Latest news with #AbhinandanVarthaman
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
Operation Sindoor: How India's communication strategy is hitting its target
The government clearly intends to retain the focus on strategic and security matters for the time being, and its information management is designed to allow it to do so read more The Indian government has put to use hard-learned lessons from the aftermaths of the Uri surgical strike (2016), Balakot airstrike, and the air skirmishes that followed (2019) in its Operation Sindoor communications strategy. And despite some difficult moments and seeming reverses, so far, the strategy has served India well. A Pattern from Past Conflicts Previous Indian successes on the battlefield were undermined in almost identical ways: Pakistan stage-managed a counter-narrative following Indian action; Western media and 'analysts' on these Pakistani official tours supported the Pakistani version; the issue then became controversial in the Indian media and political opposition; and the Indian government and armed forces were pressured to release and defend their battlefield-damage assessments. In other instances, firefighting disinformation and negative news shifted focus from the armed forces' strategic goals. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The number of terrorists actually killed in the Uri strike, whether terrorists were killed at all in the Balakot airstrike, and whether a Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-16 was shot down in air skirmishes were all called into question in this manner. In the last instance, reluctant Indian armed forces were forced to make sensitive information public to support their claims. In the same post-Balakot dogfight, Pakistan falsely claimed to have downed two Indian fighter aircraft, wrongly announced the death of an Indian pilot, and showed video footage of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman being manhandled by civilians. This created substantial pressure on the Indian government to manage public morale. Western reportage filtering back into Indian media resulted in the opposition demanding the release of video footage of the Uri strike and proof of the Balakot strike. There was also considerable frustration with the Western media's soft-pedalling of proof provided by the Indian government or media–The Print's outstanding reporting on the downing of an F-16 in 2019 is a case in point. India's communications handicaps were clear: one, evidence of inflicted damage lay in enemy territory; two, controversies played out in hostile territory–the Western media. The media landscape, however, has changed since 2019, with many Indians now trusting domestic online analysts and commentators over conventional media sources. There is also greater awareness that Western media's hostility towards India is structural: tainted by financial incentives and their home country's strategic interests. This is visible also in the Indian government's greater willingness to call out the Western media for both condescension and bias. These experiences have likely shaped the principles of India's current communication strategy: (1) Tightly controlled information; briefings restricted to dry facts released by designated officials; (2) Silence on real-time discussion of 'operational details'; (3) Announcing successes with proof; (4) Engaging with foreign media on India's terms; (5) Communicating for and with foreign governments; (6) Tailoring messaging to outsource aspects of context-setting, analysis, and public morale management to online commentators. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Let us examine how these principles played out. Information Control Daily briefings were initially held by a team consisting of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, Colonel Sophia Qureshi, and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh. The Press Information Bureau (PIB) and the Ministry of Defence's Additional Directorate General of Public Information (ADGPI) put out press releases and online messages. These were the only sources of information. The briefing team was aptly chosen: as Operation Sindoor was named to evoke the red vermillion worn by married Hindu women–in response to terrorists singling out and massacring Hindu men in front of their wives at Pahalgam on April 22–women military officers on the podium signified women power, professionalism, and national unity. A short intro film showing past attacks on India by Pakistan-based terrorists was also screened on the first day. That apart, the briefings were to the point, factual, and technical (with photographs or videos of strikes shown at times). