Did India lose jets in Operation Sindoor? Defence attaché’s remarks trigger political storm

Did shifting political directives during Operation Sindoor significantly influence India’s aircraft losses and military engagement?

India’s Embassy in Jakarta has strongly refuted media reports suggesting that the Indian Air Force lost multiple aircraft to Pakistan during cross-border operations in May. The statement, issued via X, said that recent remarks made by Defence Attaché Captain (Indian Navy) Shiv Kumar during a seminar in Indonesia were misquoted and taken out of context. The embassy emphasized that the primary point of Kumar’s presentation was to underline the Indian Armed Forces’ subordination to civilian leadership and to reinforce that Operation Sindoor was non-escalatory in intent.

“We have seen media reports regarding a presentation made by the Defence Attaché at a seminar. His remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a misrepresentation of the intention and thrust of the presentation,” the statement read.

The clarification came amid growing speculation following Kumar’s 10 June remarks at a seminar hosted by Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma in Jakarta. The session focused on India–Pakistan aerial conflict dynamics and was attended by regional defence scholars, diplomats, and students. During his 35-minute address, Kumar reportedly acknowledged that India did lose some aircraft in the early phases of Operation Sindoor, adding nuance to what had until then been a highly guarded military narrative.

What was Operation Sindoor and what were its strategic aims during the May 2025 India–Pakistan escalation?

Operation Sindoor was launched by India following the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack, which killed 26 civilians. The military response was designed to be swift but limited—targeting nine terror-linked sites across Pakistan-administered territories on May 7. India deployed a combination of Rafale fighter jets, SCALP missiles, drone squadrons, BrahMos cruise missiles, and long-range artillery to carry out the operation. However, unlike prior retaliatory campaigns such as the Balakot strike in 2019, Operation Sindoor was tightly framed by political directives that explicitly prohibited targeting of Pakistani military installations or radar systems during the initial wave.

It was only after sustaining early losses that the Indian military reportedly revised its engagement protocols. Defence Attaché Shiv Kumar noted that after the loss of jets, the Indian Air Force moved to suppress enemy air defences before launching further strikes. “So we first achieved suppression of enemy air defences, and then that’s why all our attacks could easily go through using BrahMos missiles,” he said.

How did General Anil Chauhan contextualize reports of aircraft losses during Sindoor?

Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan had earlier sought to downplay Pakistani claims that six Indian jets were shot down during the conflict. Speaking to Bloomberg, Chauhan said those numbers were “absolutely incorrect,” though he acknowledged that some aircraft were lost. He emphasized that the focus should not be on the count of jets lost but rather on the lessons learned.

“After the loss, we changed our tactics and went for the military installations,” Chauhan said, corroborating Kumar’s statement that the Indian strategy evolved during the operation. These remarks are being seen as an indirect admission that the initial tactical posture may have exposed Indian jets to heightened vulnerability.

What statements did the Congress party and other institutions make following the disclosure of losses?

Opposition leaders from the Congress party swiftly seized upon the defence attaché’s comments to question the government’s transparency. Jairam Ramesh posted on X, “First the Chief of Defence Staff makes important revelations in Singapore. Then a senior defence official follows up from Indonesia. But why is the PM refusing to preside over an all-party meeting?”

Pawan Khera, another Congress spokesperson, accused the government of misleading the nation “from the start,” alleging that any past acknowledgements of aircraft losses were vague and made only through indirect references by the Air Force. Party president Mallikarjun Kharge demanded a special session of Parliament to review the events of Operation Sindoor and the sequence of political decisions that shaped its execution.

Why is civilian oversight over military operations a focal point amid India–Pakistan tensions?

Captain Kumar’s seminar presentation placed considerable emphasis on the Indian Armed Forces’ accountability to elected civilian leadership. The embassy’s clarification later reiterated this point, contrasting India’s governance framework with those of certain neighbouring countries where the military exerts direct policy influence.

The emphasis on civilian control is a longstanding pillar of Indian democratic doctrine. However, in this instance, critics argue that the very directives meant to enforce restraint may have compromised tactical effectiveness in the early stages of Operation Sindoor. This tension—between strategic caution and operational risk—is now at the heart of India’s internal political debate.

How have diplomatic actors and the public reacted to India’s approach in Operation Sindoor?

Internationally, India’s restraint has been welcomed. Diplomats from the United States, European Union, and Southeast Asian nations issued coordinated statements urging both India and Pakistan to de-escalate. Pakistan claimed it had downed six Indian aircraft, but no independent verification has supported that number. The broader international community has largely avoided commenting on the tactical specifics of the operation, instead focusing on India’s emphasis on counterterrorism and proportionality.

Domestically, however, the picture is more divided. While some defence experts have praised India’s rapid strategic recalibration, civil society organisations have called for greater transparency in military reporting. Opinion columns in Indian dailies and think tanks have begun asking whether political leadership should have revised directives earlier in the operation to reduce exposure to enemy air defences.

What latest developments confirm or expand the narrative since late June 2025?

As of late June, the government has not issued any further clarifications beyond the Jakarta embassy’s statement. Parliament has yet to formally take up the issue, despite repeated demands from opposition parties. Defence analysts note that official silence is leaving room for speculation and potentially misinformed debate, particularly on digital platforms.

Meanwhile, Shiv Kumar’s remarks have also circulated in regional diplomatic circuits. Southeast Asian observers familiar with India’s strategic posture interpret the comments as a sign of internal tension between civil authority and military risk tolerance. Whether the Indian government will move to declassify additional information or convene a high-level all-party meeting remains uncertain.

What can this episode teach about India’s democratic military framework and crisis communication?

From an institutional standpoint, India’s handling of Operation Sindoor reflects both adherence to democratic military oversight and a cautionary tale in operational transparency. The emphasis on civilian leadership is constitutionally appropriate, but a lack of clarity on aircraft losses risks undermining public trust—especially when information trickles out from foreign seminars rather than official channels.

Defence scholars suggest that if India’s democratic model is to serve as a regional template, it must pair civilian control with proactive disclosure mechanisms. In the absence of timely information, narrative vacuums can be filled with misinformation, even when the broader strategic goals—neutralizing cross-border terrorism without escalation—remain valid.