INS Kolkata was on routine patrol, Pak vessel conduct wrong: MEA

Why in the News

The Ministry of External Affairs has identified INS Kolkata as the Indian Navy warship involved in a collision with a Pakistani naval vessel in the North Arabian Sea, and has said that PNS Hunain conducted itself in an unacceptable and unprofessional manner at sea. India’s stated position is that the Pakistani ship’s overtaking manoeuvre grossly violated Article 10 of the Agreement between India and Pakistan on Advance Notice on Military Exercises, Manoeuvres and Troops Movements, 1991. That article bars naval units of the two countries from closing to less than three nautical miles of each other in international waters. Pakistan rejects the account, says its Navy was conducting its biennial exercise SEASPARK-26, and places the incident inside its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The tension is over where the collision happened and which rule governed it.

What does the 1991 Agreement on Advance Notice require?

1. What the agreement covers: It obliges each country to give the other advance notice of military exercises, manoeuvres and troop movements above specified levels, so routine activity is not read as preparation for attack.
2. The naval separation rule: Article 10 states that naval ships and submarines of the two countries are not to close to less than three nautical miles of each other while operating in international waters, in order to avoid an accident.
3. When it was concluded: The agreement was signed in April 1991, as part of the set of confidence building measures built between the two countries after the military standoffs of the 1980s.
4. What it is not: It is a risk reduction instrument rather than a dispute settlement one, and it carries no verification machinery and no penalty for breach.

What happened at sea on 15 September?

1. India’s account of the deployment: INS Kolkata was on a routine deployment in the western Arabian Sea when the collision occurred.
2. The manoeuvre: The Pakistani vessel closed in on the Indian warship at high speed and attempted an overtaking manoeuvre, which resulted in contact between the two ships.
3. Where it happened: The incident took place about 120 nautical miles from the Gulf of Oman.
4. The ships involved: INS Kolkata is a frontline guided missile destroyer of the Indian Navy. PNS Hunain is an offshore patrol vessel, often listed as a Yarmook class corvette because of its combat suite.
5. The damage: No major damage was caused to INS Kolkata and the ship remains at sea.

What are the two sides’ competing claims?

1. India’s legal case: India places the incident in international waters and cites a breach of Article 10 of the 1991 agreement and of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs).
2. Pakistan’s account: Pakistan says its Navy was undertaking the biennial exercise SEASPARK-26, and that the Indian vessel carried out aggressive manoeuvres in dangerously close proximity to a Pakistani naval ship.
3. Pakistan’s jurisdictional claim: Islamabad describes the incident as a highly provocative and unacceptable action by an Indian Navy vessel inside Pakistan’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
4. India’s response to that claim: India has rejected the allegations and insinuations in the Pakistani statement, and describes the response as prevarication.

Does an Exclusive Economic Zone claim change the legal position?

1. What an EEZ is: Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, a coastal State’s Exclusive Economic Zone extends up to 200 nautical miles from its baselines.
2. What rights it confers: The rights in an EEZ are over resources, meaning fisheries, seabed minerals and energy, together with jurisdiction over artificial islands and marine scientific research.
3. What it does not confer: An EEZ is not territorial sea and carries no sovereignty over the water column for navigation, so warships of other States retain freedom of navigation there.
4. Why the location argument still matters politically: Placing the collision inside its own EEZ lets Pakistan frame an Indian deployment as an intrusion, even where the navigation itself is lawful.
5. The rule that applies either way: COLREGs bind all vessels on the high seas and connected waters regardless of zone, and they place the duty to keep clear on the overtaking vessel.

How did the two governments escalate this diplomatically?

1. India’s protest: India summoned Pakistan’s Charge d’Affaires and lodged a strong protest over the incident.
2. Pakistan’s counter protest: Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Charge d’Affaires of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad and lodged its own protest.
3. India’s advisory: Pakistan has been advised of the need for all military units to observe due care and to respect the provisions of the relevant agreements, so that such incidents are not repeated.
4. What the exchange settled: Neither side accepted the other’s account, so the episode closes with two contradictory official records and no joint inquiry.

Challenges to India and Pakistan maritime risk management

1. No incidents at sea agreement exists: The two countries have no bilateral instrument setting out communication procedures and manoeuvring rules for close naval encounters. Eg. The United States and the then Soviet Union concluded an Incidents at Sea Agreement in 1972 covering exactly these situations.
   The Fix: Negotiate a dedicated incidents at sea agreement with mandatory radio contact procedures and a joint fact finding mechanism for collisions.
2. The 1991 agreement has no verification arm: Article 10 states a separation distance with no means of establishing after the event where two ships actually were. Eg. Each side in this incident places the collision in a different legal zone, and neither account can be tested.
   The Fix: Agree to exchange navigation track and automatic identification system data for any reported incident within a fixed period.
3. Naval communication runs only through diplomatic channels: An encounter at sea reaches the two foreign ministries before it reaches the two navies, so escalation precedes de escalation. Eg. The standing hotline between the Directors General of Military Operations covers the land border rather than naval units at sea.
   The Fix: Establish a direct maritime operations hotline between the two navies’ operational headquarters with a standing duty officer.
4. Notification obligations do not cover sea areas: Advance notice focuses on land based exercises and troop movements, so a naval exercise can run without a notified area other vessels are expected to keep clear of. Eg. The Pakistani exercise was under way in the same waters where the collision occurred.
   The Fix: Extend the advance notice regime to naval exercise areas and dates, with a notified exclusion zone for the duration of the exercise.
5. The North Arabian Sea is a crowded operating area: Warships of many navies operate alongside heavy commercial traffic on the approaches to the Gulf, so the margin for a manoeuvring error is small. Eg. Indian Navy destroyers and frigates have been deployed on sustained missions in these waters for several months.
   The Fix: Coordinate published deconfliction lanes for warship transits in the northern Arabian Sea through the existing multinational maritime coordination arrangements.

Conclusion

Two navies operating in the same waters now hold two irreconcilable accounts of one collision, and have no mechanism to reconcile them. The instrument each side reaches for was written for a different problem, since a notification agreement cannot establish what happened once contact has already occurred. Both protests have been lodged and both rejected, and the Indian warship has returned to its deployment. The step that would change the pattern is a navy to navy communication and fact finding arrangement, because the next encounter will otherwise be handled exactly as this one was.

Back2Basics: International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs)

1. What they are: COLREGs are the international rules of the road at sea, adopted through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1972 and in force since 1977.
2. What they govern: They set the steering and sailing rules, including which vessel gives way in crossing, overtaking and head on situations, along with lights, shapes and sound signals.
3. Who they bind: They apply to all vessels on the high seas and in connected waters navigable by seagoing vessels, warships included.
4. The overtaking rule: A vessel overtaking another must keep out of its way, and that duty stays with the overtaking vessel until it is finally past and clear.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2025, GS3, 15] Why is maritime security vital to protect India’s sea trade? Discuss maritime and coastal security challenges and the way forward.”