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD After the deplorable trolling of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri (and his family) for merely announcing the ceasefire, later briefings were conducted by the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of all three armed services. Details of some operations were now shared–perhaps as more information became available and the DGMOs were better placed to decide on disclosures. The emphasis on intelligent control of information was maintained all through. Silence on Operational Details Minutes after India announced Operation Sindoor, Pakistan claimed to have downed several Indian jets, including Rafales. PIB issued generic disclaimers about 'misinformation' and fact-checked fake posts purporting to show visuals of downed jets. Similarly, Indian embassies approached for comment merely responded 'disinformation' and no more. Even Indian diplomats interviewed on foreign television channels wouldn't be drawn into confirming or denying these rumours. Announcing Successes with Proof The DGMOs provided satellite images, videos, photographs, and other data as proof of successful hits. What about Pakistan's losses? '[W]e would not like to hazard a guess out here, I have the numbers and we are getting into technical details to establish it,' said Indian Air Marshal. Contrast this with the Pakistan defence minister getting called out on international television for citing social media posts as proof of downing Indian planes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This measured, professional approach may just be paying off. By the time of writing, the narrative has shifted in India's favour in several quarters, with even the perceivedly anti-India New York Times conceding that '[w]here India appears to have had a clear edge is in its targeting of Pakistan's military facilities and airfields.' Subsequently, 'sources' have revealed tactical details like India disguising drones as fighter jets to ' bait and disable Pakistan's Chinese-supplied air defence systems'. Perhaps the shaping of narrative goes on. Dealing with Foreign Media on India's Terms As detailed above, India refused to be drawn into discussions about operational matters, especially possible losses. That this is wise can easily be established by contrasting press claims country-wise (and so, vested-interests-wise): defence competitors of France like the US (which has offered to sell India F-35s); Pakistan's arms supplier and US adversary, China; and Rafale-manufacturer, France. Further, Indian diplomats, rather than politicians, were fielded to engage with the foreign press. Some diplomats' interviews were masterclasses in messaging control. The Indian High Commissioner to the UK, Vikram Doraiswami, for example, responded to a question about Pakistan downing Indian jets by asking why Pakistan was still escalating the conflict if it had indeed done so. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Indian High Commissioner to Singapore Shilpak Ambule countered a suggestion that India hadn't provided proof of Pakistan's involvement in the Pahalgam massacre, stating that India had submitted proof to the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee for years, including on the terrorist group involved, an offshoot of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, The Resistance Force (TRF). Communicating for and with Government From the very start, India aimed its communications at the community of world governments. Operation Sindoor was lucidly framed: as a response to the Pahalgam massacre and directed at terrorists; non-escalatory, as the Pakistan Army was not targeted; designed to avoid collateral damage; and placing the choice of escalation in Pakistan's court. Indian diplomats in foreign media stuck to this line. They retained focus on Pahalgam and emphasised that the off-ramp was available to Pakistan, even while asserting that India would respond to escalation with force. Meanwhile, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, and Foreign Secretary Misri briefed counterparts around the world and envoys about India's actions and approach. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The next step was briefing 70 foreign service attaches (defence attaches) serving in India. This was a way of dealing directly with the grown-ups of the strategic world. Unlike in the media space, these military professionals would appreciate India's restraint and scale of success in strategic terms. It was also an opportunity to showcase India's defence prowess and Indian-manufactured defence technology. Trusting the Influencer Ecosystem India has a massive YouTube ecosystem of political commentators and defence analysts, with several of them being retired military, civilian, and diplomatic officials. The government appeared to trust them to declutter complex military information for their audiences and highlight successes. It was these analysts who discussed threadbare the import of Indian strikes on Pakistani airbases along with satellite images and other technical details. This was an invaluable exercise in educating the public on India's military platforms and operational successes and in effectively countering enemy disinformation. For instance, online analysts quickly debunked visuals purportedly showing Indian jets shot down by pointing out that the drop tanks and not wreckage. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These channels also helped prepare their audiences for any possible battlefield losses by emphasising strategic goals. Overall, the online ecosystem played a major part in managing public morale. Missteps and Curveballs The real narrative curveball, however, came with President Donald Trump announcing the ceasefire and stating that the United States had brokered it. Coming as it did when India was toying with Pakistan's air defences and hitting military targets at will, the suggestion that America stopped the fighting was spun as a minor face-saver for Pakistan. India asserts, quite rightly, that the Pakistan DGMO's 'frantic' calls to his Indian counterpart were, in effect, pleas for peace. Feeling cheated out of a crushing win, there was anger amongst Indians. PM Modi's speech on May 12 addressed