[VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138 http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236 The Geopolitics of Sir Creek: An Evolution

Dr. C. M. Meena Assistant Professor Department of Geography, Dr. B.R.A., College, University of Delhi, India.

Received Nov. 04, 2016 Accepted Dec. 11, 2016

ABSTRACT In my present paper I would focus on The Geopolitics of Sir Creek: An Evolution. The Sir Creek is one the outstanding bilateral issues that India-Pakistan are trying resolve under the ongoing composite process. The has not only important security dimensions it also relates to demarcation of maritime boundary of the two countries in the Arabian Sea for determining the parameters of each other`s Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). Two countries have managed to make significant progress towards narrowing down mutual differences on the dispute. The Sir Creek dispute, Firstly dispute arises between ruler of Kutch and commissioner of Sindh about boundaries; case was taken by Governor of Bombay and give his verdict. But verdict consist two contradictory provisions, cited by both India and Pakistan into their claim's favor. Then in 1925, map of the region was chalked which showed a ‘green riband to the east of the Creek’. Pakistan says that this ‘Green Line’ is the marked boundary between Sindh and Kutch, and argued that the Creek belonged to Sindh. India countered, saying the depiction was part of ‘normal cartographic practice’ and should not be used to make any territorial claims. Thus we can say that Sir Creek dispute is a classic example of cartographic dilemma.

Key words: Geopolitics, Sir Creek, Security. Introduction The dispute over Sir Creek can be traced back countered that the boundary ran roughly to the pre-independence period, toaround along the northernedge of the Rann. The 1908, when an argument ensued between the matter was referred to international tribunal rulers of Kutch and Sind over apile of for arbitration.The Tribunal known as the firewood lying on the banks of a creek Indo-Pakistani Western Boundary Case dividing the two principalities. Thedispute Tribunalannounced it’s Award on 19 was taken up by the government of Bombay February 1968, upheld 90% of India’s claim state, which, in 1914, resolvedthe dispute to the entireRann, conceding small sectors to supported by Map Number B44 and Pakistan. subsequently B74.1 Nothingsignificant The sole issue, therefore was, weather the happened in the next 40-50 years, and the short agreed boundary from the head of Sir dispute came alive again onlyin the 1960s.Sir Creek went all the way east or rose at a right Creek, can be called a fluctuating tidal angle at its western end to reach the northern channel or an estuary, which is sixty miles- limit of Rann. The tribunal accepted India‟s long, situated in the marshes of the Rann of case that it did turn north and that almost the Kutch. The Rann lies on the borderbetween entire Rann was Indians. The dispute hinges the Indian state of Gujarat and the Pakistani on the demarcation of the boundary from province of Sind. In 1965, afterarmed clashes, “the mouth of his creek to the top of Sir Creek Pakistan asserted that half of the Rann along and from” the top of Sir Creek eastwards to a the 24th parallel wasPakistani territory. India Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 97 [ VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138 point designated as the western terminus40. because of the progress made by India and The dispute has another interesting Pakistan in terms of getting the joint survey dimension that both impedes as well as of the maritime boundary completed in enhances the prospect of a compromise March 2007. resolution. The prospects of finding natural The Sir Creek Dispute gas in the vicinity spurred both parties to attempt to settle the Sir Creek boundary Sir Creek is a 60 mile long estuary separating dispute on their own terms so as to enlarge the Pakistan of Sind from the India province their respective EEZ by 250 square miles of Gujarat. In 1965 after armed clashes, with makes it territorial cum resource Pakistan asserted that half of the Rann along dispute. This prospect has acted both as the 24th parallel was Pakistani territory. positive and negative factor. The desire for a India countered that the boundary run large EEZZ has pushed the two to harden roughly along the northern edge of Rann. The their stance. But at the sometime also matter was referred to arbitration and the encouraged them to explore a mutually indo-Pakistani western boundary case beneficial settlement Pakistan has insisted tribunals award on February 19, 1968, that the boundary in the creek first be upheld 90 percent of India‟s claim to the delimited in order to establish the point on entire Rann, conceding small sector to the land from which a sea boundary can be Pakistan39. Sir Creek dispute originated after delimited based on “land towards sea the parties had agreed before the Kutch approach” India argues in favour of tribunal to limit their larger dispute over the delimiting the maritime boundary first and Rann