From Shivaji’s Ganimi Kava to the Strait of Hormuz: How Asymmetric Warfare Shapes Modern Conflict

Maj Gen (Dr) S B Asthana, SM, VSM (Veteran)

“Geography, Sea Denial, and the Timeless Art of Making the Stronger Adversary Fight on Unfavourable Terms“

“History remembers great battles. Strategic history remembers those who avoided them. From Shivaji’s mountain forts to Iran’s missile boats in the Strait of Hormuz, the most successful asymmetric warriors understood a timeless truth: never fight the stronger adversary where he is strongest.”

How Shivaji Maharaj transformed geography into military power and how the same principles of asymmetric warfare continue to shape conflicts from Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Himalayas to Operation Sindoor and Iran’s strategy in the Strait of Hormuz.

Geography, Operational Art and the Strategic Logic Behind Vietnam, the Himalayas, Operation Sindoor and Iran’s Maritime Challenge.

In this context I am sharing a detailed interview of mine on National TV of India, DoorDarshan, India’s Public Service Broadcaster in its program Nalanda Talkies, where I highlight Strategies, Operational Art, Asymmetric Warfare, Use of terrain friction and geography and its application today.

The Strait of Hormuz and a Lesson from Shivaji

When tensions flare in the Persian Gulf, the world’s attention invariably turns to the Strait of Hormuz. Barely 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point, this narrow waterway carries nearly a fifth of the world’s traded oil. Every supertanker passing through it is a reminder that geography can still trump technology.

Aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, satellites and precision-guided munitions may dominate modern warfare, but geography continues to impose what military strategists call terrain friction—the constraints that natural features place on military and economic activity.

More than three centuries ago, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj understood this principle instinctively. Facing the mighty Mughal Empire, he realised that victory would not come from matching imperial strength. It would come from exploiting terrain, mobility, intelligence and maritime leverage to make a stronger enemy fight on unfavourable terms.

Today, Iran employs remarkably similar logic against the United States and its regional partners. While the political contexts differ enormously, the strategic principles bear striking resemblance.

The story of Shivaji’s asymmetric warfare is therefore not merely a chapter of Indian history. It is a living strategic template whose echoes can be heard from the forts of the Konkan coast to the waters of the Strait of Hormuz.

Shivaji: The Master of Terrain Friction

Most discussions of Shivaji focus on guerrilla warfare. That description, while correct, is incomplete.

Shivaji was not simply a guerrilla leader. He was a master strategist who transformed geography into combat power.

The Mughal military machine excelled in open plains where large cavalry formations, heavy logistics columns and superior numbers could be brought to bear.

Shivaji denied them precisely that advantage.

The Western Ghats became his strategic ally.

Narrow mountain passes, dense forests, broken terrain and hidden approaches imposed constant friction upon Mughal operations. Massive armies that appeared invincible in northern India became cumbersome and vulnerable in the Deccan.

The Battle of Pratapgad remains a classic example. Afzal Khan entered terrain selected by Shivaji. Intelligence, deception, surprise and geography combined to destroy a numerically superior force without a conventional battle.

The lesson remains relevant today:

The strongest army is only as effective as the terrain allows it to be.

The Fort Network: India’s First Integrated Strategic Grid

Shivaji’s forts were not isolated defensive structures.

They constituted an integrated operational system.

Raigad, Pratapgad, Rajgad, Torna, Sindhudurg and dozens of others formed a distributed network that provided:

• Logistics
• Intelligence
• Administration
• Strategic communication
• Psychological dominance

Each fort supported the others.

The fall of one did not collapse the system.

This distributed architecture resembles modern concepts of resilient command-and-control networks.

The Mughals repeatedly captured forts but failed to destroy the operational system.

Shivaji understood that survival depended not on holding every position but on preserving the network.

Iran applies a remarkably similar principle today through dispersed missile sites, underground facilities, proxy organisations and distributed command structures.

The individual node is expendable.

The network is not.

Shivaji’s Maritime Revolution

One of the most underappreciated aspects of Shivaji’s strategic vision was his understanding of sea power.

Long before maritime security became fashionable in strategic discourse, Shivaji recognised that sovereignty required control of coastal approaches and protection of maritime commerce.

His response was revolutionary.

Instead of attempting to challenge larger naval powers in blue-water battles, he adopted an asymmetric maritime strategy.

