Sir Creek Dispute

Published in the 04 January 2007 issue of The Nation

Taimur Malik

The Sir Creek dispute continues to make headlines as the Indian Navy held five Pakistani fishermen and impounded their boat from Sir Creek on Sunday. According to a representative of the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) the Pakistani boat Al-Rashid was fishing in Pakistani territorial waters in Sir Creek when it was waylaid by the Indian naval boats.

This incident comes only a day after Pakistan and India concluded the 9th round of talks on the subject in a bid to resolve mutual claims on Sir Creek on Saturday. The two countries have decided to commence another joint survey on Sir Creek from January 15 2007. Earlier the Hydrographers of the two countries had conducted the first joint survey on Sir Creek in January 2005.

The prevalent ambiguity in maritime boundaries in the Sir Creek area has led to the detention of fishermen by the two sides; it has also deterred exploration in the oil and gas rich area and led to the positioning of armed forces on high alert. Moreover demarcation of the maritime boundary in the area is essential for defining the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and the Continental Shelf.

If all goes well Sir Creek could be the first dispute the two countries settle after they began the Composite Dialogue process in 2004. Sir Creek formed one of the main issues of the seven point dialogue process which also includes Kashmir and Siachin.

The Sir Creek issue involves defining the international boundary along Sir Creek a 96-km-long estuary in the rich and bio diverse saline wetlands of the Rann of Katch separating Indian Gujrat from the Pakistani Sindh.

The Sir Creek dispute made the limelight after the UN Convention on Law of the Sea (1982) which is a comprehensive and unique international agreement pertaining to inter alia rights of countries over sea resources. Both Pakistan and India have ratified the convention. UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives additional rights over sea resources up to two hundred nautical miles in the water column and up to three hundred and fifty nautical miles in the land beneath the water column (Continental Shelf).

The UNCLOS also provides guidelines on the basis of which sea boundaries have to be drawn between the states opposite to each other and the ones abutting each other. In the case of a concave coastline the division of sea boundaries generally follows the equi-distance principle. In short the land boundary s general course of direction on the land leading up to the coast can make a difference of hundreds of square nautical miles of sea when stretched into the sea as a divider between the two contesting states.

According to the Indian newspaper The Hindu “accepting Pakistan s premise…would mean loss of about 250 square miles of EEZ for India. Pakistan rejects India s proposal for mid-channel demarcation because it claims that this notion is applicable to navigable channels whereas Sir Creek is not navigable”.

Pakistan s claim that half of the Rann of Katch along the 24th parallel was Pakistan s territory and India s claim that the boundary ran roughly along the northern edge of the Rann contributed to the armed clashes in 1965. The matter was referred to arbitration and the Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary Case Tribunal s Award on February 19 1968 upheld most of India s claim to the entire Rann conceding very small sections to Pakistan. Interestingly enough India agreed to exclude the line beyond Border Pillar 1175 from the subject matter of arbitration on the ground that it is not disputed. Thus the arbitrator never adjudicated on the boundary of the present Sir Creek as both parties agreed that no dispute existed.

When the UNCLOS was being negotiated India claimed that the border from the mouth of Sir Creek should run on the western side of the Creek and not the eastern one thus changing its initial position.

Pakistan rejecting the Indian claims maintained that it is a settled issue and no question of dispute arises particularly when India failed to raise any objection before the Rann of Katch Arbitration. Moreover India has failed to point out any new evidence on the basis of which it can argue that this evidence was not available at the time of the arbitration.

According to a paper by the Cooperative Monitoring Centre the Sir Creek dispute stems from maps drawn in 1914 and 1927 that trace different boundaries (then between British and Princely states and now between India and Pakistan) along the 96-km length of Sir Creek. The earlier map depicts the boundary on the east bank of the creek. The later map depicts the boundary along the midpoint of the creek. The official Indian government position interprets these maps as defining the boundary along the midpoint of the creek with the boundary shifting as the creek meanders. Pakistani officials interpret the boundary as being along the east bank of the creek and fixed geographically.

Pakistan maintains that though Sir Creek has migrated over time the border remains fixed as marked on vintage 1914 maps. Moreover beyond the last boundary point marked on historical maps accumulated sediment has created a two-km-wide strip of land. The land created by sediment deposition necessitates an extension of the boundary out to the new shoreline. How this line should be extended is also in dispute. If the line veers east then India s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the continental shelf is marginally reduced; and if the line veers westward Pakistan s EEZ is lessened. The issue is complicated by the fact that the creek has moved over time. The demarcation of the coastal boundary affects the definition of the maritime border and the EEZs of the two countries in the ocean. Moving the border two km along the coastline could translate into a loss of a few hundreds of square km of the EEZ in an area suspected to be rich in oil and gas deposits.

As state parties to the UNCLOS both India and Pakistan are under an obligation to arrive at a negotiated settlement based on principles of International law. In case both the parties fail to reach an agreement then Part XV of the 1982 Law which provides for the settlement of disputes shall stand invoked by the parties.