
Who Won the 100-hour War? Pakistan or India?
In a mission that was designated Operation Sindoor, IAF combat aircraft were launched at terrorist targets inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, two weeks after a group of Pakistan-backed terrorists gunned down 26 tourists in Pahalgam – a resort in the disputed province of Kashmir.
With the Indian public seething and demanding retaliation, the IAF launched punitive air strikes on May 7, relying on its fighter aircraft and BrahMos missiles. At the end of four days of fighting, it was Pakistan that was claiming victory, arguing that it had shot down six IAF fighter jets without any losses of its own.
The IAF accepted losing a small number of combat aircraft, but claimed that all its pilots were back home safely. Neither the IAF nor the PAF could support their claims by displaying captured pilots or aircraft wreckage. Even if they had done so, that would have indicated only that neither side's warplanes crossed the border. Instead, they minimized casualties by launching missiles and bombs from their own side of the border, inflicting damage with precision-guided munitions (PGMs), such as the BrahMos cruise missiles.
Truth-telling in Jakarta
The controversy over casualties bubbled over again on June 10 in Jakarta, when India's defense attaché to Indonesia, Captain Shiva Kumar of the Indian Navy, acknowledged that the IAF lost 'some aircraft' when they initially struck terrorist camps and PAF bases in mainland Pakistan under Operation Sindoor.
Speaking at a seminar in Jakarta, Kumar said that the IAF reacted to its initial aircraft losses by modifying its combat tactics. Responding to a previous presenter at the seminar who referenced Pakistan's claim that India lost six aircraft, Kumar said: 'I may not agree with him that India lost so many aircraft. But, I do agree that we did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishments and their air defenses.'
In a subsequent statement, the Indian Embassy said that Kumar's 'remarks were misquoted and media reports reflect a misrepresentation of the purpose and tenor of the presentation.' The presentation was to demonstrate that 'India's Indian Armed Forces operates under civilian leadership, which is different from many other countries that are in this region. The statement also clarified that the goal for Operation Sindoor was to target the terrorist infrastructure, and that India's response was non-escalatory,' it said.
Since the start of Operation Sindoor, Pakistani and Indian military experts, political leaders and the public in both countries have been apportioning victory and defeat by comparing the number of aircraft shot down by both air forces.
In the circumstances, the IAF could hardly call off Operation Sindoor when its net score of Pakistani combat aircraft casualties was less than the numbers scored by the PAF. That was why the IAF, abandoning restraint, switched to pounding Pakistani military targets. The restraint was intended to drive home the message that Indian patience was limited.
'After the loss [of May 7],' explained Kumar, 'we changed our tactics and went for their military installations. We first achieved suppression of enemy air defenses [SEAD] and destruction of enemy air defenses [DEAD] and that's why all our [subsequent] attacks could easily go through using surface-to-air missiles and surface-to-surface missiles…On May 8, 9 and 10, there was complete air superiority by India.'
At the seminar in Jakarta, Tommy Tamtomo, vice chairman of the Indonesia Center of Air Power Studies, cited figures that were significantly more flattering for the IAF. He said that PAF lost six fighter jets, two Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft, and a military transport plane. 'India lost a lot, but Pakistan also lost a lot. Maybe more than India,' he said at the seminar.
Coming, as the statement was, from an Indonesian official, this is seen to reflect the ground reality more accurately.
Indian officials also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure, while the decision to avoid PAF infrastructure and bases was a non-escalatory measure.
Earlier, India's senior-most defense official, Chief of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan, flatly rejected the Pakistani military's claim that it had downed six IAF fighter jets. Chauhan termed the claims 'absolutely incorrect.'
Lessons of Balakot
In its reactions and retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack, the IAF largely followed the steps it had taken in response to the terrorist attack on February 14, 2019, when a vehicle convoy transporting Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) troopers to Kashmir was attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber near Pulwama in Kashmir. That blast, which killed 40 CRPF personnel, was owned by Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a banned terror outfit from Pakistan. In retaliation for the February 14 attack, the IAF struck a JeM terrorist camp at Balakot in Pakistan's Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province. This was the first time since the 1971 War that IAF aircraft had struck targets on Pakistani soil. However, the IAF aircraft launched their weapons from Indian airspace, so as to reduce the provocation.
Like after the attack on Balakot, the IAF admitted having lost aircraft during Operation Sindoor, but declined to confirm the number of aircraft lost.
