'War Is Brutal. At Sea, Even More Brutal'

'India was not obliged to protect the Iranian ship.'
'Once the Iranian ship left Indian waters, she was on her own.'
'Guilt tripping India is wrong.'

"The Indian Ocean is a contested strategic sphere. West Asia and the Persian Gulf are also part of the Indian Ocean. When Iranian-trained Houthis target merchant ships of different countries coming through the Red Sea, that is also our maritime neighbourhood," says Commodore Srikant Kesnur, retired, who has captained two frontline ships -- an anti-submarine frigate INS Vindhyagiri and India's biggest amphibious ship INS Jalashwa.

"Therefore, often some events that are triggered in the Gulf may have a fallout in different parts of the Indian Ocean or even different parts of the world. It would be premature to draw a conclusion that the war has spread closer to our shores," Commodore Kesnur says in the concluding part of an interview discussing the maritime fallout of the West Asia conflict in India's neighbourhood with Rediff's Archana Masih.

• Part 1 of the Interview: 'Iranian Ship Was A Sitting Duck'

The Iranian warship requested emergency berthing at Galle port. In the background of the US claims of having destroyed 17 Iranian ships, what international maritime laws came into play in a situation like this?
Was the US legally correct in sinking the Iranian ship?

The US action was legally permissible, even though some may question it from a moral, strategic or political point of view, arguing that it risked widening the conflict.

But according to the laws governing armed combat at sea, a warship of a belligerent nation is a legitimate target.

Please remember that war had commenced and the US had sunk Iranian ships elsewhere. Iran in turn had fired at US military installations and assets. The US had clearly declared its intent to attack Iranian vessels.

When a ship requests refuge at the last minute when it is at war with another nation, particularly a superpower, the host nation has to take a calculated decision.

If Sri Lanka provided aid to Iran, then legally, the US would be at liberty to treat the host country as a co-belligerent and attack her.

In order to avoid such situations, countries typically declare neutrality. However, neutrality comes with strict obligations. A neutral country may offer humanitarian assistance, but it must avoid actions that would materially aid one side in the conflict.

There are strong conditions imposed for how long and how much assistance can be provided without compromising on neutrality.

So, it would have created a huge decision dilemma for Sri Lanka and taken them time to decide.

Any hasty decision would risk the safety of its own citizens in a war that is not theirs.

In the case of granting refuge to the second ship, Sri Lanka indicated that assistance was being provided on humanitarian grounds and they are detaining the ship so that it cannot engage in any combat operations, moving the crew out, and keeping it out of the war.

Even such a move, in my opinion, would likely have taken place in consultation with the Americans and getting a soft nod from them.

In a war, situations are stark.

Theoretically, had an Iranian submarine got the chance to fire at a US ship, in such situation, she might have done so. After all, they are fighting each other elsewhere.

• Also Read: This War May End US Military Presence In Middle East

Yes, this is the reality of war...

The United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Seas, UNCLOS, the Law of Armed Combat, Geneva Convention etc, took many years of deliberations and discussions amongst nations. There is never a perfect solution and maritime and armed combat laws might continue to evolve.

Incidents like this may eventually influence future interpretations, but currently, the existing framework governs such action.

This torpedo strike took place in the Indian Ocean theatre on a ship that was returning from India. Has this expanded the war into the wider global domain?
What repercussions could this have for India?

Has this expanded the war geographically? On the face of it, it might seem so. You can argue with equal conviction that this may have been a one-off incident.

The US and Israelis have sunk around 18-19 Iranian ships, and IRIS Dena was one of them.

Iran is a regional naval power; most of its fleet operates closer to its home waters. If a US warship encounters an Iranian vessel anywhere in the world, say off Chile, it would still be legally entitled to engage it during wartime. That does not necessarily mean the conflict itself has spread to the Pacific.

The Indian Ocean is a contested strategic sphere. West Asia and the Persian Gulf are also part of the Indian Ocean. When Iranian-trained Houthis target merchant ships of different countries coming through the Red Sea, that is also our maritime neighbourhood. So, the point is, the Indian Ocean has been a strategically contested maritime space for long.

Therefore, often some events that are triggered in the Gulf may have a fallout in different parts of the Indian Ocean or even different parts of the world.

It would be premature to draw a conclusion that the war has spread closer to our shores.

This is probably a one-off incident, but we should be prepared for such incidences if they happen.

In his column in The Indian Express Commodore C Uday Bhaskar raised a question that India was unaware of submarine activity in its proximate waters -- and if so, it raised further questions on India's underwater domain awareness.

Cmde Bhaskar is a very esteemed voice in strategic circles for whom I have the highest regard. I believe though that underwater domain awareness is a constant work in progress. It is never perfect. Even the Americans wouldn't claim to have 100 per cent underwater domain awareness.

India doesn't have unlimited sonobuoys, ships and aircraft to mount surveillance against countries we are not at war with. So, if there is a possibility of a war, for example, we will monitor, say Chinese or Pakistani submarines -- or submarines of countries likely to help them. We won't use our resources to monitor, say a Canadian or French or Singaporean submarine.

India has consistently said that there are warships of 45 to 50 nations in the Indian Ocean region. Even if you took a small percentage of 45-50 nations, it would still mean that 10-15 nations may be having their submarines here because all countries have their interests in the trade and energy flows from this region.

Any navy could deploy its submarines in this part of the world, whether conventional or nuclear. To believe that India should have an idea about all of them is, in my opinion, very impractical.

Further, assuming one were to have known the position of this or any other submarine, how would one determine intent. To get to know that would require humungous resources.

Similarly, search and rescue operations at sea are organised according to designated maritime zones. The incident occurred within Sri Lanka's search-and rescue region.

Notwithstanding all this, the Indian Navy deployed aircraft and ships to augment and assist the Lankan SAR ops.

Some observers have tweeted that India should have condemned the attack considering the ship had been a guest of India and participated in the International Fleet Review?

The operational conduct of war is divorced from moral and political viewpoints.

Was India obliged to protect the Iranian ship? No.

Once the Iranian ship left Indian waters, she was on her own.

There were 19 foreign ships that participated in the exercise. India couldn't be escorting all of them, we don't have those resources, nor would it be required.

War is brutal. At sea, it's even more brutal because many sailors die a cruel death at short notice. As a mariner and military person, I undoubtedly feel sad about this outcome. They died in the line of duty to their country. The Iranian ship left Vishakhapatnam on February 25 -- seven days later she was still off Galle. We still don't know why.

However, guilt-tripping India on this issue is wrong. Such expectations are either misplaced or mischievous.

• THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff