Methods

This study employs a qualitative research approach to explore the intricate dynamics of geopolitics and maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region. Specifically, we use textual and contextual analyses of relevant scholarship, official statements, and government reports to delve into the nuances of the concepts within their political, geographical and historical contexts.

The Wars and Geopolitics

The inception of ‘World Island’ and within it a single great political authority, Heartland, a construct of Halford J. Mackinder in 1904, resulted in further growth of the discourse. His claims that the Columbian Epoch (1500-1900), which was characterised by leverage of navies, was transiting towards leveraging land, strongly arguing that it is the ‘natural seat of power’ 1, 2. The term ‘geopolitics’ was first introduced by Rudolf J Kjellen, emphasising the influence of geographical influence on politics and, subsequently, its influence on policies added to the chain of discourse on the term 2. Where he defined geopolitics as “the study of the state as a geographical organism or a phenomenon in space”, indicating that the nation-states of the time understood and looked at leveraging the “space by colonisation, amalgamation or conquest” 1, 2. In his scholarly exposition delineating the evolutionary trajectory of the term 'geopolitics,' Charles Hagan elucidates a crucial distinction between political geography and geopolitics. While Political Geography concerns itself with historical and factual accounts of the changes surrounding the state, geopolitics observes and speculates on the influence of geography on the political events and political decisions of the state 2.

Karl Haushofer contends that “geopolitics formulates the scientific foundation of the art of political transactions in the struggle for existence of political living forms on the living space of the earth.” This assertion posits geopolitics as a scholarly framework that elucidates the principles governing the intricate interplay between political actors and their territories, thereby contributing substantively to the understanding of geopolitical dynamics and strategic decision-making in the pursuit of security and influence on the global ecosystem. The conversation of optimising geopolitics started after World War I as a means of restoration to of lost glory of Germany by harnessing its geography to become self-sufficient. Hagan contributes to the discourse, writing that any nation-state is looking at “an ultimate goal of world organisation based on domination and not on cooperation between equal states.” Explicitly characterising geopolitics as a "contemporary rationalisation of power politics," Hagan contends that it offers solace to scholars advocating for democracy and the establishment of a peaceful world order. This perspective underscores the nuanced and strategic dimensions inherent in geopolitical discourse, aligning with broader debates on political ideologies and international relations.

The alternative debate that started at the same time as Rudolf Kjellen’s leveraging of space, Alfred Thayer Mahan posited that achieving maritime supremacy is imperative for nation-states to secure a strategic advantage within the international system. Prior to World War I, with colonial nation-states holding power, the importance of the seas for economic gains was prominent. During this time, the Indo-Pacific, though the term was inexistant, contributed to the major trade portions. At the time of the World War I & II, the maritime space was exploited for security, concentrating on expansion of naval bases. It was during the Cold War ‘Balance of Power’ ¹ game that the maritime space was utilised for naval exercises and show of strength, albeit, the Indo-Pacific was still dormant. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, for some scholars, meant the end of Geopolitics and saw the international system move towards development and economic growth, a step towards conceptualising Geoeconomics 3.

Post Wars

As discussed above through the World War I, World War II and the Cold War, there has been an evolution in how nation-states construct geopolitics, i.e., from nation-state centric to a more globalised outlook. The end of Cold War marked the beginning of globalisation. The nation-states prioritised making their foreign policies around issues like free trade, climate change, and terrorism, which were set priorities by the Western countries that claimed their domination after the Cold War, thus enabling them to set the global order and functioning of the global institutions 4. As a result of shifting geopolitical construct in the Post-Cold War era, the budget cuts on military spending and foreign aid during President Bill Clinton’s administration due to the absence of any ‘serious geopolitical challenges’ were a move to benefit from the global economic system 3.

