The Sir Creek issue between India and Pakistan represents a distinct yet equally intractable longstanding territorial and maritime dispute, a conflict deeply rooted in the complex legacies of the colonial era, competing national interests, and sensitive strategic calculations. Despite its relatively small geographic size, this 96-kilometer-long, sinuous strip of marshy, tidal water holds substantial geopolitical, economic, and strategic importance for both nations.
Located in the environmentally fragile Rann of Kutch region, where the Indian state of Gujarat and Pakistan’s Sindh province border each other, this tidal estuary flows directly into the Arabian Sea and its delimitation directly dictates the precise trajectory of the maritime boundary between the two countries. The stakes involved are immense, encompassing not only the immediate land boundary but also control over a substantial, resource-rich portion of the adjacent sea, which directly impacts the crucial determination of their respective Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), the potential for untapped offshore energy resources, and vital fishing areas that are essential for sustaining the livelihoods of thousands of local inhabitants on both sides.
The dispute’s origins trace back to the early 20th century, specifically to a 1914 agreement signed between the then-Maharaja of the princely state of Kutch (which later became part of India) and the government of Sindh (which was then part of the Bombay Presidency) to define their respective administrative boundaries. The core of the current, complex disagreement stems from the opposing and mutually exclusive interpretations of this 1914 agreement and the accompanying map.
Pakistan maintains that the international boundary runs along the eastern bank of the Sir Creek, thereby placing the entirety of the creek’s waters within Pakistani sovereign territory. This claim heavily relies on a textual and cartographic reading of the original 1914 map. Conversely, India disputes the legal binding nature of this map, arguing that it was not formally signed by all parties. India instead vigorously advocates for the internationally recognized and accepted Thalweg principle, which postulates that the boundary in a navigable water body should be established along the deepest navigable channel. By applying this principle, India asserts the boundary should run precisely through the mid-channel of the creek, thereby granting shared and equal rights to both nations.
The issue resurfaced dramatically after lying largely dormant following the 1947 Partition, gaining significant prominence during the 1965 Rann of Kutch skirmishes. While a subsequent, internationally mediated tribunal, led by the United Kingdom, successfully resolved much of the broader land border conflict, the precise delineation of the Sir Creek region was left ambiguous and frustratingly unresolved.
The message concludes with a powerful reflection on the unwavering unity and fierce patriotism of the entire Pakistani nation standing united behind its professional armed forces, bolstered by a strong faith, which they profoundly believe makes them invincible to any enemy. India is thus explicitly advised to learn from the undeniable failures of the past and refrain from further, dangerous aggression that would only result in defeat and political insult once again.
The contemporary significance of the Creek is less about the marshy land itself and more fundamentally about the maritime boundary that must logically extend from it into the vast Arabian Sea. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal nations are sovereignly entitled to a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, within which they possess exclusive rights to all marine resources, fishing, and critical oil and gas exploration.
Since the precise starting point of this EEZ is unequivocally determined by the location of the land boundary terminus, the total maritime territory each nation is entitled to could vary drastically, potentially by thousands of square kilometers, based entirely on which boundary interpretation is ultimately accepted. Therefore, the Sir Creek dispute is fundamentally not merely about a narrow, marshy water body but about sovereign control over thousands of square kilometers of critically important maritime territory and its associated significant economic and strategic benefits.
The economic stakes are indeed considerable, with numerous geological surveys and expert assessments suggesting the high potential for vast, untapped deposits of oil and natural gas within the seabed. Control over these vital energy resources would significantly bolster the energy security and long-term economic prosperity of the possessing nation.
Moreover, the Arabian Sea serves as a critically important fishing ground, and local coastal communities on both sides rely heavily on fishing for their sustenance and livelihood. The lack of a clear, defined maritime boundary frequently and tragically leads to incidents where local fishermen inadvertently cross into disputed or perceived foreign waters, resulting in their frequent arrest, detention, and confiscation of vessels by the respective coast guards.
From a critical strategic and military perspective, the creek’s physical proximity to the highly sensitive international border makes it a critical area for constant surveillance and rigorous security. The difficult terrain, characterized by shifting mudflats, dense mangrove forests, and narrow, complex channels, is potentially conducive to illegal crossings, large-scale smuggling, and the infiltration of non-state actors. Thus, strategic control over this area is seen as vital to the broader national security architectures of both nations, and the unresolved nature of the dispute actively contributes to the deep, pervasive mistrust that fundamentally characterizes the India-Pakistan relationship.
