Are India and Pakistan preparing for a naval face-off in a future conflict?
Islamabad, Pakistan – When Indian Minister of Defence Rajnath Singh visited the Indian Navy's aircraft carrier INS Vikrant on May 30, nearly three weeks after a ceasefire was announced with Pakistan after a four-day conflict, he had stern words for Islamabad.
Wearing an Indian Navy baseball cap, with his initial 'R' emblazoned on it, Singh declared that Pakistan was fortunate the Indian Navy had not been called upon during the recent hostilities.
'Despite remaining silent, the Indian Navy succeeded in tying down the Pakistani Army. Just imagine what will happen when someone who can keep a country's army locked in a bottle, even by remaining silent, speaks up?' Singh said, standing in front of a Russian-made MiG-29 fighter jet on the deck of the 262-metre-long (860 feet) ship.
Just two days later, on June 1, the Pakistan Navy issued a pointed response. In a message posted on X, it announced a two-day exercise, 'focusing on countering sub-conventional and asymmetric threats across all major ports and harbours of Pakistan'.
These symbolic shows of strength followed India's 'Operation Sindoor' and Pakistan's 'Operation Bunyan Marsoos', the countries' respective codenames for the four-day conflict that ended in a ceasefire on May 10.
The standoff was triggered by an April 22 attack in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, in which 26 civilians, almost all tourists, were killed. India blamed armed groups allegedly backed by Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denied.
On May 7, India launched missile strikes at multiple sites in Pakistan's Punjab province and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing at least 51 people, including 11 soldiers and several children. Over the next three days, the two countries exchanged artillery and air power, hitting each other's airbases.
The 96 hours of conflict brought 1.6 billion people to the brink of war. But while the navies largely remained passive observers, they monitored each other's movements – and were ready for action.
Satellite imagery showed that the INS Vikrant moved towards Pakistan soon after the Pahalgam attack and remained deployed for four days in the Arabian Sea before returning to its base in Karnataka.
Pakistan also mobilised its fleet, which was bolstered by the docking of a Turkish naval ship in Karachi on May 2. According to the Pakistani Navy, Turkish personnel engaged in 'a series of professional interactions' with their counterparts.
Now, even amid the current pause in military tensions, analysts say Singh's remarks and Pakistan's naval drills highlight the growing part that maritime forces could play in the next chapter of their conflict. This is a role the Indian and Pakistani navies are well-versed in.
After independence from Britain in August 1947, India inherited two-thirds of British India's naval assets.
These saw no use during the first India-Pakistan war in 1947, over the contested Himalayan region of Kashmir. India and Pakistan both administer parts of Kashmir, along with China, which governs two thin strips. India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims all the parts not controlled by China, its ally.
By the 1965 war, also over Kashmir, Pakistan had expanded its fleet with aid from the United States and United Kingdom, its Cold War allies. It had acquired Ghazi, a long-range submarine, giving it an edge over India, which lacked a submarine at the time, though it owned an aircraft carrier. Pakistan, to date, does not have an aircraft carrier.
While the land war started on September 6, the Pakistan Navy joined the conflict on the night of September 7-8. A fleet of seven warships and submarine PNS Ghazi left Karachi harbour and made their way towards the Indian naval base of Dwarka in the western state of Gujarat, roughly 350km (217 miles) away.
They were tasked with carrying out the 'bombardment of Dwarka about midnight using 50 rounds per ship', according to the Pakistan Navy's official account, targeting the base's radar and other installations.
The selection of Dwarka was significant from a historical and strategic perspective. The city is home to one of the most sacred sites for Hindus, the Somnath Temple, on which the Pakistan Navy named its operation.
Militarily, the radar installations in Dwarka were used to provide guidance to the Indian Air Force. Knocking them out would have made it harder for India to launch aerial attacks against Pakistani cities, especially Karachi. That, in turn, would have forced India to send out its warships from the nearby port of Bombay (now Mumbai) – and PNS Ghazi, the submarine, could have ambushed them.
But the Pakistani plan only partly worked. Many Indian warships were under maintenance, and so the Indian Navy did not send them out to chase the Pakistani fleet.
According to the Pakistan Navy's accounts, after firing about 350 rounds, the operation ended in 'four minutes' and all its ships returned safely.
Syed Muhammad Obaidullah, a former commodore in the Pakistan Navy, recalled the attack.
'We were able to send eight vessels, seven ships and a submarine – that surprised the Indians, as our ships targeted the radar station used to assist Indian planes,' Obaidullah told Al Jazeera.