these concerns by announcing the following: that Pakistan had pleaded for a ceasefire; Operation Sindoor was now India's permanent policy on cross-border terrorism; the Indus Water Treaty would remain in abeyance; India would no longer tolerate 'nuclear blackmail'; there would be no talks with Pakistan until terror stopped; and when talks occurred, they would only be on terror and the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. In essence, PM Modi asserted that Pakistan had achieved none of its strategic goals, that there was no scope for talks or mediation, and that Pakistan was now on probation. So, at this time, it's surprising to see talk of India losing the narrative war. So who's winning? Pakistan, which has withdrawn into a delusory propaganda bubble where it claims victory? Does that claim fool anyone beyond its borders? Are political noises about the United States brokering a peace a loss? India certainly had no interest in Pakistan being handed a face-saver, but, having demonstrated its military superiority, India also had no interest in prolonging the conflict–India's restraint and leaving the escalatory off-ramp open for Pakistan to show as much. And ultimately, whose 'narrative approval' is one seeking? The Indian media and public must display the same self-confidence that their leadership has in their messaging strategy. Meanwhile, one hopes the Indian government will make this evidence-based, assertive, and professional communication approach its default. Post Script: Phase 2 Since the initial writing of this piece, the Government of India has formed seven all-party delegations of Members of Parliament (MPs) to visit and brief foreign governments about Operation Sindoor, its context, and India's policy towards terror going forward. This is the next step in India's efforts to communicate directly with foreign governments. All-party representation in these delegations is also intended to project a united front and limit political controversy about security matters at this time. A move that seems to have worked so far. Additionally, as former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal has pointed out, multi-party composition may create space for foreign media to look past any anti-BJP biases they might hold. These delegations have been remarkably on message even as MPs have brought their own flair to its articulation. In fact, opposition MPs on these delegations have been able to voice opinions on matters like the US brokering a peace deal more openly than ruling party MPs may have been able to. Meanwhile, more evidence of India's strikes has been put out, only now with added commentary and reactions from military personnel involved in the planning and execution of Operation Sindoor. Increasingly, private sources along with journalists are bringing out or confirming evidence shared by the Indian armed forces. A few opposition moves to create a controversy around the external affairs minister's comments have also not fully taken off so far, in part, because Operation Sindoor is ongoing and operational matters have not been fully disclosed. In India's democratic system, disclosures to parliament (or its committees) or the public are inevitable, and a degree of controversy will perhaps accompany them. But the government clearly intends to retain the focus on strategic and security matters for the time being, and its information management is designed to allow it to do so. In all, the Government of India's approach has held to the principles discussed in this article as it moves past the crisis-communication stage into a new normal. The writer is the published author of two novels (Penguin, India and Westland, India) based out of the San Francisco Bay Area. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Beyond S-400: Operation Sindoor shows the new era of air defence as India batters Pakistan
Battered by Operation Sindoor, when Pakistan launched a wave of missiles and drones, India's Akashteer 'Iron Dome' fused S-400s, Akash, and legacy guns into a 100 per cent interception shield. It signals a new air defence theory that integration not acquisition trumps isolated tech read more The medium-range Akash air defence system is in service with the Indian Army and Air Force. (Photo: BEL) The Operation Sindoor has proved to be bigger and bolder than the punitive military strikes that India carried out in 2016 and 2019 in territories under Pakistan's control. In each case, the trigger was a dastardly terror attack — in Uri and Pulwama earlier and in Pahalgam the last month — that stemmed from the so-called policy of 'bleeding India by a thousand cuts', institutionalised by the Pakistani military bosses through a maze of terror outfits created, cultivated and cultured over decades. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Pakistan launched an attack on India after the post-Pulwama pre-emptive strike by India in Pakistani province Khyber Pakhtunkhaw's Balakot. The dogfight tested the aerial combat readiness of the two forces in quick time, in which Indian forces reportedly shot down, not acknowledged by Pakistan, a fighter jet, and in the process lost a Mig aircraft, whose pilot Abhinandan Varthaman ejected safely but landed on the other side of the Line of Control (LoC). Pakistan projects his landing and subsequent custody by its military as a badge of honour. His release was seen as a major victory of India's muscular diplomacy. In between a lot of changes happened in Jammu and Kashmir, and a sense of positivity soared in the Valley. When development and economic goals looked to get mainstreamed, a bunch of terrorists — owned by a group backed by Pakistan — killed 26 people, including one local person. The rest were tourists, who were picked for the bullet on the basis of their religious identity and their ability to recite an Islamic prayer. With anguish diffusing through the air, India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed to bring the perpetrators of the Pahalgam terror attack and their patrons, read Pakistan Army-established network, to justice. He said, 'India will identify, trace and punish every terrorist and their backers' in ways they would never have imagined. Pakistan immediately denied its role, though no official charge had been made. When the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) discussed the matter to condemn the terror attack not only for terrorism but also for choosing targets by identifying their religiosity, Pakistan ensured the name of the organisation which had claimed responsibility for the attack was dropped from the UNSC statement. As it happened, the said group retracted its statement and disowned the attack it had taken pride in having carried out. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Two weeks after the terror attack, India launched Operation Sindoor. It is now talk of the world's defence-military town. India has been guarded in sharing information except showing evidence of having inflicted severe damage on Pakistan's terror hubs on the first night of operation, May 7-8, and hitting Pakistan's military targets in retaliation to attacks that were launched from the other side. Among the sites having suffered heavy damages in India's Operation Sindoor were at least six Pakistani military bases including one in Rawalpindi and a number of air defence systems including one in Lahore. The Indian government has not confirmed reports about missiles intercepted, including one in Haryana's Sirsa that was apparently fired by Pakistan to target Delhi, or about shooting down Pakistani jets. What India did confirm was the Pakistan used Turkey-made drones, a point New Delhi is likely to stress going forward at international forums discussing fighting terrorism. There have been reports and expert opinions flowing thick and fast that India may look to explore the defence and weapons technology of the projectiles that Pakistan fired at the country. All projectiles had foreign technology, whether Turkish or Chinese. A treasure trove for those interested in reverse engineering. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But a big talking point of the three-four days of military engagement is India's air defence systems. While India easily breached Pakistani air defence systems and penetrated deep into the heart of its haughty military heart, its own air defence systems shot down most drones, missiles, including high-speed ones, and reportedly fighter aircraft too. The story is how India's multi-layered defence thwarted Pakistan's aerial onslaught. The night of precision On the night of May 8-9, Pakistan launched 15 coordinated strikes across northern and western India, deploying drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. India's air defence architecture sprang into action. Rather than relying on a single system, India deployed a deeply integrated, four-layered shield-combining Russian S-400s, Israeli Barak-8s, indigenous Akash and QRSAM missiles, and a suite of anti-aircraft guns and electronic warfare tools. India's Akashteer Air Defence System-a fully indigenous command network-integrated data from 3D radars, mobile sensors, and satellite feeds to orchestrate a flawless interception. Over two dozen drones, eight missiles, and possibly three Pakistani jets were neutralised, with no reported damage on Indian soil. Let's dig deeper into the anatomy of India's air defence shield: Outer layer: S-400 'Sudarshan Chakra' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 400 km range: Engages stealth aircraft, ballistic missiles (up to 4.8 km/s speed), and hypersonic threats at altitudes up to 30 km. Multi-target mastery: Tracks 300 objects simultaneously, engaging 36 threats at once with four missile types (long-range 40N6, medium-range 48N6). Mobility: Deploys within five minutes, enabling rapid repositioning along volatile borders. Proven efficacy: Achieved 80 per cent interception rates in recent exercises, with three squadrons operational and two more arriving by 2026. Mid-layer: Barak-8 and Akash Barak-8: Co-developed with Israel, this 100–150 km range system uses Derby missiles for naval (LRSAM) and land (MRSAM) defence. Its modular Barak MX variant adapts to evolving threats. Akash: Indigenous, mobile, and export-ready (₹6,000-crore Armenia deal). Covers 4.5–25 km with 60 kg warheads, neutralising multiple targets via phased-array radar. Inner layer: SPYDER, QRSAM, and Legacy systems SPYDER: Israeli system firing Python-5 (20 km) and Derby (50 km) missiles for rapid response against low-altitude threats. QRSAM: Indigenous Mach 4.7 missiles (30 km range) on mobile launchers, designed for short-range, high-speed engagements. Legacy integration: Soviet-era Pechora SAMs (25 km) and OSA-AK-M (10 km), upgraded with electro-optical guidance, complemented by Zu-23 guns and Shilka platforms. Very Short Range: VSHORAD and MANPADS VSHORAD: Shoulder-fired missiles (6 km range) for last-ditch defence against drones. SAMAR: