Why Sir Creek sector is non-negotiable for India’s national security

Tensions have heightened in the Sir Creek area due to recent military build-ups by Pakistan, which have prompted stern warnings and counter-measures from India. The strategic waterway, which forms the maritime border between the two countries, has become a renewed flashpoint fuelled by security concerns and economic interests.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently warned Pakistan that any “misadventure” in the disputed Sir Creek area would be met with a decisive response that could “change both history and geography”. Sir Creek is a strategically important area along India’s western coastline. His remarks followed the expansion of Pakistani military infrastructure in the region, which he said revealed Islamabad’s “ill intentions”.

The Sir Creek dispute is a long-standing maritime and land boundary dispute between India and Pakistan over a 96 km tidal estuary in the Rann of Kutch region, with both countries claiming sovereignty based on differing interpretations of pre-independence maps and applying different international law principles. The roots of the dispute trace back to the early 20th century, when an argument arose between the Rao of Kutch and the Sindh government over firewood collection rights.

The Bombay Government issued a resolution in 1914 attempting to settle the matter, but it contained conflicting provisions. Paragraph 9 stated the boundary was to the east of the creek, which supported Sindh’s claim to the entire creek. However, Paragraph 10 applied the Thalweg Principle, which suggests that the boundary in a navigable waterway is the mid-channel of the deepest channel, which would divide the creek, supporting India’s position.

The issue came to the forefront after the partition in 1947, with Kutch becoming a part of India and Sindh a part of Pakistan. Pakistan claims the entirety of Sir Creek, based on the 1914 Bombay Government Resolution that designated the eastern flank of the creek as the boundary. India advocates the Thalweg Principle, using the mid-channel as the boundary, citing a 1925 map and the construction of mid-channel pillars in 1924.

Pakistan argues that the Thalweg Principle does not apply because Sir Creek is not a truly navigable channel but a tidal estuary. On the other hand, India argues that Sir Creek is navigable during high tide, and therefore the Thalweg Principle applies.

The Sir Creek’s location is strategically important for maritime security. The terrorists in the 2008 Mumbai attacks travelled by sea directly from Karachi and then hijacked an Indian fishing boat in the Sir Creek area off the coast of Gujarat. In the aftermath of the attacks, India significantly increased its coastal security along the western coastline, including heightened vigilance in the Sir Creek area, to prevent future sea-based infiltration. However, from the creek, Pakistan could potentially again launch terror attacks.

The dispute also raises concerns about potential Chinese activity in the region. India has expressed concerns over Pakistan’s military infrastructure expansion near the area, leading to increased monitoring and interception of boats in the region by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF).

The Sir Creek area also has great economic importance. The region contains rich fishing grounds. Innocent fishermen from both countries often get caught and arrested for accidentally crossing the perceived border, highlighting the human cost of the dispute. The marshlands of Sir Creek are believed to hold substantial oil and natural gas reserves, which would be a major economic benefit to either country.

Moreover, the boundary in Sir Creek directly affects the delimitation of the maritime boundary and the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) for both countries. An EEZ is important because it gives a coastal country sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage natural resources within its maritime zone. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a nation’s EEZ extends 200 nautical miles from its coastline, and even a small change in the creek’s demarcation could shift the offshore EEZ by thousands of square kilometres.

Several attempts to resolve the dispute through bilateral talks have failed. After the 1965 war, a UN-backed tribunal was formed to resolve the Rann of Kutch conflict. The tribunal awarded about 90 per cent of the disputed territory to India but left the Sir Creek section out of its considerations. The tribunal likely recognised the technical complexity of demarcating a shifting tidal estuary and chose to address the more straightforward land boundary first, expecting a later resolution for the creek.

After the Simla Agreement of 1972, India has insisted on resolving the Sir Creek dispute bilaterally, while Pakistan has pushed for international arbitration, which India has rejected. Joint hydrographic surveys were conducted between 2005 and 2007, but the data did not lead to a final agreement. Formal talks were held in 2012, but progress stalled due to cross-border tensions, including terror attacks. Following the 2016 terrorist attack on the Pathankot Airbase, India halted a broader dialogue process that included discussions on Sir Creek, and structured talks have not resumed since.

In conclusion, the unresolved boundary and overlapping claims in the Sir Creek area create a security risk. The region is of strategic importance, and the ambiguity allows for potential infiltration and military posturing. The dispute often takes a backseat to other bilateral issues, but recent military build-ups have heightened tensions. An unresolved boundary prevents the definitive delimitation of EEZs, impacting access to valuable marine resources. Thus, a clear resolution of the Sir Creek boundary is critical to defining the maritime boundaries and EEZs of both India and Pakistan, which would settle their rights to valuable offshore resources and enhance regional security.

The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as Ambassador in Kuwait and Morocco and as Consul General in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.