to the boundary in the north. Well to then moving towards the land based on the the south lay on agreed boundary that began “sea towards land approach”. Both at the head of Sir Creek and Rann a short approaches are technically possible and legal distance east words roughly along the 24th but only one can be fallowed, for which a parallel. However India`s contention was that compromise has to be reached between the this line moved up sharply at a right angle to two sides. In recent years both sides have meet the northern boundary of the Rann. shown the utmost urgency In setting the Pakistan sought to extend the line further matter to overt a united nation convention on east ward and claim half of the Rann along the law of the sea III (UNCLOS) clause passed the 24th parallel. The sole issue, therefore in 1982 and entered into force in 1994, that was, weather the short agreed boundary from would declare the entire disputed zone as the head of Sir Creek went all the way east or international waters. Should the two sides rose at a right angle at its western end to failed to determine their claim for respective reach the northern limit of Rann. The tribunal maritime zone by the May 2009 deadline accepted India‟s case that it did turn north fixed by the UN. Interestingly, after the and that almost the entire Rann was Indians. deadline passed, no definite indications have The dispute hinges on the demarcation of the come from the UN as to whether or not the boundary from “the mouth of his creek to the area has been declared international waters. top of Sir Creek and from” the top of Sir Creek If the UN deadline is observed then the eastwards to a point designated as the disputed region may well be international western terminus40. The dispute has another waters, de-facto, at present there is no word interesting dimension that both impedes as from India. Pakistan or the UN on the well as enhances the prospect of a jurisdictional status of the region. Possibly compromise resolution. The prospects of 98 IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews Research Paper [VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138 http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236 finding natural gas in the vicinity spurred General S.M. Chadhaand the Surveyor- both parties to attempt to settle the Sir Creek General, Major General Anis Ali Syed, boundary dispute on their own terms so as to respectively. At these talks,Ithe two sides enlarge their respective EEZ by 250 square only managed to discuss the fundamental miles with makes it territorial cum resource aspects of the dispute, but no dispute. The Sir Creek issue also has a direct concrete results eventuated. bearing on the as yet undelimited maritimeboundary between India and Later, at the second and third rounds of talks Pakistan because the definition of the land in 1990 and 1991, talks concluded without boundary inthe Sir Creek area will in turn making any substantial progress. On October determine where the maritime boundary 28-29, 1991 the fourth round of talks were intersects thecoast.Sir Creek, which is more held in Rawalpindi. This time the delegations of a fluctuating tidal channel, is a sixty-mile- were led by I. P. Khosla of the Indian Ministry long estuary in the marshes of the Rann of of External Affairs and Pakistan's Defence Kutch. The Rann lies on the border between Secretary, Salim Tilani. The Surveyors- the Indian state of Gujarat and the Pakistani General of the two countries also took part in province of Sind. In 1965, after armed these talks. Although during the talks the clashes, Pakistan asserted that half of the political desirability· of coming to terms on Rann along the 24th parallel was Pakistani the delineation of the boundary was territory. India countered that the boundary apparent, the Surveyor General of Pakistan ran roughly along the· northern edge of the remained adamant about technical Rann. The matter was referred to arbitration considerations and the linking of the and the Indo-Pakistani Western Boundary delineation of the maritime boundary with Case tribunal’s Award on February 19, 1968, the demarcation of the Sir Creek boundary. upheld 90 percent of India's claim to the The difficulties were compounded by a entire Rann, conceding small sectors to theoretical debate on what factors should Pakistan. govern the determination of the mid-channel of the Creek which incidentally shifted quite Negotiations on the Dispute often depending on the pattern of the tides. The dispute lies in the interpretation of the Concepts of "equidistance" and "equity" in maritime boundary line betweenKutch and demarcating the maritime boundary from the Sindh. Before India's independence, the mouth of the Creek towards the open seas provincial region was apart of Bombay constituted subjects of lively debate but Presidency of British India. After India's without results. independence in1947, Sindh became a part of The' fifth round of talks on this dispute were Pakistan while Kutch remained a part of held in New Delhi, on November 5-6, 1992, India.Pakistan lays claim to the entire creek headed