By:

Commodore S.L. Deshmukh

31 October 2024 at 8:30:19 am

Killing the Hidden Killer

INS Mangrol strengthens India’s underwater defences as Chinese anti-submarine capabilities and Pakistan’s submarine fleet underscore the need for indigenous technology and coastal preparedness. The most dangerous threat to a warship is not always visible on the horizon. Lurking beneath the waves, a hostile submarine can threaten naval assets, disrupt maritime traffic and place critical infrastructure at risk without revealing its presence. For India, whose maritime interests stretch across...

min read

INS Mangrol strengthens India’s underwater defences as Chinese anti-submarine capabilities and Pakistan’s submarine fleet underscore the need for indigenous technology and coastal preparedness. The most dangerous threat to a warship is not always visible on the horizon. Lurking beneath the waves, a hostile submarine can threaten naval assets, disrupt maritime traffic and place critical infrastructure at risk without revealing its presence. For India, whose maritime interests stretch across the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal and the wider Indian Ocean, countering this hidden threat is an operational necessity. The commissioning of INS Mangrol, the Indian Navy’s third Anti-Submarine Warfare Shallow Water Craft (ASW-SWC) built by Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL), Kochi, represents another important step in strengthening this capability. At a time when China is expanding its naval reach and Pakistan continues to operate Chinese-origin submarines, India’s ability to detect, track and neutralise underwater threats assumes growing strategic significance. Complex Challenges Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) presents particular challenges in shallow coastal waters. Unlike the relatively predictable acoustic environment of the deep sea, littoral waters generate complex sound patterns through seabed reflections, shipping activity and varying water conditions. These factors can complicate the detection and classification of hostile submarines. Yet these are precisely the waters where threats can approach naval bases, strategic ports, commercial shipping lanes and offshore installations. Conventional frigates and destroyers, despite their formidable capabilities, cannot always operate with the same agility in confined, shallow-water environments. This is where the ASW-SWC programme assumes significance. Conceived as a replacement for the ageing Abhay-class corvettes, these vessels are designed to provide specialised anti-submarine protection in India’s coastal waters. Their induction strengthens a crucial layer of maritime defence between the open sea and the country’s vulnerable coastal approaches. INS Mangrol carries forward a distinguished naval tradition. Named after the historic port town of Mangrol in Gujarat’s Junagadh district, it also recalls the legacy of the erstwhile INS Mangrol (M85), an Agray-class minesweeper decommissioned in 2004. Designed for anti-submarine warfare, underwater surveillance and coastal patrol, its significance, however, extends beyond its relatively compact dimensions. The vessel combines specialised sensors, indigenous weapons and manoeuvrability suited to the demanding conditions of shallow waters. Its sensor suite includes the DRDO-developed Abhay hull-mounted sonar and advanced low-frequency active towed-array sonar capabilities tailored to the challenging acoustics of littoral environments. Together, these systems are intended to improve the detection and tracking of underwater contacts. The vessel’s armament includes indigenous anti-submarine rocket launchers and lightweight torpedoes, supported by remote-controlled gun mounts for other operational requirements. Its indigenous Maareech Advanced Torpedo Defence System adds another layer of protection, helping detect, classify and counter incoming torpedo threats through acoustic countermeasures and decoys. These characteristics are particularly valuable when operating close to shore, where time and space for tactical decisions can be severely limited. Its utility is not restricted to hunting submarines. The platform can also undertake low-intensity maritime operations, surveillance of coastal choke points, mine-related missions and search-and-rescue duties. Such versatility makes it a valuable asset in peacetime as well as during periods of heightened tension. Equally important is the programme’s contribution to self-reliance. With more than 80 per cent indigenous content understood to be incorporated in INS Mangrol, the vessel reflects the growing capabilities of Indian shipyards, defence laboratories and domestic manufacturers, including micro, small and medium enterprises. The programme also demonstrates how complex naval platforms can strengthen the wider domestic defence ecosystem. The broader ASW-SWC programme has already gained momentum with the induction of vessels including INS Arnala, INS Androth and INS Mahe. The remaining ships are scheduled for completion by June 2028. Once the programme matures, the Navy will possess a more comprehensive and modernised force for addressing underwater threats close to India’s shores. The China Threat India’s requirement for stronger anti-submarine capabilities must be viewed against the wider transformation of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). Beijing has invested heavily in modern surface combatants, submarines, maritime surveillance systems and aviation platforms, with ASW forming an important component of its expanding naval capabilities. The Type 055 Renhai-class guided-missile destroyer illustrates this evolution. Equipped with a 112-cell vertical launch system, advanced multifunction radar and electronic warfare capabilities, the class is designed for complex, multi-domain naval operations. Its ability to operate with shipborne helicopters, including the Z-20F in the PLAN’s anti-submarine role, adds an important aerial dimension to maritime surveillance and submarine hunting. China has also pursued greater operational coordination with Russia. Joint naval exercises, including anti-submarine activities conducted by the two countries in October 2024, have highlighted their interest in improving interoperability and coordinated maritime operations. For India, the implications are clear. The challenge is not simply the number of submarines a potential adversary possesses, but the integration of sensors, aircraft, surface ships, weapons and information networks into a coordinated operational system. Pakistan’s acquisition and operation of Chinese-origin submarine platforms adds another dimension to India’s maritime security calculations. The possibility of hostile submarines operating near strategic ports, naval installations and offshore energy infrastructure demands sustained vigilance. The protection of assets such as the Bombay High oil and gas fields is especially important given their significance to national energy security. INS Mangrol is an important addition to India’s coastal anti-submarine shield, but a single platform cannot neutralise every underwater threat. Effective ASW depends on the integration of ships, maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters, surveillance networks, trained crews and reliable intelligence. Equally critical are continuous upgrades, realistic exercises and the ability to operate seamlessly across different maritime environments. Aatmanirbhar Bharat in naval defence must mean not merely assembling ships at home, but developing the technologies, industrial depth and operational expertise needed to maintain a decisive advantage. INS Mangrol represents progress in this demanding contest. Its real value will lie in the larger indigenous maritime-defence ecosystem it helps strengthen. (The writer is a retired naval aviation officer and defence and geopolitical analyst. Views personal.)

