Historians generally are less informed about the dominions of the seas and oceans. Knowledge about the maritime realms demands particular interest and specialized scholarhood. Thus, the intense determining effect of maritime strength upon outstanding national issues is overlooked. English historians Thomas Arnold and Sir Edward Creasy did not mention the more striking similarity that the mastery of the sea rested with the victor in both cases: the defeat of Carthaginian General Hannibal to General Scipio of the Roman Empire at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC, and the defeat of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte to English General Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.

Nautical enthusiasts, maritime pundits, naval officers, policymakers, and historians continue to debate the definition of Seapower/Sea Power along with its strategic implications. Seapower was first popularized by the U.S. naval officer and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan in his groundbreaking work “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783.” The work analyzes the significance of naval power in shaping geopolitical dynamics and determining the results of conflicts between nations. Mahan argues that sea power has played a crucial role in the historical events from the end of the 17th century until the American Revolutionary War, highlighting how control of the sea can influence a nation's security and prosperity. Mahan's inquiry into the historical interplay between sea power and national fortunes sets the stage for his historical narrative. He notes the tendency of historians to disregard the massive importance of maritime strength, emphasizing that his work aims to rectify that by examining specific historical instances where the influence of sea power was paramount. Mahan intensely outlines the interconnectivity of sea commerce, naval policy, and military strategy, suggesting that a nation’s ability to project power at sea directly affects its success and stability. He emphasizes the lessons learned from past naval engagements and the potential applications of those lessons to contemporary geopolitical conditions.

In his famed book, “Seapower States: Maritime Culture, Continental Empires and the Conflict That Made the Modern World,” Professor Andrew Lambert, another British naval historian, demonstrates how creating maritime identities made Athens, Britain, Carthage, the Dutch Republic, and Venice as “seapowers.” His argument appears tangible that elegant maritime actions enabled these states to achieve success disproportionate to their size. These maritime nations were unique because they planned, implemented, and maintained more dynamic, transparent, and inclusive maritime policies and strategies than their continental competitors. However, the most important of his findings could be that they began to decline only when these states forgot the maritime aspect of their identity. In these contexts, exploring and excavating Bangladesh’s maritime history, legacy, and heritage is vital for reminding the forgotten maritime identity of the people of the elapsed strategic maritime culture to inspire them to draw the correct course of action to create a prosperous future through the maritime fulcrum for Bangladesh. 

As our collective memory, maritime heritage will represent Bangladesh's nautical history, spirit, and maritime purpose. Maritime heritage will help define our distinct strategic national resilience in our total response to the seas and oceans around us and reinvigorate forgotten maritime identities. Continuous persuasion of ocean literacy and establishing and maintaining marine research organizations capable of undertaking scientific and cutting-edge investigations to foster sustainable use of marine resources to contribute to Bangladesh’s economy positively deserve contemplation to search for authentic national maritime history and heritage.

National maritime heritage also strives to unite the nations even when used as a diplomatic tool to promote peace in the Bay of Bengal (BoB) and the Indian Ocean. When this historical narrative is documented and preserved, it can foster diversity that can bring about an occasion to be celebrated.The lost maritime heritage, once discovered, can also be a driver of local economies, improving the standard of living for people around. When maritime cultural heritage is threatened, distorted, damaged, or destroyed, the people whose traditions and values are represented by that heritage are also likely to be threatened and eventually lost. The quest for searching the maritime root is also essential for the academic debate on whether Bangladesh is a “Seapower,” “Sea Power,” “Sea    state,” or “Cultural Seapower.” Whether it’s relatively tiny maritime geography qualifies it to be a “Seapower,” or “Sea Power, or a “Sea state.”Whether its maritimization is deeply rooted in history or relatively recent and superficial, and whether the state’s failure to prosper as per the popular aspirations was due to its rulers oblivion of the land’s maritime identity!