by the Additional Secretary in the as per paras 9 and 10 of the Ministry of External Affairs I (MEA) BombayGovernment Resolution of 1914 NareshwarDayal and the Additional Secretary signed between then the Government ofSindh in the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Rao Maharaj of Kutch.During the first Khalid Saleem. Technical experts from the round of talks held in Islamabad on June 2, Indian Navy were also part of the talks on this 1989, the Indian andPakistani delegations occasion. Although the Indian Navy had done were led by the Surveyor-General, Major its homework before the talks and had Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 99 [ VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138 already conducted considerable research on delegation was headed by Rear Admiral M. the possible ways of defining a maritime Jameel Akhtar. As a part of the composite boundary from the sea (whose starting point dialogue process these talks sought to At the was undetermined), this issue unfortunately November 8, 1998 talks in New Delhi, India did not figure during the talks. In 1994, an objected to Pakistan's bid internationalise the Indian official/technical delegation on the Sir Creek issue, reiterating that all differences issue carried a "non-paper" to Pakistan which between New Delhi and Islamabad, after the proposed that the delineation of the maritime Simla Accord, had to be resolved bilaterally. boundary in the territorial sea could be Pakistan was of the view that India should governed by the 'median'/'equidistant' agree to its proposal to take the dispute to an principle, using the low water lines and low international tribunal. Speaking on behalf of tide elevations of both countries, whereas the Indian delegation, the Joint Secretary , beyond the territorial sea it could be handling Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan in governed by 'equidistant' as well as the Foreign Office, VivekKatiu said, "There is 'equitable' principles. Two years later, on no place at all for any third party intervention September 10, 1996, Pakistan made a in the Indo-Pakistani matters following the declaration that baselines should be drawn Simla accord. "27 He also said that arbitration straight, consisting of a series of nine straight was unacceptable under the framework of lines. India, which is yet to draw its base lines, the composite dialogue between the two rejected the declaration on the basis that sides and all issues were to be addressed by these lines are not in accordance with Article the two sides directly. In the end the talks, 7(2) of UNCLOS III. Besides, its point K lies off however, concluded without any progress the eastern bank of Sir Creek. But India and being made in terms of resolution. The two Pakistan are in agreement on the horizontal sides agreed to continue their discussions in sector of the land boundary. Both agree to the future. delimitation of a boundary line by existing Analysis of the Negotiations boundary pillars along the horizontal line and fixation of intermediary pillars in the same After almost six rounds of talks on the Sir line. Creek dispute, India and Pakistan have failed to come to any reasonable and satisfactory After the fifth round, the talks were shelved resolution. This reveals that there are some for a long time, and consequently, after six aspects of the dispute which are very difficult years, were again held at the Foreign to bridge between India and Pakistan. Let us Secretary level, first in June 1997 and then in look at these talks from the perspectives of September 1998. At these talks, India and ripeness, pre-negotiation and negotiation. Sir Pakistan agreed to form separate working Creek was an agreement signed between groups for each of the six issues and one of ruler of Kutch and government of Sndh in them was the Sir Creek dispute. Each issue 1914. The point of conflict and why it is still was to be taken up by its concerned working unresolved is: 1) Paragraph 9 of this verdict group as a part of a composite dialogue says that the boundary between Kutch and process. The talks of the Sir Creek working Sindh lies ‘to the east of the Creek,’ means group were ultimately held on November 8, that the creek belonged to Sindh i.e. Pakistan. 1998 in New Delhi. The Indian side was 2) Paragraph 10 says Sir Creek is navigable represented by the Surveyor General of India, most of the year. According to international Lt. General A.K. Ahuja, whereas the Pakistani law, a boundary can only be fixed in the

