GK Notes: Important International Boundary Lines
boundary between India and Pakistan because the definition of the land boundary in the Sir short distance eastward roughly along the 24th parallel. However Pakistan sought to extend the line further eastward and claim half of the .. Secretary, handling Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan relations in the Foreign Office. The trouble in India Pakistan relations begin in when Hindu maharaja wanted .. km long cease fire line across Jammu and Kashmir. . Pakistan asserted that half of the Rann along the 24th parallel was Pakistani. These Are The Lines That Divided Indian Subcontinent And Carved New Territories. which later got divided into two countries India and Pakistan in the British controlled its foreign affairs and diplomatic relations.
Before independence, the area was part of British India. After independence inSindh became a part of Pakistan while Gujarat remained a part of India. Pakistan lays claim to the entire creek as per paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Sind Government Resolution of  signed between the then Government of Sindh and Rao Maharaj of Kutch.
Map not to scale. The resolution, which demarcated the boundaries between the one territories, included the creek as part of Sindh, thus setting the boundary as the eastern flank of the creek. India sticks to its position that the boundary lies mid-channel as depicted in another map drawn inand implemented by the installation of mid-channel pillars back in 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 map, it maintains that the doctrine is not applicable in this case as it most commonly applies to non-tidal rivers, and Sir Creek is a tidal estuary. India rejects the Pakistani stance by maintaining the fact that the creek is navigable at high tide and that the thalweg principle is used for some international boundaries in tidal waters, and that fishing trawlers use Sir Creek 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 applied to the current channel, Pakistan and India would both lose small amounts of wetlands territory that was historically part of their provinces. Sincethere have been twelve rounds of talks between the two nations, without a breakthrough. After India lodged a protest, it increased its own patrolling activity.
In mid-FebruaryPakistani forces dug themselves in around Kanjarkot, which may have been previously unoccupied, although President Ayub of Pakistan claimed that Pakistan had "long" occupied it.
India moved large forces into the disputed territory during the months of January-Aprilestablished forward military posts therein and carried out full-scale land, sea and air manoeuvers in its vicinity, thus forcibly demolishing the status quo. Both sides built up the forces available to them in the area, manned strong points, and shifted defense responsibility from border units to the army. The Indian response of occupying other posts near the frontier and, reportedly, building an airstrip nearby brought the latent crisis to a head.
During Aprila series of incidents has occurred with both sides blaming the other. The Pakistanis, enjoying a militarily superior position, moved forcefully against Indian outposts near the border fort of Kanjarkot and most recently staged a "preemptive" attack at Biar Bet, deeper within the disputed area. The Indians were mainly on the defensive but, according to Pakistan, had established outposts within undisputed Pakistani territory.
It was only on 08 April when the Indian forces attacked a Pakistan out-post at Ding in an endeavor to complete a military take over of the territory to present Pakistan with a fait accompli that the Pakistan forces went into action for the first time, and it was on 19 April after watching India's actions in the Rann of Kutch for three and a half months that Pakistan forces went into the disputed territory for the first time. Both sides allege that the other employed armor.
India–Pakistan border - Wikipedia
The Indians denied the charge and there was no immediate evidence to support it. Although firm proof was lacking, there were reports supporting the Indian claim that Pakistan has moved armor to the Kutch area and that it may be engaged in action.
Casualties were reported by both sides, shooting continued between patrols and strong points, and public opinion - especially in India - had been aroused sharply. On 19 April Pakistan's troops in the Rann of Kutch held off from exploiting a favorable tactical situation, when after the capture of Biar Bet they were in a position to cut right through to the Indian forces on the 24th parallel and destroy from the rear the two Indian Brigades located in the disputed territory.
Furthermore on April 30th Pakistan unilaterally ordered troops in the Rann of Kutch not to do anything that might aggravate the situation, which ultimately led to a de facto cease-fire. In an atmosphere colored by India's military humiliation by the Chinese instrong public resentment over Pakistan's developing relationship with Peiping and the hurt feelings over the postponement of Shastri's visit, the already beleaguered Government of India cannot afford domestically to be gotten the better of by Pakistan in a military confrontation.
List of Important Lines and Boundaries
The GOI's domestic political discomfort is increased by aspects of the Kutch dispute which are analogous to the pre situation in Ladakh with China - e. Even before the activization of the Kutch dispute, the moderate Shastri government proved to be most vulnerable politically to charges of weakness and indecision. Pakistan's apparent utilization of U. The Kutch dispute, occurring in an area of Pak military superiority, provided Pakistan with several opportunities.
Diplomatically, it provided Pakistan an opportunity to damage Indo-U. Additionally, the Kutch dispute provides Pakistan, in the weeks just before Bandung II, with an opportunity to brand India as an aggressor in Afro-Asian eyes. This objective would be further advanced if Pak actions in Kutch cause India to retaliate elsewhere, especially if India should move into an area generally recognized as Pak territory.
Domestically, the Kutch confrontation enables the GOP to score over India, despite India's overall military superiority, particularly in Kashmir and along the East Pak border. Finally, Pakistan undoubtedly calculated that India's response to the Kutch situation will lend a plausibility to the basic Pak contention that India would use its military strength enhanced by US military assistance to intimidate Pakistan and stick to an intransigent policy on Kashmir, rather than in combatting Communist China.
On June 30,India and Pakistan signed an agreement that ended the fighting in the Rann of Kutch. The agreement, which was facilitated through the good offices of the United Kingdom, was signed separately in Karachi and New Delhi. President AYUB of Pakistan issued a statement on June 30 welcoming not only the agreement relating to the Rann of Kutch, but also a second agreement signed by India and Pakistan which called for the withdrawal of troops from both sides of the entire border between India and Pakistan.
President Johnson sent a personal message to British Prime Minister Wilson on June 30 congratulating him on his success in bringing the conflict to a peaceful solution. The agreement signed by India and Pakistan called for the dispute to be settled on the basis of binding arbitration, by an arbitral tribunal to be established with the cooperation of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The tribunal did not reach agreement on a final award until February The award gave approximately 10 percent of the disputed territory to Pakistan, including much of the high ground where the heaviest fighting took place.
The award was reluctantly accepted by Pakistan, but bitterly resented in India, where it was generally felt that India had a strong case for sovereignty over the entire Rann of Kutch. During the s Pakistan's relations with the United States and the West had grow stronger.
However, the United States adopted a policy of denying military aid to both India and Pakistan after the War of in over the Rann of Kutch. Since most Pak military equipment was MAP-supplied, while India was not dependent to any comparable extent on US sources, Pakistan was more heavily penalized by US withholding from both sides, and India could be emboldened if the Paks were relatively disadvantaged.
Under the circumstances in Rann of Kutch, Pakistan would be forced to withdraw all its forces one sidedly, since they mainly MAP-supplied, while India was not thus handicapped.
The Pakistani assessment was that India was demoralised after being defeated by China in ; after Nehru's death, the Indian political system was subject to great uncertainties; the people of Jammu and Kashmir had been alienated from India; international community would not oppose Pakistani military intervention, as India showed unwillingness to change its stand on Kashmir during the talks; and Pakistan's marginal success in the Rann of Kutch confirmed its assessment of Indian Army's vulnerability.
When Pakistan launched 'Operation Gibraltar' later inthe expectations were that India would respond militarily only in areas where Pakistan had launched military operations. The war in purely operational and military terms was a draw with no decisive military victory for either side. It was in politico-strategic terms and policy objectives that Pakistan was defeated.
These southern hostilities were ended by British mediation, and both sides agreed to refer the case to binding international arbitration in order to limit tensions and removea nuisance to relations. Consequently, the Rann of Kutch Tribunal Award was concluded.
On February 19,the Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary case tribunal award bolstered India's claim over 90 percent of the Rann while conceding remaining 10 percent area to Pakistan. The tribunal made its award on February 19,delimiting a line of kilometers that was later demarcated by joint survey teams. Of its original claim of some 9, square kilometers, Pakistan was awarded only about square kilometers.
Beyond the western terminus of the tribunal's award, the final stretch of Pakistan's border with India is about 80 kilometers long, running west and southwest to an inlet of the Arabian Sea. Unfortunately, there was no ruling on the demarcation of Sir Creek, a disputed area that remains a source of irritation.
The Indo-Pak boundary finally runs through the low-lying, tabletop, salty waste lands called the Rann. A variety of creeks jut out like fingers from the body of the Indian Ocean into the marshy flatlands of the Rann.
The alignment of the international border here is also disputed and is commonly referred to as the Sir Creek issue. The Sir Creek dispute involves defining the international boundary along the Sir Creek, a km-long estuary in the saline wetlands of the Rann of Kutch between the state of Gujurat in India and the province of Sind in Pakistan. The dispute predates the creation of India and Pakistan and stems from a dispute between the British Indian State of Bombay and the Princely State of Kutch in the first decade of the 20th century.
The princely state of Kutch and Sindh had their first falling out about the creek back in s. Though they reached an agreement, the devil lying in detail was hard at work even then.India Pakistan Relations
Bythe dispute was back again, this time in the form of a gap between the agreement's text and its implementation on the ground.