The Elephant at Sea: India's Maritime Strategy

Asia Program
In the next decade, India plans to introduce 40 new warships and 400 new aircraft to its naval forces. Such efforts reflect a dramatic maritime transformation now underway in India-one meant to improve India's power projection capabilities at sea and to produce a blue-water navy. On March 9, the Asia Program, with co-sponsorship from International Security Studies, hosted an event on India's maritime strategy and growing maritime power.
Event Speakers:
Arun Prakash
Siddarth Srivastava
Andrew C. Winner

[@0310tillo]

I had once heard a sanskrit Hindu verse (written in 1700 BC) it said about using less metal over ship bases or else the magnetic rocks in sea would slow down the ships ancient Indians had works best navy but today their navy is on 4th rank

[@subrajitdey3514]

ttt you from?

[@happy2video]

but that heritage is now under its destruction ... in our country theses are at risk ,these are under its mass destruction as in the name of secularism ... they are hunting it by making fake manipulated propagandas and for that making medias ,crook scholars

[@AdstarAPAD]

Australia has never seen India as even a potential enemy.. Australia has been focused on East Asian and South East Asian nations.. India has never been of concern to Australia.. The recent Australian build up is a repose to the Chinese naval build up.. It is doing what most nations of Asia are doing in response to China.. In fact Australia probably welcome the Indian build up as adding to the counterweight against China..

[@markpenzak5175]

AdstarAPAD I agree with you that Australia might currently see the Indian naval build-up as a counterweight to China. I don't think you are correct to say Australia has never seen India as a potential enemy. Do you recall Australia selling Pakistan 50 Mirage jets in 1990 for a song. That wasn't done to make a few dollars.

[@AdstarAPAD]

Little Coogee Those fighters where our old Mirage 111s they where purchased from France in the mid 1960's They where so obsolete and old when we sold them and we sold them for bottom dollar just to save the cost of scrapping them. Pakistan got some cheap second hand jets that where so old you would be putting your life in danger if you where to pull a high G maneuver in one of them.. So again I am 49 years old and never in my life have i heard anyone in Australia either in the media or people around me talk of India as a threat.. There has only ever been talk of China or Indonesia.. But now there is not really any talk of Indonesia.. So i assure you India has never been seen as a threat to Australia..

[@markpenzak5175]

Those fighters were old but not so old that they weren't still in service as of 2007. Indeed if you look at an Age article from that time www.theage.com.au/news/national/jet-sales-haunt-canberra/2007/11/06/1194329225075.html you'll see that intelligence was suggesting that they were being used to carry Pakistani nuclear weapons. Secondly, at the time Australia sold them, India had just leased a nuclear submarine from Russia, INS Chakra, which served in the Indian navy from 1988 to 91 - an event that I recalled caused some consternation in Australia. Given that any arming of Pakistan would be alarming for the Indian military, I have trouble believing that a message wasn't being sent. If that wasn't the case, then Australia was either incredibly naive or asinine.

[@AdstarAPAD]

Little Coogee Well as far as Australia was concerned it was a purely financial transaction. With no real geo-political significance. They where obsolete when we sold them and of little military significance. India had superior fighters at the time anyway.. So no message was being sent to anyone.. Australia had purchased the FA - 18's in 1988 and was glad that someone was willing to buy our old mirages.. You have read too much into this.. It was not a militarily significant purchase.. Oh and i very much doubt that Pakistan would have trusted them to carry nuclear weapons. I would never have trusted them to be dependable..

[@markpenzak5175]

AdstarAPAD Hi Adstar, you could be right, I don't have no knowledge that isn't public. But do you admit, that if Australia did sell those jets purely to make $30 million, (which wasn't a lot of money even in 1990 relative to military expense) then it was extremely naive...and Australia is usually a pretty crafty operator on a diplomatic level.

[@welingkartr416]

The Indian journalist on the panel seemed to run around everywhere and was "reporting" rather than projecting what India seems to want to do. Sad!

[@elvispatrao8666]

adm Prakash rocks

[@uditadhikari]

The second guy is so correct when he talked about DRDO. This shameless organization has cost India time, money, and lives of its armed services. It feels it is not accountable and can just waste as much as it wants. Government should only do research, and leave development to private sector. DRDO currently has monopoly and all these left parties like it because they can do their union politics with this organization.