Losses were attributed to the constraint imposed by India's political leadership not to attack the Pakistani military establishments and its air defenses. 'No military installations, no civil installations, nothing which was not connected to terrorists were to be targeted,' Kumar said of New Delhi's operational guidelines.
The PAF's retaliation to the February 26, 2019, air strikes was prompt, coming the next day in the form of Pakistani air strikes on a range of targets in Kashmir. In the ensuing aerial battle, the IAF claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16 fighter aircraft while losing a MIG-21 whose pilot was captured after he ejected over Pakistani-held territory.
Fortunately, an 'off-ramp' was readily available. Mediation by Washington led to the IAF pilot's repatriation within 48 hours, allowing both India and Pakistan to declare victory.
For the present, India's domestic politics has overtaken military events. Accusing the Modi government of misleading Parliament, the opposition Congress Party has demanded a special session of Parliament and an all-party meeting to discuss this issue.
So, who came out on top in this skirmish, India or Pakistan? From a purely tactical and operational standpoint, it would appear as if the PAF won the numbers game, downing a larger number of combat aircraft while warding off the numerically larger IAF. Yet that would be a fallacious and incomplete assessment. The Indian military demonstrated conclusively that it had no appetite for Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and that it would not hesitate to retaliate against future Pakistani transgressions with armed force. In calling off hostilities before too much damage was done, New Delhi demonstrated its awareness of its own strengths and weaknesses and the confidence of a growing power.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Japan Today
6 hours ago
- Japan Today
More than 17 million people in Yemen are going hungry, including over 1 million children, U.N. says
Damage is seen after Israeli airstrikes targeted the port in Hodeida, Yemen, Tuesday, July 8, 2025. (Planet Labs PBC via AP) By EDITH M. LEDERER More than 17 million people in conflict-torn Yemen are going hungry, including over a million children under the age of 5 who are suffering from 'life-threatening acute malnutrition,' the United Nations humanitarian chief said Wednesday. Tom Fletcher told the U.N. Security Council that the food security crisis in the Arab world's poorest country, which is beset by civil war, has been accelerating since late 2023. The number of people going hungry could climb to over 18 million by September, he warned, and the number of children with acute malnutrition could surge to 1.2 million early next year, 'leaving many at risk of permanent physical and cognitive damage.' Fletcher said the U.N. hasn't seen the current level of deprivation since before a U.N.-brokered truce in early 2022. He noted that it is unfolding as global funding for humanitarian aid is plummeting, which means reductions or cuts in food. According to the U.N., as of mid-May, the U.N.'s $2.5 billion humanitarian appeal for Yemen this year had received just $222 million, just 9%. Yemen has been embroiled in civil war since 2014, when Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized the capital of Sanaa, forcing the internationally recognized government into exile in Saudi Arabia. A Saudi-led coalition intervened months later and has been battling the rebels since 2015 to try and restore the government. The war has devastated Yemen, created one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters, and turned into a stalemated proxy conflict. More than 150,000 people, including fighters and civilians, have been killed. Hans Grundberg, the U.N. special envoy for Yemen, told the council in a video briefing that two Houthi attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea this week – the first in over seven months – and Israeli airstrikes on the capital and key ports are escalating the conflict. The Houthis have vowed to keep targeting vessels in the key waterway until the war in Gaza ends. Grundberg said freedom of navigation in the Red Sea must be safeguarded and stressed that 'Yemen must not be drawn deeper into regional crises that threaten to unravel the already extremely fragile situation in the country.' 'The stakes for Yemen are simply too high,' he said. 'Yemen's future depends on our collective resolve to shield it from further suffering and to give its people the hope and dignity they so deeply deserve.' Grundberg warned that a military solution to the civil war 'remains a dangerous illusion that risks deepening Yemen's suffering.' Negotiations offer the best hope to address the complex conflict, he said, and the longer it is drawn out 'there is a risk that divisions could deepen further.' Grundberg said both sides must signal a willingness to explore peaceful avenues — and an important signal would be the release of all conflict-related detainees. The parties have agreed to an all-for-all release, he said, but the process has stagnated for over a year. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.


