LAHORE – Pakistan has objected to India’s plan of erecting a ‘floating fence’ anchored by submerged metallic meshes along the disputed Sir Creek while clearly stating that the Creek is sovereign part of its territory.
Highly-placed sources confided to TheNation on Thursday that the Federal government has taken up the issue with the Indian Union Home Ministry. It was also learnt that the move could be part of the backchannel diplomacy on both the sides since the authorities here have conveyed serious reservations to their counterparts in India over the installation of floating fence along Sir Creek.
“The Ministry is closely monitoring the developing scenario in Sir Creek and is going to raise the issue at an appropriate forum immediately,” an official in the Foreign Ministry said, conditioning anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
While expressing serious concerns over the abrupt Indian move, the official said, “Sir Creek happens to be a disputed area and any unilateral action in the area will provoke reaction from Pakistan. It will also reflect on highhandedness of Indians that will add to the suspicion of Pakistan towards sincerity of India in resolving the issues.”
Reportedly, India has decided to erect, very soon, a “floating fence” anchored by submerged metallic meshes along the disputed Sir Creek. New Delhi says they are going to erect the floating fence in the disputed territory allegedly to check illegal crossings and arms smuggling.
The ‘floating fence’ for the Creek is reported to be a “gabion box” fence, which will have all weather concertina wires and poles. “Any such attempt made by India would lead to misunderstandings between Pakistan and India as according to Pakistan’s position the Creek is sovereign part of its territory,” political pundits believe.
A media report had suggested that after considering various options by Union Home Ministry, it had been decided to fence the Creek allegedly being used for illegal crossings and arms smuggling.
The two agencies involved in the project would be the National Buildings Construction Cooperation (NBCC) of India, which will erect the fence of 75km of the Creek while the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) had already started work in the rest of the area.
Analysts say that though the reality was confessed by India’s leading politician Mani Shankar Aiyar when he delivered a lecture on Pakistan-India relations in Lucknow and advised the people to forget about 2001 Parliament attack and 26/11 Mumbai attacks as Pakistan faces similar situations daily.
He also stated that Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism. Relations between the nuclear-armed neighbours are stalled since Mumbai attacks on 26/11.
The gun and bomb assault on the Indian economic hub is still being dragged as an impediment to the normalisation of relations between Pakistan and India.
Pakistan and India have endured inhospitable relations since independence. However, visits by Parliamentarians, lawyers, and social workers is seen a welcome development in the country.
The relations between the two countries will remain hostage to core issues like Kashmir, Siachen and water disputes. The two countries can defer these issues temporarily but not for an indefinite period of time.
“The lopsided approach adopted by Indian government is the major concern for the people of Pakistan,” security experts suggested.
Peace needs to be given a chance, but it cannot come about without bridging gaps, resolving disputes, and showing magnanimity, they said.
A couple of months ago, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on his return from Tehran had said, “Sir Creek, which we had talked about during his (Zardari’s visit to Ajmer) was doable.” However, “There must be a genuine feeling that Pakistan is doing all that it could do to deal with terrorism directed against India from Pak soil.”
Diplomatic experts underlines that what the Indian Prime Minister considered as “doable” is now being undertaken unilaterally by India.
For the sake of goodness to the people of two countries, contentious issues must be resolved with sincerity and transparently.
Otherwise, political rhetoric’s will keep the situation of people in the two countries in limbo and history will blame the leaders of the two nations for the foregone conclusion.