
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
a day ago
- Japan Today
Congo and Rwanda-backed rebels sign declaration of principles to end conflict in eastern Congo
FILE - M23 rebels stand with their weapons in Kibumba, in the eastern of Democratic Republic of Congo, Dec. 23, 2022. (AP Photo/Moses Sawasawa, File) By CHINEDU ASADU Congo and Rwanda-backed rebels on Saturday signed a declaration of principles in Qatar to end decadeslong fighting and commit to a comprehensive peace agreement that would include a withdrawal of the insurgents from key eastern cities. Congo and the M23 rebels committed to 'building trust' through various measures, including an exchange of prisoners and detainees as well as restoring state authority in rebel-held areas, Mohammed bin Abdulaziz bin Saleh Al-Khulaifi, Qatar's minister of state, said at a briefing. Backed by neighboring Rwanda, the M23 is the most prominent of more than 100 armed groups fighting for control in Congo's mineral-rich east. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the U.N. has called the conflict in eastern Congo 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.' Saturday's signing is the first direct commitment by both sides since the rebels seized two key cities in eastern Congo in a major advance early this year. A final peace deal is to be signed no later than Aug. 18, and it 'shall align with the Peace Agreement between Congo and Rwanda' facilitated by the U.S. in June, according to a copy of the declaration seen by The Associated Press. M23 had been pushing for the release of its members held by Congo's military, many of them facing the death sentence. Congo had requested the withdrawal of the rebels from seized territories. 'The Declaration of Principles signed today paves the way for direct negotiations towards a comprehensive peace that addresses the deep-rooted causes of the conflict,' the Qatari minister said. The document touches on most of the highlights of the peace deal Congo and Rwanda signed on June 27, including the protection and safe return of millions who fled the conflict. A key issue is whether Rwanda will pull their support for the rebels, including the thousands of troops that the United Nations experts said are in eastern Congo. When Rwanda and Congo signed the peace deal in Washington, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe said Rwanda agreed to lift its 'defensive measures' — suggesting a reference to its troops eastern Congo — once Congo neutralizes an armed group whose members Kigali accuses of carrying out the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Analysts have said it is going to be difficult for the M23 rebels to withdraw from the eastern Congolese cities of Goma and Bukavu and that it would depend on concessions Congolese authorities agree to make. There were also been doubts about long-lasting peace if justice for victims of the war is not addressed. Massad Boulos, s senior adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, said "it is time to find a final solution' to the conflict. One of the most important articles of the principles is the affirmation of state control in rebel-held territories, he said. 'However, there is this an ongoing conflict. The issue requires dialogue, and following up on this dialogue and requires persistence.' —— Associated Press journalists Ahmed Hatem in Cairo, Egypt and Jean-Yves Kamale in Kinshasa, Congo contributed to this report. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.


The Diplomat
2 days ago
- The Diplomat
Exercise Cope Thunder 2025: Boosting Philippines-US Defense Cooperation
The Philippine Air Force (PAF) and the United States Pacific Air Force (PACAF) held the second part of this year's Cope Thunder exercise from July 7 to July 18 at Clark Air Base in Pampanga. Lt. Gen. Arthur Cordura, the PAF commanding general, and Lt. Col. Bryan Mussler, the commander of the 421st Fighter Squadron, PACAF, led the opening ceremony. Cope Thunder, which was founded in the Philippines in 1976, moved to Eielson Air Force Base in the U.S. state of Alaska in 1992 and changed its name to Red Flag Alaska. It then moved back to the Philippines, taking the Cope Thunder name, in 2023. From its inception, the exercise was created to provide aircrews experience with combat in a realistic training setting. The drill swiftly developed into the 'premier simulated combat airpower employment exercise' for the PACAF. Cope Thunder's objective was to improve the aircrews' chances of surviving in war situations. Cope Thunder provides a unique opportunity to strengthen interoperability and integrate troops between the U.S. and Philippine air forces. The goal of the contemporary Cope Thunder exercises is to improve alliance preparedness and joint interoperability among participating units by facilitating bilateral fighter training with the Philippine Air Force. The July exercises expanded on the first portion of Cope Thunder held held from April 7-April 18, 2025. The latest iteration involved a greater number of PAF personnel and more realistic drills to prepare the allied partners for greater security challenges. With a focus on improving alliance interoperability and bilateral fighter integration, the exercise involved over 2,500 people, including 2,300 from the PAF and 225 from the PACAF. As part of the aerial combat exercises between Washington and Manila, U.S. Air Force F-35s conducted their first flight over Philippine land. The F-35 is capable of gathering and sharing real-time battlefield intelligence through advanced sensors and data links, further allowing it to coordinate with other forces and direct operations across land, air, and sea. Two years ago, the Air Force sent its other fifth-generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor, to the Philippines for the initial Cope Thunder exercises. Embedding fifth‑gen U.S. aircraft within Philippine drills advances a forward‑deployed deterrence posture, reinforcing Philippine-U.S. alliance commitments in the face of regional security pressures. Furthermore, particularly under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which permits the U.S. military to access and use designated Philippine military bases for joint training, exercises, and humanitarian assistance, the F-35 deployment seems to validate the Philippines' growing role as a crucial frontline state in containing China. Notably, in spite of Beijing's opposition, Manila allowed the U.S. access to four more EDCA sites in 2023, increasing the total to nine. The Philippines and the United States signed a treaty on mutual defense in 1951. An attack on either side would force the Philippines-U.S. alliance to respond and 'meet the common dangers' – a provision that may come into play in the South China Sea, where Beijing and Manila have conflicting claims to islands and reefs. The 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty commitments are reflected in their joint exercises and military training, highlighting common objectives of increasing preparedness, bolstering deterrence, and promoting peace and stability throughout the Indo-Pacific region. The