Indian Ocean Region: Opportunities and Challenges

India Hosts COLP48: Bridging Ocean Governance from IOR Perspectives

On September 11, 2025, India etched a significant milestone in ocean diplomacy by hosting the 48th Annual Conference on Oceans Law & Policy (COLP48). For the first time in its nearly five-decade history, the internationally respected forum convened in the Indian subcontinent, under the theme “Developing World Approaches to Ocean Governance: Perspectives from the Indian Ocean Rim.” The event, led by the Gujarat Maritime University, Stockton Center for International Law, and the Ministry of Earth Sciences, offered India a rare chance to assert global leadership in shaping new approaches to maritime governance.

Shifting Tides in Global Maritime Discourse

The geopolitical subtext of hosting COLP48 goes beyond ceremonial pride. The Indian Ocean Region (IOR) has emerged as the geopolitical fulcrum of the Indo-Pacific. Consider this: nearly 50% of global container traffic and 80% of seaborne oil trade traverse its waters. The region’s strategic choke points—the Strait of Hormuz, Malacca Strait, Bab-el-Mandeb—are not just transit routes but instruments of influence. Hosting COLP48 signals India’s ambition to transition from being a participant to a proactive designer of maritime norms, particularly for developing economies.

India’s intentional focus on areas such as traditional knowledge integration, sustainable fisheries, and South-South solidarity injects equity-driven priorities into a maritime governance framework often monopolized by resource-rich countries. This contrasts with the predominance of security-first approaches in forums dominated by Western powers. The thematic departure is deliberate: while power competition dominates headlines, India is arguably the first country attempting to articulate ocean governance as a developmental concern for the global South.

The Institutional Ecosystem: Strains and Adaptations

The Ministry of Earth Sciences plays a leading domestic role in steering India’s ocean governance and research agenda. However, two challenges remain conspicuously absent from India’s prioritization at COLP48: the unregulated presence of Chinese survey vessels in IOR waters and the institutional bottlenecks within India's maritime bureaucracy.

China’s strategic use of “research vessels” to gather oceanographic information undercuts efforts to build trust in regional cooperation. Take Bangladesh’s case, where Chinese-funded port development (Payra and Matarbari) is transforming trade routes but risks creating dual-use infrastructure. India’s diplomatic pushback on such projects is grounded but incomplete. The irony here is that India simultaneously welcomes partnerships with Japan and the United States under its Indo-Pacific strategy but preaches against militarization. India's position appears incoherent, especially when it lacks a unified mechanism for assessing marine security threats beyond naval capabilities.

Institutional coordination issues add to this uncertainty. While India boasts programs like MAHASAGAR—its region-wide framework for Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth—all in the IOR—it remains unclear how effectively this interfaces with UNCLOS compliance mechanisms or regional bodies like the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA). The Maritime Zones Act of 1976 still governs much of India’s legal action in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), yet its provisions fail to address cutting-edge concerns like technological surveillance, seabed mining, or ecosystem damage caused by commercial shipping.

The Reality Beneath Rhetoric: Data Gaps and Enforcement Limits

India’s focus on ocean research is promising but remains underfunded. Despite lofty statements, budget allocations for scientific marine studies under the Ministry of Science & Technology fell to Rs. 425 crore in FY2024-25—a mere fraction compared to deep-water research spending by countries like Australia or Japan. Can India realistically aspire to lead without overcoming structural gaps in research financing?

More critically, enforcement gaps persist. Piracy near the Horn of Africa and narco-trafficking corridors along the Malacca Strait continue to exploit porous borders. Even India’s Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) systems face issues of technological redundancy. While INS Visakhapatnam and INS Vikrant highlight indigenous naval prowess, India’s civilian maritime agencies—both in surveillance and logistics—lag behind the Navy in operational efficiency. The lack of synergy further dilutes the impact of India’s position as “first responder” in IOR natural disasters.

Data also highlights striking inequities between intent and outcomes. India made ambitious policy announcements for sustainable fisheries as part of its ocean governance priorities, yet 32% of India’s coastal fisheries remain overexploited, according to Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute data. Climate-resilient strategies remain aspirational when foundational ecosystem restoration lags behind.

Lessons from Australia: A Comparative Framework

India might look to Australia for lessons on how to scale governance without losing sight of sustainability. The Australian Marine Parks Act 2018 established a detailed governance system for managing biodiversity and mitigating overfishing risks across vast EEZ waters. Unlike India, Australia employs targeted penalties for environmental breaches along its coastline, enforced rigorously through its marine police and independent regulatory commissions. India’s maritime law enforcement remains disjointed, relying more on judicial avenues (ITLOS) than on executive strength for dispute resolution.

The comparison, however, is not just about legality but political will. Australia’s consistent government-backed funding for ocean research contrasts sharply with India’s fluctuating budget priorities. This discrepancy raises uncomfortable questions as India positions itself as a leader in the Indian Ocean Region.

Unanswered Questions: Institutional Weaknesses and Strategic Oversights

What India’s narrative sometimes obscures is the extent to which geopolitical ambition can outpace institutional capacity. While regional diplomacy emphasizes South-South solidarity, implementation depends heavily on technical expertise that the Ministry of Earth Sciences or even IORA currently lack. Without coordinated frameworks at the subnational level (between coastal states in India, for instance), the promises made at COLP48 risk devolving into mere rhetoric.

India’s gradual acceptance of strategic partnerships in the Indo-Pacific also invites scrutiny. If India cannot reconcile its criticisms of “external militarization” with its own increasing dependence on U.S. Indo-Pacific financial and logistical aid, the optics—especially for smaller nations like Sri Lanka—may complicate long-term regional partnerships.

Finally, does India have the institutional bandwidth to regulate emerging issues like seabed mining or marine plastic pollution in addition to conventional priorities like shipping lanes and piracy? The evidence remains mixed.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions