Sir Creek | A marshland of contention

Sir Creek is a 96-km-long estuary that lies between Kutch in Gujarat and Pakistan’s Sindh province. It is a muddy, uninhabited marshland in the Rann of Kutch that flows into the Arabian Sea. Once known as Ban Ganga, it was renamed Sir Creek after a British officer during colonial times.

The dispute over this area dates back to the British period. During the time, the entire region was part of the Bombay Presidency, which included the present-day Maharashtra, Gujarat and Sindh. After Partition in 1947, Sindh became part of Pakistan while Kutch remained with India. The core of the dispute is about where to draw the boundary.

Pakistan claims the entire creek, citing a 1914 Bombay Government Resolution that established the boundary along the eastern bank — the so-called Green Line — effectively placing the creek in Sindh. India argues for the mid-channel principle, backed by a 1925 map and the internationally accepted Thalweg principle, which says that the border between two nations sharing a navigable waterway should run along the deepest channel. India maintains that Sir Creek becomes navigable during high tide, and so the boundary should run through the middle. Pakistan disputes this, insisting that the creek is not navigable.

Economical value

Though the creek itself has little military value, it is of enormous economic importance. The definition of the International Boundary at Sir Creek has a direct impact on the delimitation of both countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) in the Arabian Sea. The EEZs extend up to 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) beyond a nation’s territorial waters, within which it has jurisdiction over living and non-living resources.

Apart from the EEZs, control over the Creek would influence the delimitation of maritime boundaries, including continental shelves, which are crucial for oil and gas exploration. The region is believed to have reserves of both, and fishing rights are also a sensitive issue. Fishermen from both countries often cross the unmarked maritime boundary by mistake and end up being arrested.

The Gulf of Kutch houses two of India’s major ports, Mundra and Kandla, which add to the strategic weight. In addition, Chinese-backed mining and power projects on the Pakistani side of the Rann of Kutch have raised concerns in India that civilian projects could turn into strategic or military assets.

Recent months have seen the issue flaring up again. Between May 8 and 9, Pakistan violated Indian airspace by attempting to target military installations with up to 400 drones across 36 locations, including the Sir Creek region. Intelligence reports have highlighted heavy Pakistani military activity near the creek. At the same time, Pakistan’s Army chief Asim Munir has threatened strikes against an oil refinery in Jamnagar, not far from the area.

Against this backdrop, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, during a visit on October 2, warned Pakistan that “a route to Karachi passes through Sir Creek”, reminding Islamabad of India’s 1965 advance close to Lahore. He stressed that while India had tried to resolve the dispute through dialogue, Pakistan’s intentions remained dubious. Any act of aggression, he said, would invite a strong response that could “change both history and geography”.

Security officials familiar with the terrain of Sir Creek say large-scale ground offensives are nearly impossible in this marshy, roadless and uninhabited zone. Infiltrators have been caught in the past, but the bigger challenge today comes from UAVs and drones, which could target critical infrastructure such as ports and refineries located in the EEZ. The Sir Creek dispute is no longer only about boundary lines but also about energy security, maritime rights, and the risk of combined strategic pressure from Pakistan and China.

The boundary in Sir Creek and the maritime line between India and Pakistan remain unresolved. A joint hydrographic survey in January 2007 was followed by talks in May 2007 in Islamabad, where both sides exchanged maps and agreed to continue talks. The data failed to resolve the core disagreement over the boundary’s location. After the 1972 Simla Agreement, it is not possible for a third party to intervene either.