deployment of F-35s to the Philippines is a significant development in U.S. strategy in Southeast Asia. The Philippines and other U.S. allies are being actively integrated into a larger nodal defense network. In addition to enhancing Manila's defense capabilities to support the U.S. in a potential conflict in the South China Sea or Taiwan, the Cope Thunder exercise provided an opportunity to test the cooperation between U.S. F-35s and Philippine FA-50s. The exercise involved comprehensive training across air and ground domains, which further reinforces the Philippine-U.S. defense bond and signals forward regional deterrence. The exercise would perhaps enhance the PAF's tactical evolution and readiness benchmarks, paving the way for future aircraft acquisitions and deeper strategic operations. Given its geographic location, the Philippines is an essential ally for the U.S. defense of Taiwan. General Romeo Brawner, chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, issued a warning in April that China was attempting to infiltrate the Philippine military and other institutions and that, in the event that Taiwan was invaded, the Philippines would 'inevitably' be engaged. China is the biggest threat to U.S. security, according to the Trump administration. Furthermore, more than any other region, Washington's long-term objectives are rooted in the United States' relative position in the Indo-Pacific. Therefore, to counter China's aggression, the United States has been investing in its security alliances with allies who have the political will to go above and beyond. Amid the Trump administration's halt on foreign aid, the United States exempted $336 million on February 21 for the modernization of the Philippine security forces. Cope Thunder 2025 also contributes to the Philippine military's modernization and capability development efforts to maintain regional security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. The exercise also marks another important milestone in the advancement of joint interoperability and mutual defense readiness between the PAF and PACAF. Given the Philippines' ongoing strategic significance, the Philippines-U.S. alliance is expected to continue to play a significant role in the Indo-Pacific region. Both the Philippines and the United States are hopeful that their partnership will continue to grow and that security cooperation will continue in the years to come.


The Diplomat
2 days ago
- The Diplomat
US Solar Manufacturers Seek New Tariffs on Imports From India, Southeast Asia
Previous tariffs have prompted Chinese manufacturers to shift their operations to Indonesia and Laos, while low-cost Indian solar imports are also on the rise. A group of American solar panel manufacturers has asked the U.S. Commerce Department to impose tariffs on solar imports from Indonesia, Laos, and India, a month after Washington imposed hefty tariffs on solar products from four Southeast Asian nations. According to Reuters, the complaint was filed by the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, a group representing several major solar equipment producers, including South Korea's Hanwha Qcells USA Inc. and the U.S. firm First Solar Inc. The complaint requests investigations into 'illegal trade practices by largely Chinese-owned manufacturers operating in Laos and Indonesia, as well as companies headquartered in India,' according to a statement from the Alliance. It accuses companies based in three nations of receiving unfair government subsidies and of selling their products below the cost of production in the United States, which threatens to undercut U.S. producers. 'We have always said, vigorous enforcement of our trade laws is critical to the success of this industry,' Tim Brightbill, the lead attorney for the Alliance, said in the statement. As PV magazine noted, the new cases 'extend a marathon struggle begun in 2011 that has focused on imports from Chinese companies. As they have relocated factory assets ahead of tariffs resulting from the cases, the domestic industry has refocused on litigation against imports from new country targets.' In May, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) ruled in the Alliance's favor in two similar complaints regarding solar imports from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. In its ruling, the Commission determined that the U.S. solar industry had been 'materially injured by reason of imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules,' from the four nations. The Commerce Department subsequently imposed a series of varied tariffs on solar products from the four countries, which reached as high as 3,500 percent in the case of some solar panels and components from Cambodia. The tariffs came into effect on June 16. However, as with previous rulings, this action merely prompted agile solar manufacturers to relocate their operations to nations not yet subject to U.S. tariffs. Trade data showed a sharp decline in U.S. solar imports from Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand after the initiation of the complaint in April 2024. Meanwhile, even before the latest batch of complaints had been concluded, 'the same Chinese-backed companies wasted no time shifting operations to Laos and Indonesia, and companies in India joined in to continue undercutting American producers,' Brightbill said in the statement. 'We have always said vigorous enforcement of our trade laws is critical to the success of this industry.' The Alliance cited figures showing that solar imports from the three nations combined were $1.6 billion last year, up from just $289 million in 2022. However, the Alliance's campaign against cheap imports has not been universally supported. Opponents, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, which testified to the USITC against the petitioners in its last case involving imports from Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia, said that the May decision was 'concerning for American solar manufacturers' and would harm 'solar module producers that depend on access to imported solar cells.' This is especially the case given the broader policy orientation of the Trump administration, which, in an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on July 7, announced that it was tightening up on access to federal solar and wind credits. 'For too long, the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,' the order stated. 'Ending the massive cost of taxpayer handouts to unreliable energy sources is vital to energy dominance, national security, economic growth, and the fiscal health of the Nation.' Today, Politico reported that 'solar and wind energy projects must now get Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's personal sign-off to receive permits across the hundreds of millions of federal acres under his department's control,' citing an internal memo from the Department of the Interior. It said that the memo 'puts wind and solar projects under heightened scrutiny, potentially slowing approvals and construction across vast swaths of some of the most sun- and wind-rich portions of the country.'