Repurposed Russian Vympel missiles (12 km) for cost-effective drone swarms. The next question is Why India's air defence model works Interoperability over isolation Akashteer's neural network: Merged IAF and Army radar data into a single battlefield picture, enabling real-time prioritisation-e.g., S-400s tackled ballistic threats while Akash handled drones. Hybrid tactics: Combined kinetic strikes (missiles, guns) with electronic warfare (jamming, spoofing) to disrupt Pakistani guidance systems. Cost-effective layering Legacy modernisation: Upgraded 1960s Pechora systems with digital fire control, extending their service life. Export potential: Akash's Armenia deal and Akash-NG's development (70 km range) position India as a rising defence exporter. What it means for defence players Pakistan's limitations: Relies on Chinese HQ-9/P and LY-80 systems, which lack integration with legacy platforms, creating gaps that India exploited. Ukraine parallels: Mirroring Kyiv's fusion of Soviet-era SAMs with Western tech, India's approach validates layered defence as the global standard against drone swarms and hypersonics. There is more India's upcoming Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) Programme, featuring Prithvi and Advanced Air Defence (AAD) interceptors, aims to counter ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) threats, something experts point to China as posing towards its southern neighbour. Coupled with plans to export Akash and Akash-NG, India looks poised to redefine modern aerial security-proving that resilience lies not in isolated marvels, but in orchestrated layers. India's approach is now a global case study, buttressing the point that modern air defence is not about buying the latest missile, but about integrating diverse technologies into a responsive, layered shield. As threats evolve-from drones to hypersonic missiles-India's model demonstrates that real security comes from interoperability, agility, and constant innovation. India showed that its strength lay not in the mere possession of advanced systems, but in their seamless integration. The Akashteer command network-dubbed, 'India's Iron Dome', fused radar data from the Air Force and Army, enabling real-time tracking and coordinated interception of every incoming threat. This synergy allowed Indian forces to neutralise over two dozen drones and multiple missiles, with no reported damage to Indian soil. These lessons are not limited to India or South Asia. They are applicable globally, especially as air threats diversify with drones, cruise missiles, and hypersonic weapons.
News18
11-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Pakistan Admits To Role In 2019 Pulwama Terror Attack: 'Our Tactical Brilliance...'
Last Updated: Pakistani Air Force official Aurangzeb Ahmed referred to the Pulwama bombing as an act of "tactical brilliance". A high-ranking Pakistani Air Force official publicly acknowledged Pakistani military's role in the deadly 2019 Pulwama terror attack that killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel in an unexpected admission following years of denial. At a press conference, Air Vice Marshal Aurangzeb Ahmed, the Director General Public Relations for the Pakistan Air Force, referred to the Pulwama bombing as an act of 'tactical brilliance". The admission contradicts Pakistan's persistent claims of innocence regarding the Pulwama attack and undermines its recent demands for evidence from India concerning the Pahalgam terrorist incident. Aurangzeb Ahmed said, flanked by DG ISPR Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry and a Navy spokesperson, that Pakistan's armed forces had demonstrated their 'tactical brilliance" in Pulwama and their 'operational progress and strategic acumen" following Operation Sindoor. He said, 'If Pakistan's airspace, land, waters, or its people are threatened, there can be no compromise. It cannot go unnoticed. We owe it to our nation. The pride and trust the Pakistani people have in their armed forces is something we always uphold, at all costs. We tried to convey that through our tactical brilliance in Pulwama; now, we have demonstrated our operational progress and strategic acumen. I believe they should take heed." Pakistan has denied involvement in the Pulwama attack for which the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) had claimed responsibility. Despite India providing dossiers linking the suicide bomber to the JeM – whose headquarters in Bawahalpur was struck by India during Operation Sindoor – Pakistan has consistently demanded more evidence and rejected India's accusations. Following the Pulwama attack, India retaliated by launching airstrikes on a JeM terrorist training camp located in Balakot. Islamabad's response the following day involved its air force engaging Indian aircraft, leading to an aerial dogfight. During this engagement, an Indian Air Force MiG-21 Bison, piloted by Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, was shot down inside Pakistani territory. Abhinandan Varthaman ejected safely but was captured by Pakistani forces. He was later released by Pakistan. Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! First Published: May 11, 2025, 11:24 IST
Express Tribune
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Fake news galore in Indian media