A permanent resolution has remained frustratingly elusive. India and Pakistan have engaged in multiple rounds of talks. While joint technical teams have physically surveyed the area extensively, and unofficial reports indicated that both sides were close to a pragmatic compromise position largely based on the Thalweg principle during the tenure of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, these efforts completely stalled due to political instability in Pakistan and, later, the breakdown of relations following the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Since then, direct, dedicated talks on Sir Creek have largely been frozen. Regarding the approach to resolution, Pakistan has publicly expressed its openness to third-party mediation, potentially through reputable international legal forums like the ICJ. India, however, has firmly insisted that all disputes must be settled exclusively through direct negotiations in the spirit of the 1972 Simla Agreement. India remains fundamentally wary of setting any precedent that could lead to the internationalization of other territorial disputes, notably Kashmir. Consequently, third-party arbitration remains improbable.
Recently, the issue has been sharply thrust back into the public spotlight and media discourse following a series of aggressive and highly provocative statements from India’s senior defense and military leadership. India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh publicly claimed that Pakistan was actively constructing military infrastructure near Sir Creek and issued a strong, unambiguous warning of a decisive response to any “misadventure” by Pakistan.
Speaking at an army base in Gujarat on the occasion of the Hindu festival of ‘Vijayadashami’, Singh accused Pakistan of “malafide” intentions and continuing to raise unnecessary concerns over the Sir Creek sector despite India’s purported repeated efforts at dialogue. He threatened that any future Pakistani misadventure would be met with a response so severe that it would “change both history and geography,” ominously stating that the “road to Karachi also passes through the Creek.”
Simultaneously, Indian COAS Gen Upendra Dwivedi issued a separate, equally strong threat, warning that if cross-border terrorism persisted, Pakistan would be compelled to “rethink its place in the world map” entirely. He further stated that in any future conflict, India would not exhibit the strategic restraint shown during the past and largely forgotten “Operation Sindoor.”
Adding to this escalating military rhetoric, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh re-asserted an earlier, controversial claim that four to five Pakistani fighter jets, mostly the advanced F-16s, were allegedly destroyed during the aforementioned “Operation Sindoor” in May, claiming a “long operation” was carried out at a depth of 300 km inside Pakistan, severely damaging military installations. This claim echoed an earlier statement about shooting down at least six Pakistani aircraft. However, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has categorically denied these claims, asserting that not a single Pakistani aircraft was hit. Pakistan, in fact, maintains a counter-claim to have successfully shot down multiple Indian warplanes, including a highly advanced Rafale jet. Even US President Donald Trump has publicly mentioned the destruction of several Indian aircraft. India’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Anil Chauhan, has conspicuously avoided confirming the exact number of downed Indian planes, stating that the l focus should primarily be on the reason, not the exact number.
The Pakistan Army has publicly declared it is taking these recent, highly inflammatory Indian threats with the utmost seriousness. ISPR reacted strongly, expressing “deep concern” over the “unrealistic, provocative and war-mongering statements” made by the top Indian military leadership. It suggested that India’s security establishment was actively attempting to manufacture pretexts for future aggression and warned that such statements could have dire, large-scale consequences for regional peace and stability in South Asia. The statement recalled that Indian aggression in May had already brought the two nuclear-armed powers to the brink of war and warned that the recent provocations could tragically lead to large-scale, mutually assured destruction.
The most recent Corps Commanders’ Conference further underscored this firm position, expressing profound concern over the “irresponsible and provocative statements” from the Indian political leadership, viewing them as a continuation of “creating war hysteria for domestic political interests.” The military forum definitively reiterated that any aggression by India would be met with an immediate and decisive response, and that any notion of the enemy’s “geographical superiority will be utterly destroyed.” The Pakistan Army firmly asserts its superior capabilities and resolve to take the fight to “every corner of the enemy territory,” warning India that any attempt to turn its verbal threats into reality would inevitably result in a severe lesson and mutual damage.
The message concludes with a powerful reflection on the unwavering unity and fierce patriotism of the entire Pakistani nation standing united behind its professional armed forces, bolstered by a strong faith, which they profoundly believe makes them invincible to any enemy. India is thus explicitly advised to learn from the undeniable failures of the past and refrain from further, dangerous aggression that would only result in defeat and political insult once again.