He developed:

• Coastal forts
• Littoral naval forces
• Sea-denial capabilities
• Maritime intelligence networks

The magnificent fort of Sindhudurg was not merely a defensive structure. It was a statement of strategic intent.

Shivaji realised that a weaker maritime power should not seek sea control everywhere. It should seek sea denial where it matters.

This distinction remains central to modern naval warfare. A2/AD warfare.

Iran follows exactly the same logic in the Persian Gulf.

Why Hormuz Matters More Than Aircraft Carriers

Many analysts focus on military hardware when discussing Iran.

The real source of Iranian leverage, however, lies elsewhere.

It lies in geography.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important maritime chokepoints on earth.

A significant portion of global energy trade passes through this narrow corridor.

Any disruption immediately affects:

• Oil prices
• Insurance premiums
• Shipping costs
• Energy security
• Financial markets

The economic consequences can be global.

Iran cannot defeat the United States Navy conventionally.

But it does not need to.

Just as Shivaji never sought to destroy the Mughal Empire militarily, Iran seeks to impose costs rather than achieve battlefield annihilation.

Its objective is strategic leverage.

That leverage comes from geography.

Hormuz: The Modern Equivalent of the Western Ghats

The Western Ghats constrained Mughal mobility.

Hormuz constrains maritime mobility.

In both cases geography narrows the manoeuvre space available to a stronger power.

A carrier strike group possesses immense firepower.

Yet in confined waters, even a superior fleet faces challenges.

Iran’s strategy relies upon:

• Fast attack craft
• Naval mines
• Coastal missiles
• Armed drones
• Swarm tactics

None individually threaten American naval supremacy.

Collectively they create uncertainty.

And uncertainty is often the most valuable currency in asymmetric warfare.

The objective is not victory through destruction.

The objective is deterrence through risk.

This is precisely the strategic logic that Shivaji employed.

Economic Warfare: Surat and Hormuz

One of Shivaji’s most brilliant campaigns was the raid on Surat.

Surat was not simply a city.

It was a financial artery of the Mughal Empire.

By striking Surat, Shivaji demonstrated that economic centres could be more valuable targets than military formations.

The impact was psychological, political and financial.

Iran’s strategy around Hormuz follows a comparable pattern.

Every tanker threatened.

Every shipping route disrupted.

Every insurance premium increased.

Every energy market unsettled.

These effects impose costs far beyond the battlefield.

In both cases, economic vulnerability became the centre of gravity.

The message was simple:

If you cannot defeat the adversary militarily, impose costs where he is economically exposed.

The Power of Distributed Resistance

Another similarity between Shivaji and Iran lies in distributed resistance.

Shivaji’s military system depended upon dispersed forts, local support networks and autonomous commanders.

The enemy could not identify a single centre whose destruction would guarantee victory.

Iran has created a comparable model through its regional network of partners and proxies.

Whether in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Gaza or Yemen, the objective has been to create strategic depth.

The stronger power is forced to defend multiple fronts simultaneously.

Resources become dispersed. IRGC’s Mosaic Strategy.

Attention becomes divided.

Decision-making becomes complicated.

This is classic asymmetric logic.

The weaker side multiplies the number of problems confronting the stronger side.

The Houthi Campaign and Shivaji’s Maritime Logic

Perhaps the clearest contemporary illustration of maritime asymmetry has been the Houthi campaign in the Red Sea.

Using relatively inexpensive drones and missiles, the Houthis disrupted one of the world’s busiest shipping routes.

Major shipping companies altered routes.

Insurance costs increased dramatically.

Naval task forces were deployed.

The economic impact far exceeded the cost of the weapons employed.

This mirrors Shivaji’s maritime logic.

A weaker actor exploits strategic geography and attacks vulnerable commercial arteries.

The goal is not naval supremacy.

The goal is strategic influence.

In modern terminology, this is Anti-Access and Area Denial (A2/AD).

Shivaji practised a version of it centuries before the term existed.

Lessons for India: Geography Remains a Strategic Asset

India occupies one of the world’s most advantageous geopolitical positions.

The Indian peninsula projects deep into the Indian Ocean.

Sea lanes carrying energy and trade pass near Indian waters.

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands overlook approaches to the Malacca Strait.

The Himalayas create both challenges and opportunities.

India should therefore view geography not merely as territory but as strategic capital.