Listen to article Indian media's reports about shooting down of a Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-16 fighter jet were "a blatant lie and fake news", security sources said on Thursday, terming such reports a manifestation of Indian decision-makers' confusion and mental paralysis after the loss of dozens of drones in Pakistan. According to the sources, India had become increasingly disoriented following the failure of its recent Harop drone incursions. The Pakistan Armed Forces, they asserted, were fully prepared to counter any hostile designs and remained vigilant against India's nefarious intentions. "In a state of panic," a security source said, "India is now attempting to justify potential future aggression against Pakistan by fabricating stories of attacks in Rajasthan, Pathankot, and Indian illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir [IIOJK]." Observers note a striking resemblance between the current disinformation campaign and India's fake narrative following the 2019 aerial skirmish during Operation Swift Retort. At that time, Pakistan shot down two Indian fighter jets in response to Indian airstrikes in Balakot. India, however, claimed that one of its pilots, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman - who was captured after ejecting from his downed MiG-21 — had managed to shoot down a Pakistani F-16 before his own aircraft was brought down. Pakistan denied the F-16 claim. Later that year, Foreign Policy magazine cited US defence officials, who had accounted for all Pakistani F-16s and found none missing — contradicting India's assertion. Following the report, the then military spokesperson stated: "India's claims about the attack and its consequences are false. It's time India told the truth about the loss of its second jet shot down by Pakistan." Despite the lack of independent verification, India's then president Ram Nath Kovind awarded Wing Commander Abhinandan the Vir Chakra — India's third-highest wartime military honour — for 'downing' a Pakistani F-16. Pakistan maintains its stance that two Indian jets were shot down in 2019, and that no PAF F-16 was lost in the exchange. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office categorically rejected the "baseless and irresponsible allegations propagated by the Indian media" of Pakistan launching attacks on Pathankot, Jaisalmer, and Srinagar, saying that these claims were entirely unfounded, politically motivated, and reckless propaganda. The repeated pattern of levelling accusations against Pakistan without any credible investigation reflects a deliberate strategy to manufacture a pretext for aggression and to further destabilise the region," the Foreign Office spokesperson said in a statement late on Thursday. "Such actions not only further endanger regional peace but also reveal a disturbing willingness to exploit misinformation for political and military ends. We urge the international community to take serious note of this dangerous behaviour and to counsel India toward restraint and responsibility," he continued. "Any escalation based on false pretences will be met with full resolve and determination to safeguard Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Pakistan remains vigilant and firmly committed to peace, but it will not be deterred by attempts to provoke, intimidate, or mislead and reserves the right to respond to acts of aggression. These allegations are rejected in the strongest possible terms."
Express Tribune
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Security sources dismiss Indian media's F-16 claim as 'fake news'
Security sources have categorically rejected Indian media reports claiming that a Pakistan Air Force F-16 fighter jet was shot down, calling the story 'a blatant lie and fake news.' According to the sources, India has become increasingly disoriented following the failure of its recent Harop drone incursions. They claim that repeated setbacks have left Indian decision-makers 'paralysed and confused.' 'In a state of panic,' the sources allege, 'India is now attempting to justify potential future aggression against Pakistan by fabricating stories of attacks in Rajasthan, Pathankot, and Indian-Occupied Kashmir.' The Pakistan Armed Forces, they assert, are fully prepared to counter any hostile designs and remain vigilant against 'India's nefarious intentions.' Observers note a striking resemblance between the current disinformation campaign and India's disputed narrative following the 2019 aerial skirmish during Operation Swift Retort. At the time, Pakistan shot down two Indian fighter jets in response to Indian airstrikes in Balakot. India, however, claimed that one of its pilots, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman — who was captured after ejecting from his downed MiG-21 — had managed to shoot down a Pakistani F-16 before his own aircraft was brought down. Pakistan denied the F-16 claim. Later that year, Foreign Policy magazine cited US defence officials who had accounted for all Pakistani F-16s and found none missing — contradicting India's assertion. Following the report, the then military spokesperson stated: 'India's claims about the attack and its consequences are false. It's time India told the truth about the loss of its second jet shot down by Pakistan.' Despite the lack of independent verification, India's President Ram Nath Kovind awarded Wing Commander Abhinandan the Vir Chakra — India's third-highest wartime military honour — for 'downing' a Pakistani F-16. Pakistan maintains its stance that two Indian jets were shot down in 2019, and that no PAF F-16 was lost in the exchange.