Are We Measuring What Matters?

Dr. Kishore Paknikar

6 hours ago

5 min read

The Ranking Trap - Part 1

When rankings become the yardstick of university excellence, genuine progress in teaching, research and social impact can disappear behind the numbers.

Imagine a university that has transformed itself over five years. Its laboratories are better equipped, teachers more engaged, students more confident and research increasingly relevant to the needs of its region. Yet, when the annual university rankings appear, it has slipped three places.

Another university rises five places. Its administrators celebrate, congratulatory messages circulate and the achievement receives considerable publicity.

Which university has actually improved? The question seems simple, but it exposes a fundamental weakness in how we judge education and research. We have become remarkably enthusiastic about measuring, comparing and ranking almost everything. Yet we seldom ask whether the numbers are telling us what we really want to know.

Ranking Illusions

Students are identified by examination ranks. Universities celebrate their positions in national and international league tables. Scientists monitor publication counts, citations and h-indices. Institutions proudly announce how many of their faculty feature in citation-based lists of the world’s top 2 percent of scientists.

There is nothing wrong with measurement. The trouble begins when we confuse measurement with judgment, and judgment with ranking.

Evaluation asks how well an institution is fulfilling its purpose, what it has achieved and where it needs to improve. Ranking asks where it stands relative to others.

A university can improve substantially and still fall in the rankings because other institutions have improved faster. Conversely, it can rise because competitors have performed poorly or because the ranking methodology has changed.

A university can become better without rising in the rankings, and it can rise in the rankings without becoming better.

Yet annual movements in league tables are routinely interpreted as evidence of progress or decline.

Consider how university rankings are constructed. India’s National Institutional Ranking Framework combines indicators relating to teaching, research, graduation outcomes, outreach and perception. International rankings use different combinations of research performance, reputation, internationalisation and other measures.

In the QS World University Rankings methodology published in 2026, academic reputation accounts for 30 percent and employer reputation for another 15 percent. Together, these survey-based reputation indicators contribute 45 percent of the overall score.

This illustrates how rankings reflect not only measurable institutional outcomes but also the weight assigned to particular indicators and perceptions. Consequently, two universities with different missions, student profiles and regional responsibilities may be assessed against criteria that do not fully capture their respective contributions.

