India summons Pakistan's charge d'affaires after a naval collision in the North Arabian Sea

India summoned Saad Ahmad Warraich, charge d'affaires at Pakistan's High Commission in New Delhi, on 16 September and lodged a formal protest after a collision the previous evening between a Pakistani naval ship and an Indian Navy warship in international waters of the North Arabian Sea.

The Ministry of External Affairs said the Pakistani vessel's conduct was unacceptable and unprofessional. It also said the episode breached Article 10 of the April 1991 Agreement between India and Pakistan on Advance Notice on Military Exercises, Manoeuvres and Troops Movements. That article requires naval ships and submarines of the two countries to keep at least three nautical miles apart in international waters so that an accident does not occur.

Indian defence sources said the Indian ship was on a routine surveillance patrol when a Pakistan Navy unit, identified in one account as the offshore patrol vessel PNS Hunain, closed at high speed. Repeated warnings were sent on Channel 16, the international maritime distress and calling frequency. The Pakistani ship then increased speed and cut across the Indian warship's bow from starboard. The bow of the Pakistani vessel brushed the Indian hull. Sources said there was no structural damage, no injuries and no loss of capability on the Indian side. The Indian ship continued its mission.

The Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that the incident took place in international waters and that it caused no major damage. It instructed India's charge d'affaires in Islamabad to deliver a matching protest at Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Indian Navy also raised the matter with the Pakistan military through established military channels.

Pakistan's government and military had not issued a public account of the collision by Wednesday afternoon. Reuters reported that neither responded immediately to requests for comment.

What the 1991 agreement requires

The 1991 pact is one of a set of confidence-building measures signed after the 1980s, when both countries wanted written rules for how close their forces could come without turning a manoeuvre into a crisis. Article 10 is the naval distance rule. It sits beside notice periods for exercises and troop movements. The text does not create an international tribunal. Each side is expected to police its own units and to use diplomatic channels when the other side falls short.

India's statement treated the collision as a violation of that written distance, not as an act of war. The wording matters. After a four-day military exchange last year that raised fears of a wider fight before a ceasefire took hold, both capitals have been careful about how they describe incidents at sea and on the Line of Control. Reuters noted that this is the first instance of overt military tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbours since that clash.

A similar naval brush occurred about 15 years ago in the Gulf of Aden, when both navies were operating against piracy. That episode also produced a diplomatic protest and no lasting damage. The geography this time is closer to home. The North Arabian Sea is the corridor that Indian and Pakistani surface ships use for surveillance of each other's coasts, of tanker traffic heading toward the Gulf, and of activity around Gwadar and Karachi.

Why the timing is tight

The collision lands in a week when shipping already faces strain at two other chokepoints. Houthi attacks have disrupted the Bab el-Mandeb and, with Hormuz under pressure from the wider Iran war, tankers have been pushed onto longer routes. Indian officials have already called Houthi strikes on Saudi civilian and economic targets a threat to that traffic. A collision between Indian and Pakistani warships in the same basin adds a separate risk: two navies that do not talk easily now have an accident on the record.

The names of the Indian ship have not been released. That is standard after an incident that New Delhi wants to keep inside the 1991 process rather than turn into a public operational briefing. The identification of PNS Hunain comes from Indian sources speaking to India Today. Until Islamabad confirms or denies the ship's identity, that detail should be treated as an Indian account, not a joint finding.

Warraich was told to convey to Pakistani authorities the need for all military units to observe due care and to respect the relevant agreements so that the episode is not repeated. That is the language of a warning, not of a demand for compensation. India is not claiming hull damage that would support a damages case. It is claiming a breach of a distance rule and asking that the rule be followed.

The next test is whether Pakistan issues its own version of events. If Islamabad says the Indian ship was the one that closed, the two accounts will sit unresolved, as they often do. If it stays silent, New Delhi's statement will be the only official record. Either way, commanders on both sides now have a recent case to brief to watch officers: three nautical miles is not a suggestion, and Channel 16 warnings do not count as compliance if the other ship still cuts the bow.