Talks on Sir Creek end in impasse
Tribune News Service
and agencies

NEW DELHI, Nov 9 — India and Pakistan today failed to make any headway on the long-pending Sir Creek maritime boundary dispute in the Rann of Kutch with New Delhi firmly rejecting Islamabad’s proposal for third-party arbitration and asserting that the issue should be resolved only bilaterally.

The second phase of the nine-day Indo-Pak talks have so far not yielded any positive results on three of the six outstanding identified issues.

Negotiations on the Tulbul navigation project and Siachen held here last week had also ended in a deadlock.

During the resumed composite dialogue process between the two neighbours, Delhi asserted that the boundary in the Creek, said to be rich in oil and gas deposits, should be a notional mid-channel as the contours there kept changing due to the shifting tidal movements, a proposal termed unacceptable by Islamabad.

A bland joint statement issued after the parleys, the third since they began on November 5, said "the discussions were held in a frank and cordial atmosphere.

"The two sides stated their respective positions. It was agreed to continue discussions during the next round of the dialogue process", it said.

While the Indian side was led by Surveyor-General Lt Gen A K Ahuja, the Pakistani team was headed by Rear Adm Jameer Akhtar (retd).

India proposed that pending formalisation of the Sir Creek boundary, the two sides could consider the delimitation of the Indo-Pak maritime boundary from seawards, by commencing at the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) limit and proceeding landwards upto a mutually acceptable limit as per provisions under technical aspects of law of sea, General Ahuja told newspersons.

The Pakistani side proposed that "a friendly way of settling the dispute is through arbitration and Islamabad is open to it."

This was categorically turned down by the Indian side which stressed that all Indo-Pak issues should be settled bilaterally.

Harping on a 1914 map titled "B-44" and a so-called 1966 tribunal award, Pakistan officials said Islamabad’s position was that the east bank of the Creek belonged to India while the Creek, which, it claimed, was non-navigable, was part of Pakistan.

General Ahuja said "the seaward approach is based on internationally accepted principles and will benefit both countries for the exploitation of resources in the respective EEZ. The issue gains importance in view of the continental shelf claims, to be submitted by 2004 to the United Nations".

Asked whether the UN would have to be ultimately involved in resolution of the Sir Creek issue, Joint Secretary in the External Affairs Ministry Vivek Katju expressed confidence that it would be resolved before the UN deadline.

Earlier, General Ahuja said: "Our approach to the Sir Creek has been practical, realistic and consistent with historical data. There are well enunciated principles on the basis of which the already settled and demarcated boundary can be formalised". He said that five rounds of discussions, starting in 1969, had already taken place. The last round of discussions was held in November, 1992, he said.

Explaining, the Surveyor-General of India said that there were four steps, namely allocation, delimitation, demarcation and administration in finalisation of boundaries.

Referring to the issue, General Ahuja said: "In this particular case, the allocation and delimitation were done vide paras 9 and 10 of the 1914 resolution and illustrated on an accompanying map (B-44). Demarcation and administration was completed in 1925. Since then, the boundary in Sir Creek is depicted in the mid-channel by a proper boundary symbol. There was no need of erection of pillars in the middle of the Creek since it is a natural fluid boundary."

He said the administration of this territory remained with Kutch and so was inherited by the governments of India and Pakistan. "We have conveyed to Pakistan that we should address this issue taking into account the overall perspective so that this boundary, which is already settled and in respect of which all four steps relating to boundary demarcation have already been completed, is formalised", he said.

"Pakistan, while agreeing that the boundary along with the horizontal line and in Sir Creek was a settled issue, maintained that in its interpretation, the green line (lying on the eastern edge of the Creek) of the map, appendixed to the 1914 resolution should be transposed on to the ground. Even when it was conveyed that the resolution of 1914 was already implemented and the green line was only a symbolic representation, the boundary being mid-channel, Pakistan persisted with its position on the green line", the Surveyor-General said.

Talks on the boundary dispute in Sir Creek, along the Gujarat-Sindh Coast, have been going on between the two neighbours for over three decades.

Pakistani officials said the boundary dispute over the Creek had prevented both New Delhi and Islamabad in submitting their claims under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea on the limits of their respective continental shelves.

The two sides had to resolve the issue by year 2005 for India and 2007 for Pakistan or else they would have to submit to UN mediation, they said, adding that without the maritime boundary demarcation, neither country could exploit resources in its exclusive economic zone (up to 2000 nautical miles) or its continental shelf (up to 350 nautical miles).

The Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary Case Tribunal had in 1966 attempted to demarcate the boundary to the east and north-east of Sir Creek over which armed clashes had taken place between the two neighbours in 1965.