering out a mutually
acceptable solution to their conflicting claims.
As a result, India and Pakistan will not be able to meet the May 13 deadline to
submit to the United Nations a mutually acceptable
claim on the limits of their continental shelves at Sir Creek. They are now
expected to file separate claims to the UN.
Sir Creek is a 96-kilometer estuary that runs between the marshes of the Rann
of Kutch in the Indian state of Gujarat and the Pakistani province of Sindh,
opening into the Arabian Sea. The India-Pakistan boundary along this creek has
not been demarcated.
The dispute over Sir Creek goes back a century; it predates the creation of
India and Pakistan. Before the 1947 independence, it was a bone of contention
between the rulers of Sindh and Kutch. An agreement reached in 1914, which was
followed up with a map finalized in 1925, kept the dispute dormant for several
decades. But the dispute came alive in the 1960s, with Pakistan claiming over
half of the Rann of Kutch.
A verdict given by an international tribunal in 1968 upheld India's claim to
around 90% of the Rann of Kutch. The Sir Creek section of the boundary was not
considered by the tribunal.
While the India-Pakistan dispute over Sir Creek does not trigger the kind of
passionate debate that divided Kashmir does in the two countries, it has been
an important flashpoint. It was in the Rann of Kutch that the 1965
India-Pakistan war began. And it was here that an Indian Air Force MIG-21 shot
down a Pakistani surveillance aircraft in August 1999. What is more, the
haziness of where the boundary lies has resulted in hundreds of fishermen from
both countries straying into hostile waters unintentionally and being taken
into custody.
The dispute over Sir Creek involves two issues - demarcation of the
India-Pakistan boundary along Sir Creek and demarcation of the maritime
boundary from the mouth of the creek seawards into the Arabian Sea.
As for the boundary along Sir Creek, Pakistan says that this should run along
the creek's eastern bank, defined by a "green line" that is represented on the
1914 map. That is, it lays claim to the entire creek.
India points out that the "green line" is only an indicative line and argues
that the boundary should be defined by the "mid-channel" of the creek as shown
on the map drawn up in 1925.
India cites the Thalweg doctrine in international law, which states that river
boundaries between two states will run through mid-channel, to bolster its
position. Pakistan has countered this argument by pointing out that the Thalweg
doctrine applies to navigable water bodies. Sir Creek, it has maintained, is
not navigable. But India insists that that the creek is navigable during high
tide.
Sir Creek itself has little value. It is a marshy wasteland. But where the
boundary line runs through it will determine how much Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) one country will lose or gain. If the boundary line runs along the
Eastern Bank as claimed by Pakistan, India will lose several hundred square
kilometers of continental shelf. It is the prospect of finding substantial
reserves of oil in the continental shelf that made the two sides inflexible in
their positions.
But that changed thanks to a move by the United Nations, which pushed the two
sides to look for a compromise. The UN Convention on Law of the Sea set May 13,
2009, as the deadline for signatories to claim maritime rights over territorial
waters, contiguous zones, EEZs and the continental shelf.
Parties to a dispute such as the one over Sir Creek have until May to make a
mutually acceptable claim on the limits of the continental shelf, failing which
the UN would declare disputed areas as "international waters".
This put pressure on India and Pakistan to move to resolve the Sir Creek
dispute. Talks on Sir Creek made progress since the start of the composite
dialogue in early 2004. India and Pakistan agreed to a joint survey of the
region last year. The maps the two sides drew up following the survey were in
agreement with each other. According to a report in the Indian Express, India
and Pakistan had come "excruciatingly close" to an agreement on a boundary
through Sir Creek. With the fixing of a land boundary almost done, the two
sides were "a significant step closer to defining the maritime boundary".
India and Pakistan were due to discuss the next steps on Sir Creek on December
2 and 3 last year. That did not happen. Terrorists attacked Mumbai on November
26. An angry India called off the talks and the composite dialogue. The
dialogue remains in a state of suspension.
With talks called off, the chances of India and Pakistan resolving differences
on Sir Creek by the May deadline and filing mutually acceptable claims on their
respective continental shelves are slim.
With the deadline a little over a month away, the two countries are now
preparing to file their individual claims to around 250 square miles of area.
Since these will be conflicting claims, neither will be able to use the
resources here.
While both India and Pakistan stand to lose since neither will be able to use
the resources, it is India that is the greater loser as Pakistan had come
around to accepting India's viewpoint. After the survey, Pakistan is said to
have accepted that Sir Creek was navigable, which means it would have in all
likelihood agreed to the creek being divided mid-channel as India wanted, had
the talks continued.
While the dispute over Sir Creek has survived for decades, it is among the less
politicized disputes between India and Pakistan and as a result was more
amenable to settlement.
A settlement was close at hand and could have well gone in India's favor. Did
India shoot itself in the foot by suspending the composite dialogue?
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in
Bangalore.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