Muhammad Shareh Qazi, a Lahore-based maritime security expert, added that the operation was a tactical surprise, but did not lead to any gains in territory or of the maritime continental shelf.
'All our ships returned safely, without resistance, but it was only an operational-level success for the PN, not a strategic one,' he said, referring to the Pakistan Navy.
Official Indian Navy records claim that most of the shells fired by Pakistani ships caused no damage and remained unexploded.
Anjali Ghosh, a professor of international relations at Jadavpur University, Kolkata, in her book India's Foreign Policy, described the attack as 'daring' but symbolic rather than strategically meaningful.The 1971 war, fought over East Pakistan's secession to become Bangladesh, saw more substantial naval engagements.
India launched two operations – Trident and Python – which dealt major blows to Pakistan's Navy, sinking several ships, including the destroyer PNS Khaibar and minesweeper PNS Muhafiz, and destroying fuel tanks at Karachi Harbour.
Uday Bhaskar, a former commodore in the Indian Navy, said the navy played a pivotal role in India's 1971 victory.
'The naval role enabled the final outcome on land,' Bhaskar, the current director of the Society for Policy Studies, an independent think tank based in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera.
Pakistan also suffered the loss of its prized submarine Ghazi, which sank while laying mines near Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, home to India's Eastern Naval Command.
The one major victory for the Pakistani Navy was its torpedoing of the Indian frigate INS Khukri using its submarine Hangor, which killed more than 170 Indian sailors.
Qazi, who is also an assistant professor at Lahore's Punjab University, said that the Indian Navy replicated the Pakistani playbook from the 1965 war in the way it surprised the Pakistan Navy.
'India caused a heavy blow to Pakistan and our naval capabilities were severely dented,' he said.
Since the 1971 war, India and Pakistan have approached different naval strategies.
Obaidullah, who retired from the Pakistan Navy in 2008, said that India has tried to build a 'blue water navy' capable of projecting power across oceans. The idea: 'To assert its dominance in [the] Indian Ocean,' he said.
Qazi, the maritime expert, agreed, saying that the Indian Navy has focused not just on building a numerical advantage in its naval assets but also on partnerships with nations such as Russia, which have helped it develop a powerful fleet.
'The Indian Navy now has the ability to conduct missions that can cover long distances, all the way down to Mauritius near southern Africa, or even some adventures in [the] Pacific Ocean as well,' he said.
As the world's fifth-largest economy, India has invested heavily in naval development.
According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a London-based research institute focusing on defence and security issues, India has 29 principal surface combat vessels, including two aircraft carriers, 12 destroyers, 15 frigates and 18 submarines, of which two are nuclear-powered.
Pakistan, by contrast, has prioritised its land and air forces. Its navy has grown more slowly, mainly through cooperation with China and Turkiye. It regularly holds major naval exercises with its allies, with the last one taking place in February this year.
IISS data shows that Pakistan's navy lacks aircraft carriers and destroyers but includes 11 frigates, eight submarines and at least 21 patrol vessels.
Obaidullah explained that Pakistan's naval ambitions and objectives are very different from those of India.
'India aims to project global power. We have a defensive navy to secure our sea lines of communication and deter aggression,' the former naval officer said. With more than 95 percent of Pakistan's trade sea-based, protecting maritime routes is its top priority.
Maritime expert Qazi also said that the Pakistani Navy is focused on defending its 'littoral zones'. From a naval perspective, a 'littoral zone' is a critically important area close to coastlines, unlike the open ocean's 'blue water' expanse. It is within this space that countries engage in coastal defence.
'Pakistan has a small economy, and we do not have blue water ambitions. We do not have the capacity to build a fleet, nor [do] we need one,' Qazi said. 'Our defence paradigm is about defending our coastlines, and for that, we have our submarines, which carry cruise missiles.'
The latest conflict saw both conventional and modern warfare, including drones used to strike deep inside each other's territory. But Singh's May 30 remarks suggest a more assertive naval posture in future conflicts, say analysts.
'If Pakistan does any unholy act this time, it is possible that the opening will be done by our navy,' Singh said during his speech on May 30.
Bhaskar, the Indian commodore who retired in 2007, agreed that future conflicts could see naval escalation.
'If another military conflict escalates, the probability of navies being actively involved is high,' he said.
Bashir Ali Abbas, a New Delhi-based maritime affairs expert and former fellow at the Stimson Center, in Washington, DC, said that naval platforms inherently serve multiple roles.