100 IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews Research Paper [VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138 http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236 middle of the navigable channel, which meant boundary on the eastern bank, on the Kutch that it has be divided between Sindh and side. Sind had claimed in 1905 that its Kutch, and thereby India and Pakistan. boundary lay on the Kori Creek, which is well to the south of Sir Creek. A compromise was Sir Creek has been a headache for both the arrived at in 1913, approved by the countries as well their citizens as certain Government of India, and recorded in a rights get violated due to unclear boundary Resolution of the Government of Bombay, to definition. A proper coordinated framework which the map was attached. The map in the is needed from both side to resolve this Appendix annexed to the Resolution of the problem, Sir Creek is a 96km tidal estuary Government of Bombay, dated February 24, dividing Gujarat and Sindh. In the absence of 1914, recorded a compromise of the dispute any bilateral agreement defining the between Kutch and Sind which was then part maritime boundary, the exact boundary of the Bombay Presidency. This Resolution is remains disputed. authoritative, and India's earlier reliance on it Pakistan`s Argument: According to a former constitutes an admission in law. Pakistan Pakistani foreign secretary, “The adjudicators itself, however, had contended in a May 19, in 1968 did not discuss the Sir Creek because 1958 note that “this map was intended to be in the pre-partition documents the creek was no more than an annexure to the Bombay clearly indicated as in Sind which is now in Government Resolution” of February 24, Pakistan”. India refutes this claim 1914. vehemently. The tribunal noted, "In view of Pakistan was right. It is the Resolution, not the aforesaid agreement, the question the attached map that is decisive. This concerning the Sir Creek part of the boundary Resolution refers to the Indian government's is left out of consideration.It is this very Sir “sanction” on November 11, 1913, of the Creek part of the boundary that has become a Kutch-Sind compromise over Kori Creek bone of contention. India and Pakistan have which the government of Bombay had spelled so far held six rounds of discussions on the out in its letter of September 20, 1913. This dispute. According to the 1992-93 Ministry letter refers to the line on the accompanying of External Affairs Annual Report, the talks map “from the mouth of the' Sir Creek to the failed to make any progress. India asserts that top of the Sir Creek”, which ran on the Kutch the boundary lies in the middle of the Creek. side. It also contains a provision by the Pakistan claims that the line lies on the commissioner in Sind that supports India's Creek's eastern bank, on the Indian side, and, stand. It reads: "He observed, however, that therefore, the entire Creek is Pakistan's. the Sir Creek changes its course from time to The delineation of the Indo-Pakistani time and the Western boundary of the area, maritime boundary is linked to this which it is proposed to surrender to the Rao determination. Pakistan insists that the [of Kutch], should therefore be described as boundary in the Creek first be delimited in the center of the navigable channel of the Sir order to establish the point on the land from Creek.” The Secretary to the Bombay which a sea boundary may be defined. India's government replied, “I am to explain that the concerns center on the maritime term 'navigable' is really inappropriate in the boundary.Pakistan, in its arguments, referred larger sense. The Creek is, of course, tidal, and to the map on which India had relied prior to it is only at certain conditions of the tide that the tribunal and which does show the the channel is navigable only to the country Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 101 [ VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138 craft as far as the point from which the The Geopolitical Importance of Sir Creek proposed boundary turns due east from the The strategic or military importance of Sir Creek.” This does not contradict the Sind Creek is little. The core importance of the Sir commissioner's condition but in fact Creek is because of the fishing resources. Sir endorses it. Creek is considered to be one of the largest India`s Argument: Fishing grounds in Asia. Further, immense potential economic benefits as the India supports its stance by citing the marshlands are estimated to be rich in Thalweg Doctrinein International Law. The hydrocarbons and shale gas, is another law states that river boundaries between two importance of Sir Creek. The Sir Creek states may be, if the two states agree, divided Dispute is disagreement on a marine by the mid-channel. Though Pakistan does not boundary that comprises an estuary in the dispute the 1925 map, it maintains that the Rann of Kutch that lies between India’s Doctrine is not applicable in this case as it Gujarat and Pakistan’s Sindh. Reasons for only applies to bodies of water that are dispute: akistan lays claim to it according to navigable, which the Sir Creek is not.India agreement between Sind government and rejects the Pakistani stance by maintaining rulers of kutch. India shows the 1925 map the fact that the creek is navigable in high with mid channel boundaries. It is an EEZ, tide, and that fishing trawlers use it to go out rich with mineral oil and natural gas deposits. to sea. Several cartographic surveys It is a great fishing ground that fishers of both conducted have upheld the Indian claim. sides want access to. Another point of concern for Pakistan is that Sir Creek has changed its