Reputation is relevant. But is a university necessarily better because it is better known?

An established institution may thoroughly deserve its reputation. Equally, a younger university doing excellent work may take years to receive comparable recognition. Reputation can reflect achievement, but it can also lag behind changing realities.

False Precision

Suppose one university is ranked 47th and another 52nd. The numbers suggest a meaningful difference. But what if their underlying scores are almost identical? What if a modest change in the weight assigned to one indicator reverses their positions?

The ranking still appears precise, although the judgment behind it may be far less certain.

A rank is not a direct measurement like temperature or distance. It is the result of choices about what to measure, how to measure it and how much importance to assign to each component.

Different ranking systems can therefore produce different results without necessarily making a mathematical error. They may simply be emphasising different things. This matters particularly to students and parents.

Consider two engineering colleges. One has a stronger national reputation and an impressive research publication record. The other has excellent workshops, dedicated teachers and close engagement with local industries.

A student interested in hands-on engineering may find the second more suitable, even if it ranks lower. Another student seeking a research career may reasonably prefer the first.

Neither decision can be settled by a universal league table.

Institutional Conformity

There is a subtler danger. When institutions are rewarded according to similar indicators, they may gradually begin pursuing similar ambitions.

A university established to serve an underserved region may feel compelled to imitate a metropolitan research institution. A college known for excellent undergraduate teaching may devote increasing attention to publication counts because research carries greater weight in the rankings.

We celebrate diversity in education, yet risk rewarding uniformity in institutional ambition.

The same difficulty appears in the evaluation of scientists. Consider the widely publicised Stanford–Elsevier citation-based lists, popularly described as identifying the world’s top 2 percent scientists. They use several bibliometric indicators to identify researchers with substantial citation impact.

These indicators provide useful information. Citations tell us something about how frequently published work is acknowledged in subsequent research. But citation impact is not identical to originality, scientific significance or practical usefulness.

A 2026 study in Scientometrics examined differences in publication coverage between Scopus, which underlies these lists, and OpenAlex. It demonstrated how the choice and coverage of a publication database can affect bibliometric assessments.

Bibliometric databases differ in their coverage of journals, conference proceedings and other scholarly outputs. As a result, a researcher’s apparent performance can vary depending on the database and indicators used, even when the underlying body of work remains unchanged.

The scientists themselves had not changed. The information available for evaluating them had.

Take the h-index. A scientist with an h-index of 40 has published at least 40 papers, each cited at least 40 times. It is a clever numerical summary. But does it tell us whether that scientist has made an important discovery, developed a useful instrument or solved a pressing problem?

Citation practices differ enormously across disciplines. Review articles often attract many citations. Large collaborations can produce extensive publication records. Meanwhile, researchers developing instruments, industrial processes or practical technologies may publish relatively few papers.

Journal impact factors present a related problem. They describe average citation patterns across groups of papers, not the quality of an individual discovery. Nevertheless, the reputation of a journal sometimes substitutes for careful examination of the work itself.

History offers a reminder of how slowly scientific significance may become apparent. Gregor Mendel published his pioneering research on heredity in 1866. Its importance was largely overlooked until around 1900.

His discovery did not become more original when the scientific community finally recognised it.

None of this makes rankings worthless. They can reveal patterns, encourage institutions to examine their performance and provide useful starting points for comparison. But they are instruments, not verdicts.

A remarkable teacher may transform hundreds of lives without producing a highly cited paper. A scientist may spend years solving a technical problem that attracts little academic attention but matters enormously to industry or society. A small university may create opportunities in a region that larger institutions have long neglected.

Such contributions can be evaluated through evidence, even when they cannot be represented adequately by a single number.

The question is not whether we should measure performance. Of course we should. It is whether we are allowing what is easy to count to overshadow what is important to understand.

The tragedy would not simply be that rankings failed to recognise excellence. It would be that, in pursuing higher rankings, our institutions neglected forms of excellence that the rankings were never designed to capture.

(The writer is an ANRF Prime Minister Professor at COEP Technological University, Pune, and former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune. Views personal.)

Killing the Hidden Killer

Are We Measuring What Matters?

Recent Posts

Comments