Abbas said that warships and submarines can switch from patrolling missions or exercises to operational missions on short notice. But that would carry risks of its own.
'Should the Indian Navy play a substantial role in operations against Pakistan following the next crisis, then the element of escalation control practically disappears. Any ship-on-ship, or ship-on-land engagement will imply that India and Pakistan are at war,' he told Al Jazeera, adding that the risk of inadvertent nuclear escalation is also potentially highest in the nuclear domain.
Qazi, however, said that Singh's statement was ambiguous about whether the Indian Navy would engage in surveillance or aggression.
Any attack on Karachi, Pakistan's economic hub, would provoke a strong response, the Lahore-based analyst said.
'I believe India will choose to play hide and seek like it did this time,' Qazi said. But he added that there was a 'high probability' that India could attack Pakistan's naval installations on land, including its planes and radar stations. And that, he said, was an 'alarming possibility'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
10 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
How is Pakistan raising money for a 20 percent hike in defence spending?
Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan has increased its defence spending by more than 20 percent – the most substantial hike in a decade – following last month's military confrontation with neighbouring India. Presenting the annual federal budget on June 10, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb proposed an allocation of 2.55 trillion rupees ($9bn) for the country's three armed services – the army, air force and navy – amounting to 1.97 percent of Pakistan's gross domestic product (GDP), up from 1.7 percent in the previous budget. 'The security situation in the country is precarious, and the armed forces have rendered commendable service in protecting the borders,' Aurangzeb said during his speech, as India has threatened to carry out strikes if armed groups carry out attacks on India or Indian-administered Kashmir. But analysts say that Islamabad will need to walk a fine balance in spending more on defence at a time when its fragile economy is under strict oversight from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and cuts in social sector expenditure could embolden the opposition. On May 7, India carried out missile strikes on what it called 'terrorist infrastructure' in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir after blaming Islamabad for backing fighters responsible for the killing of 26 people in Indian-administered Kashmir's Pahalgam town on April 22. Pakistan denied involvement in the Pahalgam attacks, demanding a 'credible, transparent, independent' investigation. Islamabad said innocent civilians were killed in India's attacks on May 7. Tensions escalated after the two nuclear-armed neighbours engaged in tit-for-tat missile and drone attacks over four days, primarily targeting each other's military installations. By the time a ceasefire was announced by United States President Donald Trump on May 10, in excess of 70 people had been killed – more than 50 in Pakistan and at least 20 in India. Against that backdrop, Pakistan's defence hike was expected, say analysts. India, which presented its budget before the conflict, also increased its defence spending to $78.7bn, a 9.5 percent rise from the previous year. But unlike India, Pakistan has more than a neighbour to keep an eye on: It also confronts pressure from the IMF. The IMF approved a 37-month, $7bn loan programme for Pakistan last September, its 25th since 1958. The most recent tranche of $1.3bn was released in May this year, a day before the ceasefire between India and Pakistan took place. But in exchange, the global lender has been pressuring Pakistan to streamline its expenditure, reduce subsidies and improve the efficiency of its governance structures. Pakistan appears to have paid heed to those demands from the IMF. Even as its defence spending has gone up substantially, its overall budget for the next fiscal year has been slashed by 17.57 trillion rupees ($62bn), marking a 6.9 percent decrease from last year. The defence spending hike, while massive, is in line with growing defence allocation in recent years. The military's budget has nearly doubled in the past five years. In fiscal year 2020-21, the allocation stood at 1.28 trillion rupees ($4.53bn). The army, long seen as the most powerful institution in Pakistan's defence and political spheres, has received 1.17 trillion rupees ($4.1bn), accounting for nearly 46 percent of the total defence budget. The air force and navy received just more than 520 billion rupees ($1.8m) and 265.9 billion rupees ($941m), respectively. Pakistan's military budget increase also reflects a broader global trend. A report published in April by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which specialises in conflict and arms control research, stated that global military expenditure reached $2.7 trillion in 2024, a 9.4 percent increase from the previous year and the 'steepest year-on-year rise since the end of the Cold War'. Hina Shaikh, a Lahore-based economist with the International Growth Centre (IGC), said the increase in Pakistan was expected and reflects the government's continued prioritisation of security amid geopolitical tensions and domestic instability. 