[@MrPoornakumar]

U Rollz ! Probably you are right on the spot. But Indian industry is still to be matured to take up the challenge. It takes time. For a poor post-independent India this outfit was the mainstay. In any case, India can't be compared to USA where the things you mentioned are possible. India isn't USA. But then, how China is managing its Defence Development. As per your thinking there should be a bunch of defence developers of Technology there, what do you say? How wonderful would it be if the whole world is cast on an American template (in such things).

[@MrPoornakumar]

U Rollz! "Government should only do research and leave development to private sector": It is OK in USA the technological super-giant. No distinction is made in india between the two & drdo is least engaged in Research as there is hardly any 'ab initio'research in drdo. Everyone expects it to do development for which it was created within the Defence Ministry. The ministry is not a University to do research; drdo needs to address the services' immediate needs & to solve them. if they want an aero engine developed in a year (if not overnight), it must do it. Else it is scolded, abused & termed "useless" etc. Now have you thought about it - an aero engine developed from scratch because France did it, Russia did it, USA did it. It is another story that India manufactures a host of aero engines for many aircraft in IAF inventory, but under license which means translating from the 'blue prints' supplied by the developer (for Chrissake, see the difference). But none is bothered how they did it & in what time frame. India's drdo must do it because it is its job to do it. That is the logic. Well it "has" to do it whether it can or not. Is this is the way technology gets evolved. Now my question to you is : Do you feel you can comment on this topic in a worthwhile, meaningful way (it should avoid levity, but shall be deep) that drdo can take seriously & implement. These private sector guys will do all of it - learn the basics, the technology, get to know how others (Russia, UK, Sweden, USA do) & all that in say one year (the country is impatient as you yourself swear & wants results fast). You may not appreciate it, but the fact is the private sector never ever did a thing like this in the history of independent India nor attempted (you can verify). Because of the urgency (as there was none) government was forced to do it. Is the private sector patriotic enough to feel the need to do it. OK leave out the big-ticket items like the humongous aero-engine, Light Combat Aircraft but smaller things like a rifle, a parachute or a cartridge for pilot ejection seat on which the pilot's life depends. Next, what you call as 'Research' and what is 'development'? What do you say? You seem to be a reasonably educated, qualified Indian & so I ask you. Tell me whether you are entitled to talk on the subject & with what credentials (like spending a quarter century on a project in drdo which has 51 labs).

[@sinalbertckwong6406]

... a definative description: AN ELEPHANT AT SEA... that speak a lot, loud and clear.... LMAO....

[@jamesmerkel9442]

If I was calling some shots n India(real democracy, not what we hve), I would but boots on the ground n Somalia & Yemen. N Somalia it would come n the form of aid (FOOD) & governance & n Yemen more info structure & engineering support +tech free aid. This is a place & chance for India to show the world a diff path then Fascism & chaos the usa & elites spread. Nothing will soften & better things between u & Pakistan like seeing real action, the kind Pakistan is know for to help ppl n need, & to stabilize w/their military. It is an obvious next step & right n your back yard. The whole world is crying out for leadership. U can't go 1/2, & b weak willed. Another thing/step n India growth/military. U hve no history of invasion or enslaving, so who better for the task. Russia gave the usa 2 black eyes on the world stage n Syria(well deserved) politically, & turkey is trying to follow r bad example. There is another way(w/your accent). China has shown this n slightly dishonest measures. They either come n w/out a shot, economical, or they lean on u like Russia as world most important new power military & economy. It is a closed left fist, & an open right hand. This is not the Indian way(England of today way, when not trying to live n usa shadow, & being out played by the french). This spot on the globe is crucial both for shipping/oil, & of couse military(Indian self defense, & a easy way to flex from both sides base power/sea power, while deigning it from future foes). I hve more but I will leave u w/ the fact that u should make an exception n Pakistan's case to not using a large nuclear weapon period. It will blow back & kill u to. Or go the other route(usa & my style) & remind them that n a nuke exchange India wins because she has more ppl & they r spread over vast area. I think both message will get the pnt across. They love to brag how they hve beaten u up n the past, so they will not need to use a nuke. N the end both ppl r great reasonable intelligent fair logical actors. N that type of case nukes can b a cold war peace instrument. U get to play war & benefit from new tech & security, while they get to play tuff guys. Red & blue r playing u both against each other to their own benefits. It may come down to a limited war/show of new quick effective precise force to convince Pak of India new military heft. Then it becomes simple math, for intelligent ppl. U hve more ppl, Navy, tech, capability across the total spectrum + most importantly economic Growth. When Pak see the lay of the land & India new relationship w/usa, it becomes ever more ridiculous to cont the terrorist angle.

