Pakistani Naval Ship Collides With Indian Warship in North Arabian Sea; India Lodges Strong Protest

A Pakistani naval vessel collided with an Indian Navy warship in international waters in the North Arabian Sea following what India has described as aggressive, unsafe and unprofessional manoeuvring by the Pakistani ship, triggering a formal diplomatic protest by New Delhi. According to the Indian account of the incident, the encounter took place on the evening of September 15, when an Indian Naval warship was deployed on routine surveillance duties in international waters in the North Arabian Sea.

During the mission, a Pakistani naval ship reportedly closed the Indian vessel and began manoeuvring in what the Indian side described as an aggressive and dangerous manner. The Indian warship continued with its assigned operational mission, but the close-quarter manoeuvring eventually resulted in a minor collision between the two naval vessels.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs subsequently confirmed that a collision had taken place in international waters and said it did not result in any major damage. New Delhi described the conduct of the Pakistani naval unit as “unacceptable and unprofessional.” The incident prompted the MEA to summon Pakistan’s Charge d’Affaires in New Delhi on Wednesday and lodge a strong protest.

According to the ministry, the conduct of the Pakistani vessel was in direct contravention of Article 10 of the Agreement between India and Pakistan on Advance Notice on Military Exercises, Manoeuvres and Troops Movements, signed in April 1991. India also instructed its Charge d’Affaires in Islamabad to lodge a corresponding protest with Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Pakistani diplomat was asked to convey to authorities in Islamabad that military units must exercise due care and respect the provisions of agreements between the two countries in order to prevent a repetition of such incidents.

Questions over seamanship and safe navigation: The Indian assessment of the encounter goes considerably beyond the diplomatic protest and portrays the collision as the consequence of irresponsible and reckless handling of the Pakistani naval vessel. Such manoeuvres create an avoidable risk not only to expensive naval platforms but also to the lives of officers and sailors on both vessels. Warships operating in international waters routinely encounter and monitor ships belonging to other navies, but maintaining safe separation, predictable courses and proper navigational discipline is essential when heavily armed vessels operate in close proximity.

From the Indian perspective, the inability of the Pakistani ship to maintain adequate separation and exercise due care during the encounter raises questions about adherence to established navigational practices and the professional standards expected of a modern navy. The Indian account characterises the Pakistani vessel's conduct as irresponsible and unprofessional, and argues that the incident reflects a reckless approach to close-quarter manoeuvring. It also raises the sharper criticism that a navy should, at the most basic level, be capable of safely manoeuvring and controlling its own ships without unnecessarily endangering another vessel.

India, by contrast, maintains that its warship continued to discharge its assigned operational mission and that the Indian Navy maintained professional conduct and restraint throughout the encounter. The episode therefore reinforces the importance of adhering not only to international norms of safe navigation but also to the bilateral confidence-building mechanisms developed specifically to prevent encounters between Indian and Pakistani military units from escalating into more serious incidents.

There is historical precedent for such tensions at sea. In 2011, India and Pakistan traded allegations after INS Godavari and PNS Babur came into contact during operations connected with the merchant vessel MV Suez. India at the time accused PNS Babur of risky manoeuvres and cited both navigational safety regulations and Article 10 of the same 1991 bilateral agreement. The latest incident therefore carries significance beyond the physical damage caused by the collision. Even a relatively minor navigational encounter can assume strategic importance when it involves the armed forces of two nuclear-armed neighbours operating in contested and closely monitored waters.

Collision comes amid pressure on Pakistan over regional maritime commitments: The timing of the incident is also significant because Pakistan's naval and defence commitments are already under scrutiny amid the rapidly deteriorating security situation around the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement on August 7. The agreement states that an armed attack against one of the three countries would be regarded as an attack against all three, although the publicly released agreement did not specify exactly what military action each country would be required to undertake.

That arrangement is being tested much sooner than many expected. Iran-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen have made major advances along the Red Sea coast. They captured the strategic port of Mocha and subsequently seized strategically important islands, including Perim, at the entrance to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The advances have strengthened Houthi control over one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints and put additional pressure on Saudi Arabia and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces. The Houthis have also intensified attacks against Saudi targets and have threatened Saudi shipping, making the security of Bab el-Mandeb particularly important for Riyadh.

Against that background, questions are being raised over how Pakistan intends to fulfil the security commitments it has undertaken through the Mecca Pact and what naval role, if any, Islamabad will play around Bab el-Mandeb. Pakistan said on September 10 that no military response under the Mecca agreement was under discussion at that point. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Sajjad Haider Khan nevertheless said Pakistan would act under the agreement “when the time comes.”

There is also an important qualification: Pakistani and Turkish officials told the Associated Press that Saudi Arabia had not formally requested military assistance from them in response to the latest Houthi escalation. Therefore, describing Pakistan as definitively refusing to honour the Mecca Pact would go beyond what is currently established in the public record.

Pakistan is also participating at the command level in a Saudi-based multinational maritime security framework. Pakistan Navy Commodore Rashid Sheikh has assumed the position of deputy commander in the coalition, which has been established to strengthen maritime security and freedom of navigation. Public information, however, does not establish the extent to which Pakistani warships have been operationally committed to confronting the Houthis around Bab el-Mandeb.

Nevertheless, the contrast is likely to draw attention in Indian strategic circles: while a serious maritime crisis is developing around Bab el-Mandeb and questions persist over Pakistan's future role under its new regional defence arrangements, the Pakistan Navy now finds itself accused by India of carrying out hazardous close-quarter manoeuvres against an Indian warship in the North Arabian Sea.

For critics, that juxtaposition raises an uncomfortable question: at a time when greater maritime professionalism and regional security coordination are increasingly important, why did a routine encounter in international waters escalate to the point where two naval ships physically collided?

The collision caused no major damage, according to the Indian government, but the consequences could easily have been more serious.

A miscalculation between warships can quickly develop into an operational or diplomatic crisis, particularly between India and Pakistan. Maintaining safe separation, disciplined navigation and established communication procedures is therefore not merely a matter of seamanship—it is an important mechanism for preventing an avoidable incident at sea from becoming something much larger. New Delhi has chosen the diplomatic route, lodging a formal protest while its Navy continues its assigned operational mission. The broader message from the Indian side is that professional restraint must be matched by adherence to established maritime practices and bilateral mechanisms intended to prevent precisely this kind of encounter.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.