'While understandable from a strategic lens, this increase does come when economic recovery is just beginning to happen, but still fragile, inflation is easing and fiscal space is constrained,' she told Al Jazeera. Ali Hasanain, an economics professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), called the hike in defence spending both 'inevitable and necessary' but warned against sacrificing long-term development. 'The only way out of this dilemma for Pakistan is to undertake deep structural reforms of the sort which no government has shown a commitment to yet, so that both the economy and defence spending can stay robust over the medium and long terms,' Hasanain said. While most analysts agree that the defence spending hike is a fallout of the May conflict, a major challenge for the government is to fund it without compromising the social welfare, health, or education sectors. Due to Pakistan's sizable external debt, recorded at $87.4bn according to the latest government figures, the largest share of the national budget is consumed by debt servicing, which stands at $29bn, which is almost 47 percent of total expenditure. In the budget announced on Tuesday, Pakistan's government has cut subsidies. The budget also outlines plans to expand the tax base, removes exemptions, and introduces new taxes to raise public revenue. The opposition party of jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan dubbed the budget 'anti-people' and 'crafted for the elite.' The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, which remains banned, said on Wednesday that the budget provided no real relief to the public, as government staff salary raises were low and agriculture, the mainstay of the country's economy, witnessed decline. Sajid Amin Javed, a senior economist at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), said that the combination of a decline in the interest payments Pakistan owes its debtors this year, and the cut in subsidies had provided the government 'some fiscal space'. Still, others highlighted that Pakistan's defence spending, while the highest in South Asia as a percentage of GDP, has declined in relative terms compared to past decades as it has been forced to set money aside to repay loans. Hasanain of LUMS said that Pakistan now spends less, as a percentage of GDP, than countries like Singapore (2.8 percent), Greece (3.1 percent), Poland (4.2 percent), or the United States (3.4 percent), and nearly three times less than Saudi Arabia (7.3 percent), Russia (7.1 percent), or Israel (8.8 percent). But he pointed out that Pakistan also collects far less tax than most other countries, so the defence spending hike still eats up a giant chunk of the government's revenue. 'A low tax to GDP ratio means that defence spending is a bigger burden for the government in Pakistan than most other countries in the world.' The last few years have been deeply turbulent for Pakistan's economy. Foreign reserves fell to just under $3bn in 2023, bringing the country of 250 million people to the brink of default. Foreign reserves have since risen to $11bn following IMF deals. Similarly, the Pakistani rupee, having lost more than 60 percent of its value against the US dollar over the last two years, has now stabilised between 280 and 282 rupees per dollar. Javed of SDPI says these indicators show Pakistan's macroeconomic fundamentals are stabilising, but the public impact remains uncertain. 'It is a budget of stabilisation, made in consultation with the IMF, to ensure that the country's revenue, growth and fiscal deficit targets are met. But on the whole, it remains a traditional budget, with no deep-rooted structural changes or strategic change visible, at least for now,' he said. Economist Shaikh argued that the budget lacks inclusive or pro-poor reforms and shows limited investment in sectors like health and education. 'This may be called a technocrat's budget under IMF constraints, fiscally conservative, tax-heavy, and focused on short-term stabilisation. It is focused on restoring macroeconomic stability, controlling inflation, and building reserves,' she said. Hasanain, however, says that the IMF principally concerns itself with helping countries move back towards stability, and does not consider long-term, sustainable growth as its purview. 'By cutting expenditures and running primary budget surpluses, the government is indeed moving out of the acute debt crisis it found itself in two years ago, but the larger project of correcting longstanding structural deficiencies is, despite receiving some lip service, largely neglected to date,' he said. 'Given the lack of any serious political opposition, this excessive caution towards reform is deeply frustrating.'
Al Jazeera
11 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
'Resolutions, words' no longer matter in onslaught of Gaza
After the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, journalist Firas El Echi says that Gaza's dire circumstances demand action – not just words and resolutions.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Are India and Pakistan preparing for a naval face-off in a future conflict?
