19 hours ago
Did Political Constraints Cause IAF Losses in Operation Sindoor?
Published : Jun 30, 2025 17:29 IST - 5 MINS READ
After a statement by General Anil Chauhan, Chief of Defence Staff, in Singapore on June 1 that the Indian Air Force (IAF) lost some aircraft in the battle with Pakistan, another armed forces officer has mentioned the loss of aircraft and claimed that this was because of the 'constraints' imposed by the political leadership. This has created enough heat in the country, to the extent that the establishment was forced to issue a clarification, claiming that the officer was misquoted.
Captain Shiv Kumar, Defence Attache in Indonesia, said that the IAF lost jets in the early phase of Operation Sindoor as a result of restrictions imposed by the political leadership. He was making a presentation of the success of Operation Sindoor as part of a worldwide outreach by India, at the Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma, on June 10.
The video of this presentation, intriguingly, became public knowledge more than a fortnight later, June 29. The event was titled, 'Analysis of the Pakistan-India Air Battle and Indonesia's anticipatory strategies from the perspective of air power'.
Also Read | Compellence, not deterrence, is the way forward
In the video, Captain Kumar is clearly heard saying: 'We did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership not to attack their military establishment or their air defences.' He was responding to a submission by an earlier speaker that India lost a 'lot of' aircraft. Capt Kumar starts his rebuttal saying: 'I may not agree with him that we lost so many aircraft but I do agree that we did lose some aircraft.'
He adds: 'After the losses, we changed tactics and we went for their military installations. So, we first achieved suppression of enemy air defence and destruction of enemy air defence and then that's why all our attacks could easily go through using surface-to-air missiles, BrahMos, surface-to-surface missiles.'
On the sidelines of the Singapore Shangri-La Dialogue security forum, General Anil Cahuhan told Bloomberg TV: 'What I can say is, on 7th [May 7] in the initial stages, there were losses, but the numbers—that's not important. What was important is why did these losses occur. So, we rectified that and then went back on 7th, 8th, and 10th—and on 10th in large numbers to hit air bases in Pakistan. [We] penetrated all their air defences with impunity. We carried out precision strikes.'
This issue has since blown over with the Central government refusing to answer questions over the loss of aircraft. In fact, the CDS was viciously targeted on social media by right-wing trolls aligned with the ruling BJP, just as Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri was, earlier, for evading a question on loss of IAF fighter planes.
Political constraints
But the second issue is far more important because Captain Kumar refers to the 'political constraint'. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had repeatedly said that the armed forces had been given full operational freedom to respond to the Pahalgam attacks. This assertion by Captain Kumar runs contrary to the Prime Minister's statement.
Captain Kumar's assertion is in line with the Press Information Bureau press release of May 7, time stamped 1.44 am, which said: 'Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistan military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution.'
But the fact that this was a political quagmire was not lost on the establishment. The Indian Mission in Indonesia put out a statement the same day the video went viral, June 29. This was posted on the social media platform X at 7.02 pm: 'His [The Defence Attache's] remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a misrepresentation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker. The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood. It was also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure and the Indian response was non-escalatory.'
Also Read | Operation Sindoor blurred the lines between security and showbiz
Describing the political decision as a tactical error, Sanjeev Gupta, former secretary in the Union Home Ministry, said that if there was a conscious decision at the political level not to attack Pakistan's air force establishments on day 1 of Operation Sindoor, there was no harm in admitting it. 'The idea might have been just to focus on terror camps and end it there. In strategic matters, tactical errors can take place. A military attache shouldn't be left to make a startling revelation in an Indonesian university.'
Pravin Sawhney, a former Army officer and writer, said on his YouTube channel, Force Magazine: 'Shiv Kumar has revealed the reason which no one knew so an air force is in a battle, the first target is the air defence because the most immediate danger stems from air defence. We call it SEAD—suppression of enemy air defence. If this [air defence] is not taken out you will suffer losses.'
Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera said that this was a 'direct indictment of the Modi government'. He added: 'No wonder they are ducking our demand for a special session of know they have compromised national security, and they have terrified of what the Congress party will expose before the people of India.'
In a post on the party said: 'There are several unanswered questions related to the untimely ceasefire – especially when India actually had an upper hand in the escalation.' It demanded that the Prime Minister answer these questions, including why an all-party meeting was not being convened under the PM's leadership and why a special session of Parliament was not convened.
The officer's matter-of-fact statement in Indonesia means that more doubts will crop up over the conduct of Operation Sindoor. The opposition is questioning the timing of the ceasefire and wants to know exactly what the US had asked India to do when the country had the upper hand.
