Fisherfolk from the coastlines of Kutch (in India) and Sindh (in Pakistan) often find themselves broiled in the geopolitics of their geography. Their livelihoods are tangled in the mesh of competing counter claims, international law while the chronic contention over the Sir Creek, (formerly known as Baan Ganga) continues. It is a mere 96 km (or 60 mile) long tidal estuary that opens out into the Arabian Sea has repelled resolution since the earliest documented dispute over logs of wood between the Rao of princely state of Kutch and the Chief Commissioner of Sindh Province in the early 20th century. It is important to underscore, that this dispute is not merely bounded by maritime boundaries but rather offshore reserves and the strategic course complicates mediation of any sort over Sir Creek. This article explores the course of this contention and examines the complicated process of arbitration that hinders a comprehensive resolution.<\/p>\n
Essentially, an estuary transits freshwater from the river to the salty ocean, and thus the surrounding of Sir Creek is mostly salty marshland all along its banks. The distinguishing features of this environment include brackish water, mangroves ecosystem and marshland reserves. This entire Sir Creek dispute hinges upon the navigability of the channel as it is a typical salty marshland that is subjected to both avulsion<\/strong> ( i.e. sudden change in course due to calamities like flood etc.) as well as accretion<\/strong> (i.e. gradual deposition of dirt along the bank of the channel). This typical fluctuating nature of this channel due to varying tidal waves creates substantial challenges to the existing dispute. Hence, Prof. Sikander Ahmed Shah aptly notes that the \u2018Sir Creek disagreement is essentially (a dispute) over whether the border between Sindh and Gujarat is within the estuary or on the eastern bank of the estuary\u2019.<\/p>\n Although, the disputes are often dissolved through arbitration. However, in the case of Sir Creek, the erstwhile resolution is only composed of contradictory claims. In the year 1914 (February), Bombay Government Resolution no. 1192 mandated a resolution regarding the Sir Creek dispute that was originally proposed in the Letter No. 5543 (that communicated a proposed compromise regarding the Sir Creek\u2019s demarcation).<\/p>\n While Paragraph 9 of this verdict stipulates that the boundary lies to the \u2018east of Sir Creek\u2019 and on the contrary Paragraph 10 states regarding the navigability of this estuary around the year. Pakistan reinforces the former paragraph and an annexed Map (B 44), that depicts the boundary running along the eastern bank denoted as the \u2018Green Line\u2019 and reinforces its claim over the entire creek.<\/p>\n However, on the other hand, the Indian stance firmly implies the stipulations of Paragraph 10 of the Verdict that reinforces the Thalweg Doctrine<\/strong> of international law. This principle doesn’t necessarily divide the river channel in the middle rather the border demarcated at the greatest depth of the water channel.<\/p>\n Thus, rather than a distinct demarcation this boundary is fluid in nature. Moreover, following the conclusion of this resolution in 1914, a tangible effort was initiated between 1923 and 1924 wherein about 140 boundary pillars were constructed in order to demarcate this disputed estuary. This interpretation of conventional principles and substantial evidence along with a Survey of India (B 74.1) map marks the core argument of India\u2019s claims that the pillars along the land border depicted the fluid concept of Thalweg was indeed an intentional effort.<\/p>\n These couple of contradictory claims have prolonged this dispute over decades. Moreover, their convenient interpretation of the maritime boundary hampers a comprehensive solution to this issue. Pakistan\u2019s perception presumably emerges from the principle of Uti Possidetis Juris<\/strong> that literally translates (from Latin) as \u2018as you possess under law\u2019. It essentially preserves the colonial boundaries and bolsters Pakistan\u2019s position which claims the boundary of the Sir Creek on the eastern bank of the channel. Pakistan posits that prior to Independence the sovereign rule over Sir Creek belonged to the Government of Sindh and thus Pakistan reserves sovereign authority over the entire estuary.<\/p>\n On the contrary, India’s assertion invokes the International doctrine of Thalweg (a German term for Valley way) that demarcates the boundary at the greatest depth. India claims that Sir Creek is navigable especially during the high tides while Pakistan refutes the applicability of the Thalweg Doctrine to this semi navigable estuary. This specific classification of the Sir Creek as navigable or non-navigable is important to India\u2019s claim over the estuary. Moreover, Sir Creek’s physical realities do not abide by the legal interpretations applied to this dynamic estuary. Fluid nature of the estuary along with other geomorphological challenges curtails the course towards resolution. Hence, conflicting counter claims and convenient interpretation complicates this issue further.