[@MrPoornakumar]

James Merkel! Your English text is terrible & what I am not used to. Well, never mind. It was a refreshing bouquet of ideas & views. First, India wanted to be isolationist but couldn't. It had to have nuclear weapons (thanks to JL Nehru's forward looking policy & decisions made soon after independence on Nuclear policy; the same time Pakistan too became independent) as otherwise it'd become a surrogate to its northern neighbour, whose knife hidden in the folds of the cloak- it took time to notice. On Pakistan, India is not inimical but one of irritation. But when it became China's surrogate, India saw treachery & perfidy as well as a plan to dismember India. It was the time India had to sit up & take note and arm itself. You know what? It seems Nehru was offered Security Council membership even before Indian independence. It was very generous of Britain to project India, its subject nation on global stage (in anticipation of independence). Most Indians miss out such points & some made hatred of Britain a profession. India is a big country with population equal to the three southern continents of Africa, South America & Australia (the last hardly matters). Contrary to the blame that India was gobbling up others territories. It got its both arms hived off, while its head (Kashmir) is being sought in return for peace. 500+ princely states got merged with a little force at places, Nehru opted to take Kashmir (once a princely state too), his ancestral land, to UN in a dispute with Pakistan & got in return confirmation of Pakistan's right on it. Then he called China, Asian brother (Nehru's grand plan was to do away with the Army for India, so that all the money can be spent on development- how naive/greedy in a harsh world!) & got in return 1962 Chinese occupation of India when India was least prepared for war. It shattered Nehru's dreams & he died heart-broken. He was the architect of India's insecurity. When I say this, I state a fact. Even a Prime Minister of a country could do mistakes, bringing in personal predilections in taking decisions for the nation- to err is human. Merger of states (Sikkim was one such state that was treated differently because it was on border; Bhutan another) in India is equated to gobbling up surrounding countries. Fact is the people are the same in all these. Even the tiny French & Portuguese enclaves (got merged later) were'nt spared. West called the residual India, 'Hindu' India. It refused to empathise with India that stated it didn't believe in a thesis that a religion (from the same ethnic stock) constitutes a country. That thesis got buried when one of its wings (of the same Islamic people) broke free to become Bangladesh. In the past, the British sitting in New Delhi surveyed all over the Security of North Indian Ocean (from Suez to Singapore) & controlled the whole region. After they left there was a power & military vacuum that nascent India, like a babe in the woods, failed to see. What it failed to see is a role imposed by Geography. The irony is, India however much it might like to, can't shirk from this responsibility. , A past PM PV Narasimha Rao, said India can't reduce its size to suit the neighbours. never mind. Better late than never. The previous governments were timid, fearing reaction from across the border. Particularly they were terrified of the backlash, by the terrorist acts in the country. It is painful to listen to Muslims across the border lamenting over deaths of Muslims while commenting that the Kafirs (Hindus) deserved to die. India swallowed all insults, instead of facing the situation. At last India turned determined to efface all past military setbacks & there is no looking back. None can stop it now.

[@ishanbansal3560]

Decade end in 2023 i would like to see how much congress put in and how much bjp does

[@MrPoornakumar]

Ishan Bansal ! OK let them call each as A & B. A is the best, B is the worst. So what? They or one of themblundered. So what? What do I get from this? Does it in any way improve the country's defence preparedness? Do we have to wallow in the past misdeeds, instead of worrying over how do do the task on hand, to the best of my ability. OK if I can't do let me find someone somewhere; how do I go about finding him (no sloaganeering please; no ideologies or no such bias or sectarianism like no Muslims (APJ was a Muslim) or no black fellows).

[@0310tillo]

I had once heard a sanskrit Hindu verse (written in 1700 BC) it said about using less metal over ship bases or else the magnetic rocks in sea would slow down the ships ancient Indians had works best navy but today their navy is on 4th rank