DNA Explains: Pak ship slams into Indian Navy warship, limps home damaged - provocation or blunder?

PNS Hunain collided with an Indian Navy warship in the Arabian Sea. DNA explains the 1991 agreement breach, BrahMos firepower, and the Gray Zone strategy behind the incident.

A high-seas confrontation between an Indian Navy guided-missile destroyer and Pakistan's PNS Hunain in the Northern Arabian Sea has sparked a fresh diplomatic row between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. While India has condemned the incident as a deliberate, aggressive manoeuvre that violated international maritime safety protocols, Pakistan claims the encounter occurred within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and blames Indian forces.

DNA breaks down what happened at sea, the underlying strategic intentions, and why this collision matters.

Also Read: India tells Pakistan, China 'no boundary exists,' rejects joint commission

Watch full video here: #DNAमित्रों | PAK ने तोड़ा 35 साल पुराना 'सागर समझौता'

DNA Explains: What Happened Between the Two Warships?

On September 15, a frontline Indian Navy destroyer was conducting routine surveillance operations in international waters, approximately 120 nautical miles off the Gulf of Oman. According to Indian defence sources, the Pakistani offshore patrol vessel PNS Hunain began approaching the Indian vessel at high speed from the right.

Despite continuous warnings broadcast by the Indian bridge over international VHF radio channels, PNS Hunain ignored the advisories and attempted a dangerous bow-crossing manoeuvre. The two warships made contact on their starboard (forward right) sides.

Unlike minor civilian navigation errors, Indian authorities emphasise that this was not an accidental collision but a deliberate act of provocation by the Pakistan Navy.

PNS Hunain Damaged: Firepower vs. Tactical Restraint

Following the collision, PNS Hunain suffered severe hull damage and structural cracking, forcing it to retreat to its home port for extensive repairs. The Indian destroyer sustained no operational damage and continued its surveillance mission.

The incident highlights immense operational restraint by the Indian Navy. A frontline Indian destroyer carries overwhelming firepower, including:

• 12 to 16 BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles (capable of firing two missiles per minute)
• 32 Barak surface-to-air missiles
• Oto Melara rapid-fire main guns

Despite having the capability to neutralise the threat immediately, Indian commanders prioritised restraint to prevent full-scale military escalation.

DNA Decodes: What Are the Maritime Safe Distance Rules?

The collision breached both international maritime law and bilateral protocols:

• The 1991 Bilateral Confidence Building Agreement: Article 10 mandates that Indian and Pakistani naval ships maintain a minimum safety buffer of 3 nautical miles (approx. 5.5 km) in international waters and give advance notice of military maneuvers.
• International Safe Distance Norms: Under international regulations (COLREGs), ships must keep a buffer of 5.5 km, expanding up to 10 km during adverse weather or high seas. In narrow channels like the Strait of Hormuz, the buffer is 1.5 to 2 km.

Pakistan’s vessel ignored the 10-kilometre safety boundary in the open waters of the Northern Arabian Sea, violating the 1991 bilateral pact and standard international maritime law.

DNA Analysis: Chanakya’s "Silent Warfare" and Gray Zone Tactics

Why did Pakistan attempt such a risky manoeuvre?

In the Arthashastra, Acharya Chanakya outlined the principle of Tushni Yuddh (Silent Warfare)—a strategy where an adversary uses calculated provocations to induce anger and force the opponent into initiating open war. In modern military terminology, this is known as 'grey zone signalling' (a theory introduced by Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling).

By orchestrating pseudo-accidental aggressions, Pakistan seeks to:

• Evade UN Charter Article 51: By framing military provocations as "accidents" or "mistakes," Pakistan attempts to block India from taking legitimate retaliatory military action.
• Distract from Internal Crisis: Pakistan faces soaring inflation (over 11%), record 20-year high unemployment (near 7%), and severe domestic instability. Historically, much like General Ayub Khan’s military takeover in 1958, Pakistani military leadership uses external conflict to justify emergency powers and consolidate political control.

Diplomatic Escalation

Following the incident, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) summoned Pakistan's Charge d'Affaires in New Delhi, issuing a stern protest against the "unprofessional and hazardous" actions of the Pakistan Navy. Simultaneously, the Indian Embassy in Islamabad lodged a formal complaint with Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

While Pakistan issued a counter-summon accusing India of unsafe maneuvering in its EEZ, naval metrics show a clear asymmetry between the two forces:

• Aircraft Carriers: India operates 2; Pakistan operates 0.
• Destroyers: India operates 13; Pakistan operates 0.
• Submarines: India operates 20 to 23; Pakistan operates 10 to 15.
• Active Personnel: India maintains approximately 75,000; Pakistan maintains approximately 30,000.

While India remains fully equipped to defend its maritime boundaries, New Delhi's measured response demonstrates a balance of firepower and restraint—effectively neutralising Pakistan's attempt to provoke a broader conflict on the high seas.

Also Read: What happened to Xi Jinping at BRICS? Stroke claim clashes with public record

Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in india news and world news on Zee News.