However, such claims have been countered through assertion that the perceived decline of the term ‘geopolitics’ is unwarranted 5. There is a contention that the concept remains operational, as evidenced by its continued deployment by nation-states, emphasising its enduring relevance in shaping the dynamics of the Knowledge-Power Interplay 5. As a result of globalisation there is a shift from conventional nation-state centric foreign policies to foreign policies that promote regional and international organisations participation. It is arguable that there was a shift in outlook of Foreign Policies, from geopolitics to geoeconomics. Notably, the debate on ‘absence of geopolitics’ is unwarranted due to its ever-present nature with one such manifestation that is seen in the territorial disputes of South China Sea, calling for the need to understand the leverage that geopolitics has on security 6.

India’s Position in the Indian Ocean

“The Indian Ocean Region is at the top of our policy priorities.”

- Narendra Modi, Honourable Prime Minister of India 11

India is at the centre of the Indian Ocean. With its resources which are crucial for food security, energy security, and other needs of the littoral nation-states, and its prominence in global trade, the ocean today is more important than any other time in history. India, too, has refocused its view on the oceans with the changing contours of security in the region. With a coastline of about 7500 kilometres, the region is of supreme importance to India. India is involved in the region’s trade, mineral resource extraction, traditional and non-traditional security and humanitarian assistance. The involvement of India accounts for its national interest driven by the geopolitics of the region but also accounts for the ‘shared interest’ of other nation-states in the region – the role of Vishwaguru 12, 13. Bolstering India’s strength is its naval power; India currently has around 65,000 active personnel, a fleet strength of 295, 2 aircrafts carriers, 18 submarines, 2 of which are ballistic missile capable nuclear subs, more than 50 destroyers, frigates and corvettes, helicopter squadrons capable of anti-sub warfare, and 13 ports and terminals 14.

The Asia Pacific Construct (APC) garnered significant global attention, notably exemplified by the United States’s adoption of the ‘Rebalancing Strategy,’ commonly referred to as the 'Pivot to Asia Strategy,' and India's articulation of its ‘Look East policy.’ The intensity of focus heightened, notably with the advocacy and promotion of the Indo-Pacific Construct by nations such as Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. This geopolitical narrative has garnered recognition, given its richness in resources, from an expanded cohort of actors, including countries such as France and entities like the European Union. The collective acknowledgement of this emergent geopolitical construct underscores its growing prominence as a focal point within the international discourse and geopolitical considerations 15, 16.

Henry Kissinger can better explain the significance of the Indo-Pacific and Power shift to the region. He argues in his work that “…the centre of gravity of world affairs has left the Atlantic and moved to the Pacific and Indian Oceans” 17. This pivotal shift marks the conclusion of Western predominance and signals the ascendancy of non-Western nations, thereby fundamentally altering the global order. Notably, emerging powers such as India and China assume central roles as primary agents shaping this transformative paradigm 17, 18. These rising powers will change the Indo-Pacific Region’s landscape, giving birth to a new geopolitical construct – ‘Indo-Pacific’. This construct, as underscored by Kissinger, not only serves as a testament to the changing nature of the world order but also encapsulates the heightened influence wielded by these rising powers in shaping regional dynamics. 

India’s Point of View of Indio-Pacific

The Indo-Pacific emerges as a strategic focal point for India, synergistically reinforcing its ‘Look East’ and ‘Act East’ policies. The heightened regional activity accompanying this geopolitical transition emphasises the substantive impact of the Indo-Pacific construct on India’s strategic and diplomatic engagements in the Asian continent 19. The conceptual transition from ‘Asia Pacific’ to ‘Indo-Pacific’ signifies a paradigmatic shift aimed at comprehensively encapsulating diverse sub-regions, encompassing the Eastern coast of Africa, the Indian Ocean Region, South East Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Western coast of the United States of America. The emergence of the geographical construct indicates the power shift towards Asia “acknowledges the growing interconnectedness between developments in the Indian Ocean (IO) and the Pacific Ocean” 18.