Islamabad, Pakistan – When Indian Minister of Defence Rajnath Singh visited the Indian Navy's aircraft carrier INS Vikrant on May 30, nearly three weeks after a ceasefire was announced with Pakistan after a four-day conflict, he had stern words for Islamabad. Wearing an Indian Navy baseball cap, with his initial 'R' emblazoned on it, Singh declared that Pakistan was fortunate the Indian Navy had not been called upon during the recent hostilities. 'Despite remaining silent, the Indian Navy succeeded in tying down the Pakistani Army. Just imagine what will happen when someone who can keep a country's army locked in a bottle, even by remaining silent, speaks up?' Singh said, standing in front of a Russian-made MiG-29 fighter jet on the deck of the 262-metre-long (860 feet) ship. Just two days later, on June 1, the Pakistan Navy issued a pointed response. In a message posted on X, it announced a two-day exercise, 'focusing on countering sub-conventional and asymmetric threats across all major ports and harbours of Pakistan'. These symbolic shows of strength followed India's 'Operation Sindoor' and Pakistan's 'Operation Bunyan Marsoos', the countries' respective codenames for the four-day conflict that ended in a ceasefire on May 10. The standoff was triggered by an April 22 attack in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, in which 26 civilians, almost all tourists, were killed. India blamed armed groups allegedly backed by Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denied. On May 7, India launched missile strikes at multiple sites in Pakistan's Punjab province and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing at least 51 people, including 11 soldiers and several children. Over the next three days, the two countries exchanged artillery and air power, hitting each other's airbases. The 96 hours of conflict brought 1.6 billion people to the brink of war. But while the navies largely remained passive observers, they monitored each other's movements – and were ready for action. Satellite imagery showed that the INS Vikrant moved towards Pakistan soon after the Pahalgam attack and remained deployed for four days in the Arabian Sea before returning to its base in Karnataka. Pakistan also mobilised its fleet, which was bolstered by the docking of a Turkish naval ship in Karachi on May 2. According to the Pakistani Navy, Turkish personnel engaged in 'a series of professional interactions' with their counterparts. Now, even amid the current pause in military tensions, analysts say Singh's remarks and Pakistan's naval drills highlight the growing part that maritime forces could play in the next chapter of their conflict. This is a role the Indian and Pakistani navies are well-versed in. After independence from Britain in August 1947, India inherited two-thirds of British India's naval assets. These saw no use during the first India-Pakistan war in 1947, over the contested Himalayan region of Kashmir. India and Pakistan both administer parts of Kashmir, along with China, which governs two thin strips. India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims all the parts not controlled by China, its ally. By the 1965 war, also over Kashmir, Pakistan had expanded its fleet with aid from the United States and United Kingdom, its Cold War allies. It had acquired Ghazi, a long-range submarine, giving it an edge over India, which lacked a submarine at the time, though it owned an aircraft carrier. Pakistan, to date, does not have an aircraft carrier. While the land war started on September 6, the Pakistan Navy joined the conflict on the night of September 7-8. A fleet of seven warships and submarine PNS Ghazi left Karachi harbour and made their way towards the Indian naval base of Dwarka in the western state of Gujarat, roughly 350km (217 miles) away. They were tasked with carrying out the 'bombardment of Dwarka about midnight using 50 rounds per ship', according to the Pakistan Navy's official account, targeting the base's radar and other installations. The selection of Dwarka was significant from a historical and strategic perspective. The city is home to one of the most sacred sites for Hindus, the Somnath Temple, on which the Pakistan Navy named its operation. Militarily, the radar installations in Dwarka were used to provide guidance to the Indian Air Force. Knocking them out would have made it harder for India to launch aerial attacks against Pakistani cities, especially Karachi. That, in turn, would have forced India to send out its warships from the nearby port of Bombay (now Mumbai) – and PNS Ghazi, the submarine, could have ambushed them. But the Pakistani plan only partly worked. Many Indian warships were under maintenance, and so the Indian Navy did not send them out to chase the Pakistani fleet. According to the Pakistan Navy's accounts, after firing about 350 rounds, the operation ended in 'four minutes' and all its ships returned safely. Syed Muhammad Obaidullah, a former commodore in the Pakistan Navy, recalled the attack. 'We were able to send eight vessels, seven ships and a submarine – that surprised the Indians, as our ships targeted the radar station used to assist Indian planes,' Obaidullah told Al Jazeera. Muhammad Shareh Qazi, a Lahore-based maritime security expert, added that the operation was a tactical surprise, but did not lead to any gains in territory or of the maritime continental shelf. 