Shivaji’s example demonstrates that geography becomes power only when integrated with:

• Intelligence
• Mobility
• Infrastructure
• Maritime capability
• Political will

The lesson is particularly relevant as India faces a more contested security environment.

The Andaman & Nicobar Advantage: India’s Own Hormuz Moment

While analysts frequently focus on Iran’s ability to leverage the Strait of Hormuz, India possesses a comparable strategic opportunity much closer to home.

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands sit astride one of the world’s most important maritime arteries—the Malacca Strait.

Nearly a third of global trade and a substantial portion of East Asia’s energy imports transit through this narrow maritime corridor linking the Indian Ocean with the Pacific. For China in particular, Malacca remains a critical strategic vulnerability, often referred to as the “Malacca Dilemma.”

Just as Shivaji recognised the strategic value of the Konkan coastline and established Sindhudurg as a maritime bastion, India’s strategic planners have increasingly recognised the value of the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago as a forward operating base capable of influencing one of the world’s most important sea lanes.

The logic is remarkably similar.

Shivaji transformed coastal geography into maritime leverage.

Iran seeks to transform Hormuz into strategic leverage.

India possesses the opportunity to convert the Andaman and Nicobar chain into strategic leverage.

The establishment of India’s first and only tri-service theatre command in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands reflected precisely this understanding. The islands offer surveillance dominance over critical Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs), support maritime domain awareness, facilitate power projection into the eastern Indian Ocean, and strengthen India’s role as a net security provider in the Indo-Pacific.

In military terms, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands provide India with what strategists call a positional advantage.

In geopolitical terms, they provide strategic deterrence.

In economic terms, they help secure trade routes that are vital to India’s growth and regional stability.

Most importantly, they reinforce a lesson that Shivaji understood centuries ago: geography becomes power only when it is integrated with infrastructure, intelligence, mobility and political vision.

The forts of Raigad and Sindhudurg were not powerful because they existed; they were powerful because they formed part of a larger strategic design.

Similarly, the Andaman and Nicobar Command, maritime surveillance networks, naval air stations, logistics infrastructure and India’s broader Indo-Pacific strategy must function as an integrated system.

The future contest in the Indo-Pacific is unlikely to be decided solely by fleets and missiles. It will be shaped equally by who best exploits geography, controls chokepoints and protects economic lifelines.

In that sense, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are not merely remote territories.

They are India’s most consequential maritime strategic asset since the age of Shivaji.

India needs to expedite construction of dual use infrastructure inn Great Nicobar Islands (GNI), like Green field airport to be under operational control of Indian Navy to improve maritime domain awareness (MDA)and operational reach and other related projects, in light of Chinese outreach for various naval bases in IOR.

Lessons for India and the World

Several lessons emerge from the journey from the Western Ghats to Hormuz.

Geography Remains a Strategic Weapon

Mountains, chokepoints and maritime corridors continue to influence outcomes despite technological advances.

Operational Art Matters More Than Firepower

Success depends upon aligning military action with political objectives.

Economic Warfare Is Increasingly Decisive

Modern conflicts affect markets, supply chains and energy flows as much as battlefields.

Resilience Defeats Mass

Distributed systems survive longer than centralised structures.

Strategic Patience Outlasts Tactical Success

The side that endures often prevails over the side that merely wins battles.

The strongest force does not always prevail. The force that best understands geography, strategy and operational art often does.

From the Western Ghats to Sindhudurg, from the Himalayas to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and from the Strait of Malacca to the Strait of Hormuz, one strategic principle remains unchanged: geography rewards those who understand it and punishes those who ignore it. Great powers often focus on platforms, weapons and technology. Enduring strategists focus on terrain, chokepoints and operational design.

Shivaji weaponised geography against a continental empire; Iran has weaponised geography against a global superpower. The Western Ghats and the Strait of Hormuz are separated by centuries, but both demonstrate how terrain friction can neutralise superior military power.

Major General (Dr) S B Asthana,SM,VSM,PhD (Veteran)

(The views expressed are personal views of the author, who retains the copy right. The author is a Globally acknowledged Strategic and Security Analyst, He can be reached at Facebook and LinkedIn as Shashi Asthana, @asthana_shashi on twitter, and personnel site https://asthanawrites.org/ email shashiasthana29@gmail.com LinkedIn Profile www.linkedin.com/in/shashi-asthana-4b3801a6.  Youtube link https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl50YRTBrOCVIxDtHfhvQDQ?view_as=subscriber