Underscoring India’s geopolitical construct of the region is its vision of a ‘Free, Open and Inclusive’ Indo-Pacific. In weaving together India’s Indo-Pacific fabric, the thread of South-East Asia fits at the centre of the two oceans. As highlighted by the Prime Minister in his 2018 Shangri-La address, “…Inclusiveness, openness and ASEAN centrality and unity [therefore] lie at the heart of the new Indo-Pacific. India does not see the Indo-Pacific Region as a strategy or as a club of limited members…” is thus at the crux of India’s Indo-Pacific vision 20. The other organisations and groupings that are involved in bringing ‘holistic stability’ ⁴ to the region are the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), Southern African Development Community (SADC), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), East Asia Summit (EAS).

Global Actors: Claimants in the Indo-Pacific

Indo-Pacific is a theatre of actions and opportunities. Its primary claimants are Australia, China, India, Japan, Pacific Island Countries (PIC), and the United States of America. The claimants beyond the region are nation-states of the European Union. Australia with its strategic interests looks at the region as a ‘Geoeconomic’ construct. Similarly, China, India, Japan, and the United States of America also emphasise on this ‘Geoeconomic’ construct and claim to establish a ‘rule-based order’ in the region Though geographically smaller in size, the Pacific Island Countries are equal claimants in the region 21.

The Economics Behind Influence and Challenges Associated

The Indo-Pacific accounts for 60% of the world's population and 60% of the world's GDP 22, 23. Taking account of natural resources, the Indian Ocean constitutes 40% of the world’s offshore oil production; fishing in the Indian Ocean alone adds to 15% of the world's total. The region also accounts for a large stock of minerals and rare earth metals 12.

Recognising the importance of this region, a Mini-lateral grouping, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) was formed between 14 partner countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, the United States of America, and Vietnam) in May 2022. This framework aims to enhance inclusivity, sustainability, resilience, growth and development, cooperation, and peace in the region and amongst the partner countries. The partnership, at its launch, began negotiations on four pillars: Trade, Supply chains, Clean energy, decarbonisation and infrastructure, and Tax and anti-corruption 24, 25.

The stakes involved in the region also bring along a lot of challenges, which are, securing the free passage of trade and energy, ensuring the sustainable and equitable exploitation of natural and mineral resources, terrorism, piracy and organised crimes, and managing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations 12.

Revanchism in the South China Sea

The South China Sea and ASEAN regions are in the middle of the Indo-Pacific 20, “the confluence of two seas” 26. The issues in the South China Sea region majorly deal with territorial claims. China’s claim with respect to the nine-dash line ⁵ has put itself in loggerheads with the ASEAN nation-states. Creation of new artificial islands, extending and militarising the existing islands have impacted the security portfolio of the region. These tensions in the region and China’s disregard for international arbitration, coupled with climate-related food security issues, marine ecosystem damage, and the increasing threat of water-level rise, have made the region volatile 6, 27, 28.

Sino-Indian Rapprochement: A Possibility or Impossibility

Indo-Pacific is the theatre of action and opportunities for both India and China. In rising as great powers, these two nation-states have been crossing paths in various instances. The repercussion of the same is spilt over in the waters of the Indo-Pacific. The ‘great game’ can be observed in traditional military spheres, the diplomatic sphere, as well as in the economic sphere. While the ‘great game’ manifests in various spheres, the geopolitical perception of the region shapes their actions and interactions in the region 29.

The recent scholarship on the region have found that relations between India and China are volatile and vulnerable. With their ever-expanding economies and widening geopolitical horizons, the bilateral relationship between the two rising Asian giants could be characterised more by competition than cooperation. These contesting interests have perennially made rapprochement difficult to achieve 30.

With the might of resources involved in the region and nation states’ race to claim and utilise these resources for advancement of their national interests, there is an explicit contestation in the region which have manifested in the form of territorial disputes and growing weaponisation in the region. This hint at an economic bearing to acts of security or insecurity in the region.

