Latest news with #PAF
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
7 hours 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.
The Print
12 hours ago
- Business
- The Print
All about J-35A, the Chinese fifth-generation stealth fighter Pakistan plans to acquire
Pakistan, the reports suggest, placed its official order in December 2024, with delivery of over 30 fighters anticipated between August 2025 and early 2026. Islamabad is said to have finalised the purchase of up to 40 of these stealth fighters from China. If the delivery takes place, it will mark the first international export of the aircraft which was unveiled in Zhuhai Air Show in November last year. New Delhi: The Chinese imprint on Pakistan armed forces is set to deepen further as reports suggest that Beijing is fast-tracking the delivery of its fifth-generation J-35A stealth fighter jet to its long-time ally. The deal is being hailed in the two countries as a game-changer for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The aircraft will complement and enhance the PAF's modernisation drive, which includes recent inductions of the JF-17 Block III and J-10CE fighters. Currently, India is pursuing its own project to develop a fifth-generation stealth fighter jet–the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA). On Thursday, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh announced the approval of the AMCA programme execution model. Developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC), a subsidiary of the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), the J-35 is a twin-engine stealth multirole fighter evolved from the FC-31 Gyrfalcon prototype—a once privately funded project aimed at the export market after SAC lost the J-XX program bid to Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group. First introduced as the 'F-60' at a Beijing innovation contest in September 2011, the FC-31 took to the skies on 31 October 2012. Although initially outside China's official military development stream, growing interest from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the PLA Navy prompted the FC-31's transformation into two formal variants: a land-based J-35A for the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and a carrier-based version for the PLA Naval Air Force (PLANAF). As of now, China is the only country besides the US (F-22 and F-35) to field two operational fifth-generation stealth fighters—the Chengdu J-20 'Mighty Dragon' and the Shenyang J-35. While the J-20 is tailored for long-range air superiority, the J-35A offers multirole versatility with a lighter footprint and greater export potential. Also Read: From non-delivery of fighters to constant delays & 'black sheep', IAF chief speaks out Copy cat? The J-35A is reported to come with next-generation avionics, sensor fusion systems, and a weapons payload capacity of up to 8,000 kg—2,000 kg internally and 6,000 kg externally. What catches the eye is the striking similarity it shares with the F-35 that often led to the accusation of the Chinese copying the American stealth fighter, a charge that has stuck with the Asian powerhouse given its notoriety of cloning technology either borrowed or stolen from Russia and the West. While both the J-20 and J-35A feature stealth and advanced avionics, they serve distinct roles. The J-20, with its larger airframe, more powerful WS-10C or future WS-15 engines, and extensive sensor suite, is designed for long-range air dominance. In contrast, the J-35A offers multirole agility and is tailored for medium-range missions. The J-20 remains China's flagship stealth platform, while the J-35A opens new possibilities for China's defense exports and allied force multipliers. The arrival of the J-35A in Pakistan will be a defining moment in South Asia's military landscape. Analysts suggest that the new stealth fleet could give the PAF a 7–14 year advantage in fifth-generation capability over India, depending on the AMCA timeline. The platform's success will depend heavily on seamless integration with Pakistan's existing infrastructure and China's continued support in training, logistics, and maintenance. Once operational, the aircraft will not only elevate Pakistan's aerial combat abilities but also underscore China's growing influence as a global defense supplier and stealth aircraft innovator. Aditya Shrikhande is an intern who graduated from ThePrint School of Journalism. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: In wake of Jamnagar crash, a look at chequered legacy of IAF's SEPECAT Jaguar
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
BJP leader admits Pakistan downed five Indian jets in recent conflict
Senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy admitted that Pakistan downed five Indian fighter jets, including Rafale aircraft, during the recent military confrontation between the two neighbouring countries. Tensions escalated on May 7, when India launched missile strikes at what it described as 'terrorist infrastructure' across the border. Pakistan responded with retaliatory measures, prompting a sharp military buildup on both sides of the frontier. The confrontation lasted four days and involved the use of fighter jets, drones, missiles, and artillery — marking the worst military engagement between the two nations in decades before a ceasefire was declared. Read more: PM confirms downing of sixth Indian jet, hails PAF's combat excellence Pakistan confirmed shooting down six Indian jets, including the much-hyped Rafale, but India has continued to deny the allegations despite international media reports supporting Pakistan's claims. However, a senior BJP leader has now acknowledged the losses in the recent skirmish. Speaking on a podcast, Swamy expressed strong criticism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the Pahalgam attack. He denounced the failure to apprehend the perpetrators as 'a grave crime,' lamenting, 'We should have avenged it, but we failed to do so.' When asked how many Indian fighter jets were downed in the skirmishes, he said, 'Pakistan shot down five of our aircraft using Chinese fighter jets. Their performance was commendable, whereas our French Rafale jets were underwhelming.' He went on to describe the Rafales as 'insufficient' for India's defence needs. Swamy, who served in the Rajya Sabha from 2016 to 2022, also levelled serious allegations regarding the controversial Rafale deal, claiming there was widespread corruption in the procurement process. 'This will never be investigated as long as Modi is prime minister, because he won't allow it,' he asserted. In response to a question about Modi's public rapport with former US President Donald Trump, he dismissed the relationship as superficial. He said, 'Modi is a master manipulator, deceiving the public. But Indians living abroad know the truth — he has no real stature in USA. He is, in essence, a servant.' Read more: Locations of downed Indian aircraft disclosed by security sources Swamy also accused Modi of caving under international pressure during the crisis. 'The United States asked for a ceasefire, and you submitted. Who authorised that decision? Was it the military? No. It was your fear of the United States, and especially Donald Trump. Modi's cowardice has been exposed. We need a new course of action in the coming months,' he said. When asked about the path forward, he was unequivocal. 'Modi must step down. He has failed to uphold the founding principles of our republic so he has to go. It's not just my opinion — many others agree, though they are afraid to say it publicly,' he added. The clash erupted following a deadly attack on April 22 in Pahalgam, located in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), which killed 26 tourists. New Delhi blamed the incident on elements backed by Pakistan, though it offered no public evidence to support the claim. Islamabad strongly denied the accusation and called for an independent investigation.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Iqbal faults state pillars for past crises
Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal said on Thursday that the political crises in the country were created either by one pillar of the state or the other, as he called for all sides to work for making the country economically strong. Addressing an event in connection with Youm-e-Takbeer — the anniversary of Pakistan's nuclear blasts — at the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA), the minister emphasised that judiciary should not be used in any political confrontation. "All crises in Pakistan were artificial and created by one of the pillars of the state. Political crises were sometimes created by the establishment and sometimes by the judiciary. The 26th Constitutional Amendment was enacted because the judiciary was used for political purposes," he said. "The decision to disqualify Nawaz Sharif in 2017 pushed the country towards a political crisis. But now even our establishment is saying that they are not interested in creating any new political party. Now they are saying that they will keep themselves away from politics." Speaking about Pakistan's nuclear blasts in 1998, he said that the six explosions on May 28 were a befitting reply to India five explosions. "The credit for laying the foundation of the nuclear programme goes to late prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan," he said. "All the succeeding governments carried this programme forward and Nawaz Sharif rejected the international pressure and carried out the explosions," he continued. "Youm-e-Takbeer is not only a celebration of past successes but also a day of our firm resolve for the future." This year's Youm-e-Takbeer celebrations came just weeks after Pakistan-India military confrontation. Iqbal said that when India challenged Pakistan, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) proved its superiority by shooting down six Indian warplanes that included three Rafales. "The latest technology, of which India was proud, was crushed by the PAF. India then cried to Washington and requested for a ceasefire, which we accepted because we want peace," the minister said. "Technology played a very important role in the success against India on May 10." The minister stressed the need for a strong economy for strong defence. He called for a national resolve to beat the enemy in the field of economy. "We have a lot of tax evasion. We are among the countries having low tax collection," he added.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Why Dr AQ Khan still matters
Listen to article This nation dearly misses you, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. You are remembered with deep respect and gratitude for gifting Pakistan the nuclear capability that has enabled the country to stand firm in its strategic defence. Your true worth was once again realised when India reacted like a raging elephant after the Pahalgam terrorist attack on 22 April, hastily accusing Pakistan without presenting any credible evidence. India launched an irresponsible and disproportionate response under a self-declared operation misleadingly named — Sindoor — after a false-flag activity. Civilian areas were targeted through air strikes conducted with drones and fighter jets. Pakistan's government and armed forces exercised the right to self-defence with remarkable professionalism and restraint. In response, the Pakistan Air Force not only defended our airspace but also humbled Indian military arrogance. The so-called superior Rafael jets failed to make an impact, while Pakistan's air defence successfully brought down three aircraft, including a MiG-21, and challenged the capabilities of the Su-30s. This defeat led to a sarcastic reinterpretation of Rafale in India — RAW Fail. India was taken aback by Pakistan's measured yet precise retaliation, which directly hit Indian military installations and air defence targets. The professionalism and precision of the PAF silenced the aggressive posturing of the Indian military, often dubbed the "mad elephant". The United States had to intervene to de-escalate the skirmishes, which were dangerously close to triggering a nuclear confrontation in South Asia. It is because of Dr AQ Khan's contributions that Pakistan today possesses a credible deterrent. His work has empowered the nation to stand tall in the face of external threats and deter aggression through strength. Though Pakistan may not match India in economic size, conventional military strength or war equipment on paper, it remains resolute and capable of defending its sovereignty under any circumstance. All honour and tribute go to Dr AQ Khan — the man who gave Pakistan the power to respond to threats on an equal footing. Let us now compare Pakistan and India in terms of military capability across the three branches — Army, Navy and Air Force — and evaluate their strengths in terms of war equipment and strategic positioning. India stands as the fourth-strongest military power in the world, while Pakistan is ranked 12th. India's total military strength is said to be nearly three times more than Pakistan's. It also possesses much more military arsenal than Pakistan does. Silencing the guns of a hegemonic India became possible when Pakistan declared itself a nuclear power capable of retaliation. This strategic milestone was achieved on 28 May 1998, when Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in the hills of Chagai — a moment now commemorated as Youm-e-Takbeer. At the heart of this historic moment was the unparalleled contribution of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan — the father of Pakistan's nuclear programme. A metallurgist with rare expertise, Dr AQ Khan had a singular mission: to make his homeland invincible. His relentless efforts transformed Pakistan from a security-dependent nation into a nuclear power with credible deterrence. The genesis of this nuclear journey lies in the painful memory of the 1971 war and the dismemberment of the country. It is no coincidence that then Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto — who famously stated, "we will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own [nuclear bomb]" — laid the foundation of Pakistan's nuclear ambition. The humiliation of 1971 was a turning point. Pakistan realised that conventional military parity with India would never be enough. Nuclear deterrence was no longer a choice — it had become a strategic necessity. Today, we must ask ourselves: Are we doing enough to honour the sacrifices and genius that made this feat possible? Are we investing in science and technology beyond military applications? Are we preserving our national dignity not only through strength but also through progress? And in the end, we must not forget Dr AQ Khan's heartfelt words: "My biggest regret is working for this nation."