<\/p>\n After Independence, the matter subsided temporarily until the 1965 skirmishes took place in Rann of Kutch. A demarcation was delayed since Partition in 1947 and it prompted Pakistani theatrics on 9th of April when the Pakistani army infiltrated and launched operation codenamed as \u2018Desert Hawk 1\u2019<\/strong> at a couple of military posts in the Rann of Kutch. This attempt at infiltration was dealt with tactfully by the Indian forces and a diplomatic deescalation quickly followed with mediation from the then British Prime Minister Herold Wilson. Although a ceasefire subsequently came into effect on 1st of July and the pre conflict status was presumed, this was marked as a precursor of the larger conflict that followed in August 1965 when Pakistan launched another operation codenamed \u2018Gibraltar\u2019 in Jammu and Kashmir.<\/p>\n Following the conclusion of clashes and the subsequent ceasefire, an Indo Pakistan Western Boundary Tribunal was convened in 1968 to delineate a demarcation to this disputed territory. From 1966 till 1968 the tribunal was convened that was composed of representatives from Iran, Sweden, and Yugoslavia and on February 19, 1968 a final verdict was awarded in favour of India that granted about 90% of the claim over the Rann of Kutch. However, the scope of the tribunal was curtailed as it deliberately excluded any jurisdiction over the Sir Creek estuary. It was mutually agreed that \u2018from the mouth of Sir Creek to the top of Sir Creek\u2019 was to be set aside from the tribunal\u2019s consideration. Hence, the tribunal only demarcated the \u2018western terminus point\u2019 that marks the starting point of Sir Creek.<\/p>\n Later on, with the inception of modern maritime laws, especially the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or the UNCLOS in 1982, a standardized set of tools and principles were introduced to navigate the maritime crisis<\/span><\/a>. It emerged as a modern day mechanism of arbitration for disputes like Sir Creek that hinged on colonial dilemmas. Either country has ratified the convention yet there are sharp discrepancies in their interpretation of the clauses of this convention. While India advocates utilizing a technical framework like technical aspects of the Law of Sea (TALOS) (that substantiates the stipulation of UNCLOS) to determine the maritime boundary. Pakistan is more keen to cling onto the ambiguous colonial stance that favours Pakistan\u2019s sovereignty all over the creek.<\/p>\n Moreover, UNCLOS codified the concept of Baseline, that runs along the coastline of a country and determines several lucrative maritime zones like the Territorial sea ( i.e. up to 12 nautical miles from the Baseline), Contiguous Zone (that extends up till 24 nautical miles) the the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (extending up to 200 nautical miles) and the Continental Shelves that extends far beyond the EEZ. Control over this extended coast grants the country exclusive sovereign rights over seabed and subsoil resources and is crucial for exploring and exploiting the marine resources. Additionally, offshore exploration in the Sir Creek is likely to reap substantial hydrocarbon and shale gas reserves that makes this mere estuary a vital economic corridor for both India and Pakistan. Hence, their competing claims over Sir Creek are driven by dual calculus of commercial incentive as well as security over this strategic naval corridor.<\/p>\n Since 1989 a series of diplomatic stalemates have surfaced. While numerous bilateral mechanisms like the joint hydrographic survey (in 2007) and backchannel negotiation were initiated to dissolve this dispute, they failed to sail this contention towards a comprehensive resolution. The decade-long deadlock over demarcation has hampered the livelihood of fishermen, restricted navigation and has failed to ascertain sovereign rights over crucial marine resources. Their competing claims essentially showcase their security apprehensions and commercial interest and at this hour only amicable cooperation can create a comprehensive course towards demarcation of this disputed maritime boundary.<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.ejsss.net.in\/article_html.php?did=9317&issueno=0<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n https:\/\/pdfs.semanticscholar.org\/ad97\/5e10d9db9b71125c973d33bc2e6ceff2a0f7.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nA Disputed Resolution\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Legal precedents tangles with Technicalities<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Skirmish around the Salty Marshland<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Decolonial Dilemmas\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Lucrative Stakes in Sir Creek\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n
References:<\/h5>\n