'All our ships returned safely, without resistance, but it was only an operational-level success for the PN, not a strategic one,' he said, referring to the Pakistan Navy. Official Indian Navy records claim that most of the shells fired by Pakistani ships caused no damage and remained unexploded. Anjali Ghosh, a professor of international relations at Jadavpur University, Kolkata, in her book India's Foreign Policy, described the attack as 'daring' but symbolic rather than strategically 1971 war, fought over East Pakistan's secession to become Bangladesh, saw more substantial naval engagements. India launched two operations – Trident and Python – which dealt major blows to Pakistan's Navy, sinking several ships, including the destroyer PNS Khaibar and minesweeper PNS Muhafiz, and destroying fuel tanks at Karachi Harbour. Uday Bhaskar, a former commodore in the Indian Navy, said the navy played a pivotal role in India's 1971 victory. 'The naval role enabled the final outcome on land,' Bhaskar, the current director of the Society for Policy Studies, an independent think tank based in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera. Pakistan also suffered the loss of its prized submarine Ghazi, which sank while laying mines near Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, home to India's Eastern Naval Command. The one major victory for the Pakistani Navy was its torpedoing of the Indian frigate INS Khukri using its submarine Hangor, which killed more than 170 Indian sailors. Qazi, who is also an assistant professor at Lahore's Punjab University, said that the Indian Navy replicated the Pakistani playbook from the 1965 war in the way it surprised the Pakistan Navy. 'India caused a heavy blow to Pakistan and our naval capabilities were severely dented,' he said. Since the 1971 war, India and Pakistan have approached different naval strategies. Obaidullah, who retired from the Pakistan Navy in 2008, said that India has tried to build a 'blue water navy' capable of projecting power across oceans. The idea: 'To assert its dominance in [the] Indian Ocean,' he said. Qazi, the maritime expert, agreed, saying that the Indian Navy has focused not just on building a numerical advantage in its naval assets but also on partnerships with nations such as Russia, which have helped it develop a powerful fleet. 'The Indian Navy now has the ability to conduct missions that can cover long distances, all the way down to Mauritius near southern Africa, or even some adventures in [the] Pacific Ocean as well,' he said. As the world's fifth-largest economy, India has invested heavily in naval development. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a London-based research institute focusing on defence and security issues, India has 29 principal surface combat vessels, including two aircraft carriers, 12 destroyers, 15 frigates and 18 submarines, of which two are nuclear-powered. Pakistan, by contrast, has prioritised its land and air forces. Its navy has grown more slowly, mainly through cooperation with China and Turkiye. It regularly holds major naval exercises with its allies, with the last one taking place in February this year. IISS data shows that Pakistan's navy lacks aircraft carriers and destroyers but includes 11 frigates, eight submarines and at least 21 patrol vessels. Obaidullah explained that Pakistan's naval ambitions and objectives are very different from those of India. 'India aims to project global power. We have a defensive navy to secure our sea lines of communication and deter aggression,' the former naval officer said. With more than 95 percent of Pakistan's trade sea-based, protecting maritime routes is its top priority. Maritime expert Qazi also said that the Pakistani Navy is focused on defending its 'littoral zones'. From a naval perspective, a 'littoral zone' is a critically important area close to coastlines, unlike the open ocean's 'blue water' expanse. It is within this space that countries engage in coastal defence. 'Pakistan has a small economy, and we do not have blue water ambitions. We do not have the capacity to build a fleet, nor [do] we need one,' Qazi said. 'Our defence paradigm is about defending our coastlines, and for that, we have our submarines, which carry cruise missiles.' The latest conflict saw both conventional and modern warfare, including drones used to strike deep inside each other's territory. But Singh's May 30 remarks suggest a more assertive naval posture in future conflicts, say analysts. 'If Pakistan does any unholy act this time, it is possible that the opening will be done by our navy,' Singh said during his speech on May 30. Bhaskar, the Indian commodore who retired in 2007, agreed that future conflicts could see naval escalation. 'If another military conflict escalates, the probability of navies being actively involved is high,' he said. Bashir Ali Abbas, a New Delhi-based maritime affairs expert and former fellow at the Stimson Center, in Washington, DC, said that naval platforms inherently serve multiple roles. Abbas said that warships and submarines can switch from patrolling missions or exercises to operational missions on short notice. But that would carry risks of its own. 'Should the Indian Navy play a substantial role in operations against Pakistan following the next crisis, then the element of escalation control practically disappears. Any ship-on-ship, or ship-on-land engagement will imply that India and Pakistan are at war,' he told Al Jazeera, adding that the risk of inadvertent nuclear escalation is also potentially highest in the nuclear domain. Qazi, however, said that Singh's statement was ambiguous about whether the Indian Navy would engage in surveillance or aggression. Any attack on Karachi, Pakistan's economic hub, would provoke a strong response, the Lahore-based analyst said. 'I believe India will choose to play hide and seek like it did this time,' Qazi said. But he added that there was a 'high probability' that India could attack Pakistan's naval installations on land, including its planes and radar stations. And that, he said, was an 'alarming possibility'.