Japan Today
6 hours ago
- Japan Today
Syria's government and Kurds still at odds over merging forces after latest talks, U.S. envoy says
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack speaks during an interview with The Associated Press at the airport in Damascus, Syria, Wednesday, July 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Ghaith Alsayed) By ABBY SEWELL A U.S. envoy said on Wednesday that Syria's central government and the Kurds remain at odds over plans on merging their forces after the latest round of talks, a persistent obstacle as the new authorities in Damascus struggle to consolidate control after the country's yearslong civil war. U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, who is also a special envoy to Syria, told The Associated Press after meetings in Damascus, the Syrian capital, that there are still significant differences between the two sides. Barrack held talks with Mazloum Abdi, head of the Kurdish-led and U.S. backed Syrian Democratic Forces, and Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa. The development comes after a move by the Trump administration took effect this week, revoking a terrorism designation of the former insurgent group led by al-Sharaa, which was behind a lightning offensive last December that ousted Syria's longtime autocrat Bashar Assad. Revoking the designation was part of a broader U.S. engagement with al-Sharaa's new, transitional government. In early March, the former insurgents — now the new authorities in Damascus — signed a landmark deal with the SDF, a Kurdish-led force that had fought alongside U.S. troops against the militant Islamic State group and which controls much of northeastern Syria. Under that deal, the SDF forces would merge with the new Syrian national army. The agreement, which is supposed be implemented by the end of the year, would also bring all border crossings with Iraq and Turkey, airports and oil fields in the northeast under the central government's control. They are now controlled by the SDF. Detention centers housing thousands of Islamic State militants, now guarded by the SDF, would also come under government control. However, the agreement left the details vague, and progress on implementation has been slow. A major sticking point has been whether the SDF would remain as a cohesive unit in the new army — which the Syrian Kurds are pushing for — or whether the force would be dissolved and its members individually absorbed into the new military. Barrack said that is still 'a big issue' between the two sides. 'I don't think there's a breakthrough,' Barrack said after Wednesday's meetings. 'I think these things happen in baby steps, because it's built on trust, commitment and understanding." He added that "for two parties that have been apart for a while and maybe an adversarial relationship for a while, they have to build that trust step by step.' Also, Turkish-backed factions affiliated with the new Syrian government have over the years clashed with the SDF, which Turkey considers a terrorist group because of its association with the Kurdish separatist Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which had waged a decades-long insurgency within Turkey before recently announcing it would lay down its weapons. The United States also considers the PKK a terrorist group but is allied with the SDF. Barrack said that though 'we're not there' yet, Damascus had 'done a great job" in presenting options for the SDF to consider. "I hope they will and I hope they'll do it quickly,' he said. A key turning point for Syria came when U.S. President Donald Trump met with al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia in May and announced that Washington would lift decades of sanctions, imposed over Assad's government. Trump took steps to do so after their meeting and subsequently, the U.S. moved to remove the terrorist designation from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, al-Sharaa's force that spearheaded the offensive against Assad. The U.S. played a key role in brokering the deal announced in March between al-Sharaa's government and the SDF and has urged the Syrian Kurdish authorities to integrate with Damascus. Barrack said Washington has 'complete confidence in the Syrian government and the new Syrian government's military,' while the SDF has been a 'valuable partner' in the fight against IS and that the U.S. 'wants to make sure that they have an opportunity ... to integrate into the new government in a respectful way.' The U.S. has begun scaling down the number of troops it has stationed in Syria — there are about 1,300 U.S. forces now — but Barrack said Washington is in 'no hurry' to pull out completely. In the interview with the AP, Barrack also downplayed reports of possible breakthroughs in talks on normalizing ties between Syria and Israel. 'My feeling of what's happening in the neighborhood is that it should happen, and it'll happen like unwrapping an onion, slowly ... as the region builds trust with each other,' he said without elaborating. Since Assad's fall, Israel has seized a U.N.-patrolled buffer zone in Syria bordering the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights and has launched hundreds of airstrikes on military sites in Syria. Israeli soldiers have also raided Syrian towns outside of the border zone and detained people who they said were militants, sometimes clashing with locals. Israeli officials have said they are taking the measures to guard their border against another cross-border attack like the one launched by the Palestinian militant Hamas group on Oct. 7, 2023 in southern Israel that triggered the latest war in the Gaza Strip. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Nikkei Asia
9 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
India, Brazil to boost trade to $20bn and increase defense cooperation
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva discussed defense and trade in Brasilia on Tuesday. © Reuters NIKI MIZUGUCHI and SATOSHI IWAKI SAO PAULO/BRASILIA -- Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met in Brasilia on Tuesday, agreeing to boost bilateral trade by 70% to $20 billion over the next five years and increase defense cooperation. Modi made an official visit to the Brazilian capital after attending a BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday and Monday.