course considerably For India: Gujarat, having the largest over the years. If the boundary line is coastline in India is characterized by two demarcated according to the Thalweg main gulfs iz. Gulf of Kutch and Gulf of principle, Pakistan stands to lose a Cambay.The 96-km estuary between India considerable portion of the territory that was and Pakistan where Gujarat State above the historically part of the province of Sindh. Gulf of Kutch and Sindh province meet is the Acceding to India's stance would also result disputed area. It is: in the shifting of the land/sea terminus point 1) Great fishing destination, important for several kilometres to the detriment of fisherman survival. Pakistan, leading in turn to a loss of several 2) Strategic and military importance. thousand square kilometres of its Exclusive Economic Zone under the United Nations 3) Rich in gas and mineral deposit, so Convention on Law of the Sea whoever has its control has the right of (UNCLOS).According to international law, a excavation under UNCLOS. boundary can only be fixed in the middle of For Pakistan: Pakistan claims the area on the the navigable channel, which meant that it basis of 1914 agreement between Govt of has be divided between Sindh and Kutch, and Sindh and Rulers of Kutch while India claims thereby India and Pakistan. India has used the Creek in compliance with 1925 this para to consistently argue that the agreement which divides the channel boundary needs to be fixed in the middle of equally.Sir Creek is an economically the creek significant area as- 1. Largest fishing ground in Asia

102 IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews Research Paper [VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138 http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236 2. Mineral and Gas rich area 2. India wants resolution via ‘thalweg’ principle of international law while Pakistan Problems says this principle only applies to non-tidal Fishermen misery: Many fishermen in a bid water bodies. to catch fish get caught by the other country’s 3. India wants resolution to be done forces and remain in jail for many years. bilaterally while Pakistan wants international Terrorist designs: The disputed area is used intervention. by terrorists to travel to India and conduct 4. India advocated resolution of maritime terrorist activities. E.g. the 26/11 Mumbai disputes while Pakistan says Creek’s dispute attacks. Smuggling: Such loopholes may lead needs to be resolved first. to the waters bring used for smuggling drugs by drug syndicates. Political Disputes: In Conclusion 1999, the Indian government shot down a The Sir Creekboundary dispute is purely an Pakistani Surveillance aircraft. Also the academic exercise, because it is apparent that terrorism and drug activates do not bode well India will not allow any third-party for India-Pakistan relations. The dispute can involvement in the resolution of this dispute. be resolved by the “Thawed Doctrine” which The resolution of the dispute through the calls for mid channel division, but the process ofbilateral negotiations seemed Pakistan government rejects it because it highly probable, keeping in mind that stands to lose a lot of area. A “Maritime Park” bothstates were keen to improve their may also be set up where both sides of historically hostile relations. Most probably farmers can fish without fears of arrest but the solution would involve demarcating the there are security issues. It can also be boundary from the sea, moving inwards, to a declared a Sensitive maritime area but this is specific point that is acceptable to both states, not agreeable due to it being an economically leaving the coastal boundary unmarked in the beneficial zone. Hence the problem remains transient. Such a compromise wouldresult in unresolved. The Sir Creek dispute hasn’t the demarcation of both the EEZ and brought any benefits to political and social continental shelves and would avoid loss of ambitions of both countries, and hence a clear maritime territory belonging to either nation demarcation of boundaries is needed to avoid to the International. unnecessary evils. Sensitive maritime area means that it can be declared an ecologically India-Pakistan does not want to lose on their or environmentally vulnerable area. This will economic prospects. Additionally this area mean that fishing, exploration, drilling, etc. has remained an area of concern because won't be allowed here and the area will come thisdemarcation ambiguity reduces under the watch of international surveillance which has led to terrorism and organizations. India and Pakistan have tried increased fishermen arrests and shootouts. resolving this matter in the past but without Disputes have arisen over ways to resolve any breakthrough. Reasons- this dispute and this has led to deadlocks and majorly the fishermen community of the two 1. The estuary has changed its course and any nations are suffering. Against the backdrop of side respecting the other’s traditional recent bonhomie, these nations should look boundary would lose its EEZ. forward to resolve these disputes bilaterally.

Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 103 [ VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138 References Defence Review, October-December, 1995:32. Also see Rahul Roy- 1. G. Noorani, (1995), 'CBMs for the Siachen Glacier, Sir Creek and Wular Barrage,' in 13. Chaudhury,’ Trends in Delimitation of Michael Krepon and Amit Sevak, eds., India’s Maritime Boundaries,’ Strategic Crisis Prevention. Confidence Building Analysis, Vol. 22, No.10, January and Reconciliation in South Asia, St. 1999:1519. Martin'~ Press, New York. 14. See Government of India, ‘Suggestion and 2. Anwar Iqbal, 'Dialogue on Wular Begins Confidence-Building Measures Sent by Today as Sir Creek Talks Put Off,' News, the Government of India to the 11 October, 1991 Government of Pakistan,’ Non-paper, 24 January 1994. 3. Indo-Pakistani Western Boundary Case Tribunal, 19 Feburary, 1968, cited in A.G. 15. ‘India-Pakistan Talks: Sir Creek’, Hindu 7 Noorani, op.cit., p.100. November 1998. 4. Rear Admiral K.R. Menon, (Retd.), (1999), 16. ‘India Rejects Pak. Move on Sir Creek’, 'Maritime Conflict Resolution and Hindu 10 November 1998. Confidence-Building in South-Asia', 17. ‘India-Pakistan Talks: Sir Creek’, Hindu 7 Indian Defence Review, October- November 1998. December, 1995, p.32. Also see 18. See Srinivasan, supra note 23, at 29 5. Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, 'Trends in (noting that demarcating “MBD from EEZ Delimitation of India's Maritime to Sir Creek Boundaries,' Strategic Analysis. Vol.XXII, No.lO. may result in the Continental Shelf areas of both countries coming under the ambit 6. Palash, K. (1998) ‘Sir Creek Row Began of the International Seabed Authority”). Over Pile of Fire Wood’, Asian Age, 10 Nov. 19. Zardari: ‘Pakistan in no way responsible’ for Mumbai attacks, CNN NEWS, Dec. 2, 7. Noorani, A.G. (1995) ‘CBMs for the 2008, Siachen Glacier, Sir Creek and Wular http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asia Barrage’ in Krepon, pcf/12/02/pakistan.zardari.lkl/index.ht 8. M. and Sevak, A. (eds.) Crisis Prevention, ml. Confidence Building and Reconciliation in 20. Id.; Krittivas Mukherjee, Gunfire, South Asia, New York, St. Martin’s Press. explosions rock Mumbai hotel, REUTERS, 9. Anwar, I. (1991) ‘ Dialogue on Wular Nov. 28, 2008, Begins Today as Sir Creek Talks Put Off,’ 21. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldN News, 11 October. ews/idUSTRE4AP75S20081128; As It 10. Indo-Pakistani Western Boundary Case Happened: MumbaiAttacks 29 Nov, BBC Tribunal, 19 February, 1968, cited in NEWS, Nov. 29, 2008, Noorani, 1995 op.cit.,p.100. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7 756073.stm. 11. Dixit, J.N. (1995) Anatomy of a Flawed Inheritence, New Delhi, Konark 22. India Makes Protest to Pakistan, BBC Publishers:157. NEWS, Dec. 1, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ 12. Rear Admiral K.R. Menon, (Retd.), ‘Maritime Conflict Resolution and south_asia/7758809.stm. Confidence-Building in South Asia,’ India

104 IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews Research Paper [VOLUME 3 I ISSUE 4 I OCT. – DEC. 2016] e ISSN 2348 –1269, Print ISSN 2349-5138 http://ijrar.com/ Cosmos Impact Factor 4.236 23. Security agencies dig for clues at 30. "Dialogue on Sir Creek begins". The Porbander, PRESS TRUST OF INDIA, Dec. Hindu.Retrieved May 21, 2006. 02, 2008, 31. Bearak, Barry (12 August 1999). "As the http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv Words Keep Flying, Pakistan Fires Errant /mumbaiterrorstrike/Story.aspx?ID=NE Missile". WEN20080075007&typ e=News. 32. New York Times, 1999. New York 24. Pak fishing trawler seized; 7 held, PRESS Times,.Retrieved 31 December 2014. TRUST OF INDIA, Dec. 02, 2008, 33. "The disputed Sir Creek". BBC News. http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv August 10, 1999. Retrieved May 21, 2006. /mumbaiterrorstrike/Story.aspx?ID=NE WEN20080075009&type=News 34. Marines."Pakistan Marines deployments".Marines.Retrieved 31 25. "Pakistan security experts declare Sir December 2014. Creek dispute 'technically resolved'". dna. 7 September 2013. 35. Feroze, Sami (12 July 2011). "surface-to- air missiles tested by Pakistan Navy". 26. "Kargilisation of Sir Creek". The Tribune, Dawn News, 2011. Dawn News,.Retrieved Chandigarh. Retrieved May 21, 2006. 31 December 2014. 27. "pak-Pakistan talks: Sir Creek". Embassy 36. "The Plight of Indo-Pak Fishermen and of India.Retrieved May 21, 2006. the Need to Appreciate Economic 28. "Dialogue on Sir Creek begins". The Rights".Oxford Human Rights muslim. Retrieved May 21, 2006. Hub.Retrieved 15 December 2016. 29. "Sir Creek". Islamabad Policy Research Institute. Retrieved May 21, 2006.

Research Paper IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 105