It may or may not be a question of semantics, as some would argue about the proper use of the terms “Seapower,” “Sea Power,” or “Sea state.” Instead, they may well be understood in the correct historical or cultural context and used as such. This, of course, does not mean that terms and their meaning should be used dogmatically. To some, using precisely defined terms is critically important in any professional discourses. To others, it’s not essential to distinguish between the “name” and the “thing.” Yet, to some, naming things is an Adam-Eve-type tendency. To date, maritime practitioners argue that there is no consensus about the semantic explanations of various maritime theories. That’s why one experiences the differences of opinions and understanding and use of various maritime concepts, theories, and terms as mentioned above. Therefore, the debate continues. The coining of the term “sea power” from its original Greek word, “thalassokratia,”by Admiral Mahan and the critical scrutiny or dissecting of it into “Seapower” or “Sea Power” and even the bringing forth of another term, such as “Seapower state” by Professor Lambertmakes it more complicated. For an aspiring maritime Bangladesh, the reconciliation between and among the discourses could perhaps be to select and maintain an aim to analyze its responses to sea-related concepts, ideas, policies, strategies, and models to identify various maritime elements at its disposal to maritimize it as a Seapower state.

The term “Maritimization” may also be understood as a sustainable method to be planned and managed holistically with all elements of sea power at the disposal of the state concerned. The maritimization process can thus include critical features: maritime history, vision, economics, sea power, maritime literacy, and maritime culture. The caution is that the maritimization process cannot work effectively if one of the elements is ignored. The final expected result that remains at the nucleus of the “maritimization” is the decision-making process to understand the monumental importance of maritime affairs that would contribute to Bangladesh’s wealth, security, and prosperity.

The inadequacy of historical knowledge, ignorance of the maritime domain, or lack of interest in maritime heritage in Bangladesh poses threats to correctly understanding the significance of the country's maritime affairs. These include national concrete actions and responses to effectively deal with tapped and untapped sea-based resources, blue economic activities, and maritime trade, including disasters emanating from and off the seas, such as cyclones, coastal inundations, floods, marine accidents, pollution, and climate change. Preparations for sustainable marine economic activities, the national requirement of creating and maintaining an operationally effective fleet on one hand, and on the other hand, immediate response to these emergencies and disasters often overlook the impact on maritime cultural heritage. Whether in Bangladesh or any other maritime country, no matter where these threats to maritime cultural heritage happen, they affect us all because they endanger our shared nautical wisdom originating from historical maritime knowledge.

Lord Haversham is quoted by maritime pundits to have made his famous speech in the House of Commons in 1767, where he is recorded to have said, “Your fleet and your trade have so near a relation and such mutual influence on each other, they cannot well be separated: your trade is the mother and nurse of your seamen: your seamen are the life of your fleet: and your fleet is the security and protection of your trade: and both together are the wealth, strength, security and glory of Britain.” Fast forwarding 257 years from that speech to today’s Britain, Bangladesh, or any Seapower states – the message remains as fresh and compelling as it was then.This writing is thus undertaken with numerous audiences in mind: generally, the lovers of history and culture and predominantly patriotic citizens, policymakers, academia, and nautical enthusiasts.

The marine activities of Bangladesh are not as recent as the country’s statehood. It will not be imprudent to argue that the geographical location called Bangladesh and the people who lived there have a long history covering a period of a couple of millennia from the very dawn of the Indus Valley civilization. In those days, historically speaking, this very geographical location existed. The predecessors of the people of Bangladesh were traditionally Hindus and Buddhists. With the Islamisation of the Indus Valley area, present Afghanistan, northwestern India, and Pakistan, and even before that, through the seaborne trade by the Arabs, the people reverted to Islam as their faith. But this new faith did not compel them to change their strategic culture of hunter-gatherers, agriculture, domesticating animals, or seafaring. The older maps suggest that Bangladesh was part of the ancient Indian civilization. Believing it was a part of great empires of the old, courageously defended against the formidable Army of Alexander the Great. Historical accounts indicate that Alexander, scared by the extent of Bengal’s military might, decided to withdraw his forces from India in the 4th Century BC.


Writer: Commodore Syed Misbah Uddin Ahmad, (C), NUP, ndc, afwc, psc, BN (retd), Director General, Bangladesh Institute of Maritime Research and Development (BIMRAD). Email: misbah28686@gmail.com