Re: 6th September 1965 - A neutral perspective
Rann of Kutch is a salty marshland situated in Gujarat’s Kutch and Sindh of Pakistan. The tribunal which I mentioned reached a verdict in 1968 which saw Pakistan getting 10% of its claim of 9,100 square kilometres (3,500 sq mi). The majority of the area thus remained with India but there is still an ongoing border dispute regarding Sir Creek. The creek, which opens up into the Arabian, divides the Kutch region of Gujarat with the Sindh province of Pakistan. The long-standing dispute hinges in the actual demarcation “from the mouth of Sir Creek to the top of Sir Creek, and from the top of Sir Creek eastward to a point on the line designated on the Western Terminus”. From this point onwards, the boundary is unambiguously fixed as defined by the Tribunal.
Pakistan lays claim to the entire creek as per paras 9 and 10 of the Bombay Government Resolution of 1914[SUP]](Sir Creek - Wikipedia)[/SUP]signed between the then Govt of Sindh and the ruler of the princely state of Kutch. India sticks to its position that the boundary lies mid-channel as depicted in another map drawn in 1925, and implemented by the installation of mid-channel pillars back in 1924 and Thalweg Doctrine in International Law. The law states that river boundaries between two states may be, if the two states agree, divided by the mid-channel. Though Pakistan does not dispute the 1925 map, it maintains that the Doctrine is not applicable in this case as it only applies to bodies of water that are navigable, which the Sir Creek is not. India rejects the Pakistani stance by maintaining the fact that the creek is navigable in high tide, and that fishing trawlers use it to go out to sea. Another point of concern for Pakistan is that Sir Creek has changed its course considerably over the years. If the boundary line is demarcated according to the Thalweg principle, Pakistan stands to lose a considerable portion of the territory that was historically part of the province of Sindh. Acceding to India’s stance would also result in the shifting of the land/sea terminus point several kilometres to the detriment of Pakistan, leading in turn to a loss of several thousand square kilometres under UN convention of law of the sea.
It also does not help that much of the region is rich in oil and gas below the sea bed, and control over the creek would have a huge bearing on the energy potential of each nation. So nobody wants to give it up.