The perspectives discussed in the above sections focus on actors in this theatre of actions and opportunities. While the following sections will concentrate on their claims in the region.

Transitioning from the Fringes to the Core 

India looks at the Indo-Pacific as a region of positive cooperation and collaboration. To build such an ecosystem in the region, a comprehensive Indo-Pacific Action Plan is imperative. The region, with its well-known geopolitical challenges, needs the nation-states to work collectively to build maritime capacity, infrastructure and personnel. India, with the aim of building a ‘Free, Open and Inclusive’ region, needs to assume a role in strengthening and unifying the nation-states in the region. This involves building strategic partnerships with major nation-states like the USA, Japan, and Australia, as well as small island nations and groupings such as ASEAN in the Indo-Pacific. India can become the ‘main player’ by promoting the idea of inclusivity and ensuring that nation-states, irrespective of their power, are heard in the forums or organisations in the region. Domains like space, cyber security, maritime security, health, climate change and disaster management need to take the forefront in these forums, and India can play a role in doing so. India can also act as the bridge in unifying all the organisations, institutions, and groupings that are presently stressing the faultlines in the region. With the declaration of the role of regional leader, India has assumed the responsibility of regional stabiliser: transitioning from fringes to core.

The idea for the above figure is from the Minister of External Affairs, S Jaishankar’s book The India Way. The figure discusses the maritime security strategy for India in the Indo-Pacific Region. To achieve a larger goal of maritime security of not just in the region but also globally, the interplay of the concentric circles (1,2,3,4) become imperative. The figure brings out the necessity to secure hinterland infrastructure, to build effective sea lanes of communication and collaborations and cooperations in the region 37.

The maritime security strategy for India is one that stems from the ambition of being the “Indo-Pacific Net Security Provider” 38. Such a target involves building capacities and capabilities at different levels for various purposes. The attempt, however, starts at home. Building of maritime infrastructure and connectivity. This essentially involves enhancing hinterland connectivity, coastal infrastructure, connectivity to immediate neighbours and island assets. Coastal infrastructure can be viewed in two categories: development and security. The revitalisation of the Coastal Security Scheme (CSS) to involve the Navy, Cost Guard and the Marine Police, Information Management and Analysis Centre (IMAC), and National Command Control Communications and Intelligence Network (NC3I) are examples of security infrastructure enhancement. Development infrastructure accounts for the development of ports, for example, Sagarmala and Project Unnati 39 where the major ports of India are being rebuilt 13.

To take this one step ahead, infrastructure and connectivity are to be developed in the region beyond the immediate neighbourhood; this is done through the development of multimodal infrastructure 37. Examples of these are the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) multilateral multimodal project, The Kaladaan Multimodal project, the Sitttwe Port and Hinterland connectivity project, and the Trilateral Highway Project between India, Myanmar, and Thailand. The desire to be the net security provider involves the influence in the larger circle, beyond neighbours of neighbours.

The oneness of the Indian Ocean Community is central to the ambition but also aligned with the shared goal of regional cooperation. This cooperation is driven by efforts of quick humanitarian assistance and disaster relief for freedom of navigation and commerce, strategic partnerships, and naval capabilities to secure the maritime commons 13, 37. India’s oneness strategy has Project Mausam at its centre concentrating on “understanding how the knowledge and manipulation of the monsoon winds has shaped interactions across the Indian Ocean and led to the spread of shared knowledge systems, traditions, technologies and ideas along maritime routes” 40.

Finally, the larger cooperation in the region is required for the peace and development in the region. This involves capability engagement parties to the region, which is far from India’s borders 37. For example, engagements with Australia, the United States of America, Japan, etc. A few initiatives that can be discussed here are the Theatre Level Readiness and Operational Exercise (TROPEX), the Malabar Exercise, the Security and Growth for All in Region (SAGAR) initiative, etc.