India’s Defence Attaché to Indonesia, Navy Captain Shiv Kumar, has acknowledged that the Indian Air Force (IAF) lost “some aircraft” on the night of May 7 during strikes against terror camps across the Line of Control. He attributed the losses directly to political directives from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, which barred military hits on Pakistani air-defense installations and airbases.
In a presentation at an air-power seminar in Jakarta on June 10, Captain Kumar said the IAF was “operating under strict political orders … not to target Pakistani military installations or air defence systems.” He explained that this self-imposed constraint left Indian jets vulnerable while Pakistan imposed no such limits.
Following the initial setback, India adapted tactics and, by May 10, began employing standoff weapons like BrahMos cruise missiles to neutralize air-defense threats before sending in fighter jets.
🔍 What Officials Say
| Official | Statement Highlights |
|---|---|
| Capt. Shiv Kumar | “We did lose some aircraft … only because of the constraint … not to attack military establishments and air defences” |
| CDS Gen. Anil Chauhan | Confirmed losses are part of combat, stressing the importance of understanding why jets went down rather than counting them |
Government Response & Political Fallout
The Indian government quickly distanced itself, stating the attaché’s comments were taken out of context. A statement emphasized civilian oversight of the military and maintained that the goal of Operation Sindoor was to strike terrorist infrastructure—not to escalate militarily.
Yet opposition leaders, including Telangana’s Minister N Uttam Kumar Reddy, have called for transparency regarding the exact number and models of aircraft lost—especially concerning Rafale jets—suggesting a cover-up.
Pakistan’s Claims & Global Context
Pakistan’s military has claimed it shot down six Indian jets, including three Rafale fighters. International outlets have confirmed some jet losses but disputed the total. Analysis from Bloomberg, Reuters, and others note that Pakistan likely downed two or three jets, including possibly one Rafale. Indian authorities remain tight-lipped on specific figures.
Strategic Implications
The episode reveals a critical tension between political-level restraint and military exigency. The Modi government, wary of escalation in a nuclear flashpoint, prioritized non-escalation by shielding Pakistani military assets—even at the expense of IAF aircraft. After adjusting tactics, India conducted deeper missile strikes and entered Pakistani airspace targeting bases—signaling a shift to a "suppress first, then strike" doctrine.
International Diplomacy & Domestic Debate
This conflict sparked a global and domestic diplomatic offensive. Prime Minister’s envoys and parliamentarians traveled to key countries to frame India’s actions as precise counterterror measures. Supporters defended the policy as calibrated, while critics accused the government of playing up nationalism while concealing military shortcomings.
Domestically, questions mount over the wisdom of withholding key tactical targets and deceiving the public on military readiness. The encounter also underscores the growing risk of miscalculation in one of the most nuclearized flashpoints in Asia.
🛑 Bottom Line
-
Indian military leadership confirms fighter jet losses during May 7 strikes, attributing them to political “no-strike” orders targeting Pakistani military assets.
-
Pakistan claims six jets shot down, but independent reports suggest two to three losses, including possibly Rafales.
-
The Indian government claims the attaché’s remarks were “out of context”—defending its stance as avoiding escalation.
-
The episode highlights a politically-driven military restraint that may have compromised immediate combat advantage—but avoided broader war escalation in a nuclear environment.
This incident raises lasting questions about civilian control, political oversight in wartime, and India’s willingness to absorb tactical losses for higher strategic stability.
0 Comments