Indian Military Officer Acknowledges Aircraft Losses During Operation Sindoor, Cites Political Constraints — Sparks Political Row and Clarification from Embassy

A senior Indian military official recently revealed that the Indian Air Force (IAF) suffered the loss of some of its aircraft during Operation Sindoor due to specific operational restrictions imposed by the country’s political leadership.

The admission, made during a seminar held in Jakarta, Indonesia, has sparked a political debate back home and prompted an official clarification from the Indian Embassy.

 

Admission by Defence Attaché in Jakarta

Captain Shiv Kumar, who currently serves as India’s Defence Attaché to Indonesia, made the remarks during a detailed presentation at a defence seminar in Jakarta on June 10.

While explaining the dynamics and tactical evolution of Operation Sindoor, Captain Kumar acknowledged that the IAF had indeed lost “some aircraft” in the early stages of the operation, attributing these losses to the limitations set by India’s civilian leadership at the time.

He noted that Indian forces had initially been given strict directives not to target Pakistani military installations or their air defence systems. “Only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or their air defences,” Captain Kumar said, explaining the cause of the initial setbacks.

This restriction, he implied, limited the operational flexibility of the IAF and left Indian aircraft more vulnerable to Pakistani defensive systems during the early phases of the campaign.

Tactical Shift After Initial Losses

Captain Kumar went on to reveal that, following the losses sustained on May 7, Indian forces quickly adapted their approach. The initial engagement with Pakistani forces continued up until May 10, but according to him, no further aircraft losses occurred after the tactical adjustments were made.

The revised strategy focused on neutralising enemy air defence systems first — a key phase known as Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD).

After weakening Pakistani air defences, the Indian military shifted to a more offensive stance, deploying precision weaponry, including BrahMos cruise missiles, to target high-value enemy assets effectively.

“We first achieved suppression of enemy air defences, and then… all our attacks could easily go through using BrahMos missiles,” he said.

Captain Kumar’s remarks are significant as they represent the first on-record acknowledgement by an Indian military officer not only of the aircraft losses but also of the internal operational constraints that influenced the outcome of early engagements during Operation Sindoor.

Political Fallout and Demands for Transparency

Captain Kumar’s revelation triggered an immediate political reaction in India. The Congress party, seizing upon the disclosure, demanded greater transparency from the government regarding the operation.

Congress communications chief Jairam Ramesh raised several pointed questions and criticised the Prime Minister for not convening an all-party meeting to brief the opposition on the operation’s objectives, progress, and aftermath.

In a post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on June 29, Ramesh said, “Why is the Prime Minister refusing to preside over an all-party meeting and take the Opposition into confidence? Why has the demand for a special session of Parliament to discuss Operation Sindoor been rejected?”

He further alleged that the government was being selective in its disclosures and urged that the full details of the mission, including casualties, strategic outcomes, and long-term implications, be made available to the public and Parliament.

Embassy Clarification: “Remarks Taken Out of Context”

In response to the media coverage and the subsequent political backlash, the Indian Embassy in Jakarta issued an official clarification. According to the embassy’s statement, Captain Kumar’s comments had been “taken out of context” and misrepresented in the public discourse.

The embassy emphasised that his presentation aimed to highlight that Operation Sindoor was specifically focused on neutralising terrorist infrastructure across the border, in keeping with India’s stated strategic objectives.

The embassy maintained that there was no deviation from the government’s original mission goals, and Kumar’s remarks should not be interpreted as an indictment of civilian leadership or military preparedness.

Broader Implications

This episode has opened a new chapter in the public discourse surrounding Operation Sindoor — a military operation that has been largely shrouded in official secrecy and tight government control over information.

Until now, most of what was known came from official briefings that emphasised strategic success and restraint.

The emerging revelations about internal restrictions, tactical challenges, and operational losses could fuel fresh demands for accountability, both within Parliament and from civil society.

While the military’s professionalism and ability to adapt under pressure have been praised, questions remain about the cost of political caution during wartime conditions and its impact on battlefield outcomes.

As debate continues to swirl around Captain Kumar’s remarks, observers note that this could prompt a broader reassessment of the balance between political oversight and military autonomy during high-stakes operations. Whether the government will respond to demands for a fuller disclosure remains to be seen.