After weeks of equivocation, no less an authority than India’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, accepted on 31 May that India lost an unspecified number of aircraft in the recent hostilities with Pakistan. This admission was made, surprisingly, to a foreign journalist in a Singapore hotel lobby on the sidelines of a security conference, rather than to India’s Parliament or in an official Ministry of Defence briefing as would have been more appropriate.
General Chauhan admitted that India had lost aircraft in the conflict, but that the Indian Air Force (IAF) was able to “understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and flew all our jets, again targeting at long range.” He subsequently modified the statement and stated that the IAF “rectified tactics and then went back on 7th, 8th and 10th, and on 10th in large numbers to hit airbases deep inside Pakistan.”
These revelations raise serious questions about the feasibility of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s new doctrine, which states that “we will not differentiate between a government that harbours terror and the terrorists themselves”. Not only does the new doctrine raise the risk of war, it seems increasingly likely that India may have to pay significant costs to exercise it, something the government must explain to the Indian people.
Also read: India paid for ignoring warnings in 1965 war. It can’t afford to repeat those mistakes today
IAF’s losses
The fact that India lost aircraft has been an open secret. The first official hint came when Director General of Air Operations, Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti, stated at an official briefing on 11 May that “losses are a part of combat”. CDS General Chauhan also appeared to suggest that, following the initial aircraft losses, IAF operations were restricted for two out of the four days of fighting. This presumably was to ensure that no further losses occurred to the Chinese-built PL-15E long-range air-to-air missile that likely downed our aircraft while the IAF developed tactics to counter it.
The Indian Armed Forces are fully aware that war is not a video game and that it consists of setbacks and learning, often at high cost. Just ask the Russians and the Ukrainians. As the saying goes, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” Even so, if indeed India was unable to fully commit its air power for half the duration of the conflict, this would be a much bigger, and unexpected, setback than the loss of airframes.
Keep in mind this was happening at a time when major sections of Indian television media were falsely telling Indians that the Karachi port had been destroyed and a Pakistani pilot was in Indian custody.
As the CDS put it, the IAF carried out precision strikes on Pakistan Air Force (PAF) airfields, which the Pakistanis were unable to defend. Note that some of the missiles that were reportedly used – the India-Russia Brahmos and the French SCALP and Israeli Rampage – have ranges exceeding the PL-15E’s range. Whether India has a solution to this new airborne threat therefore remains unclear.
This isn’t the first time the IAF has been surprised. On 27 February 2019, following the Balakot airstrike, IAF Su-30MKI fighters were forced into defensive manoeuvres to avoid being hit by American AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) fired by PAF F-16s, which out-ranged the Sukhois’ own Russian R-77 missiles. Having evaded the dangerous AMRAAMs successfully, the pilots of the SU-30MKI squadron got patches titled “AMRAAM Dodger”. But the question of why this imbalance was allowed to occur – and now recur – needs answering.
Also read: Did we lose aircraft? Should we admit it? When? Answering questions raised by CDS’ admission
A self-goal
It is also obvious that the Modi government mishandled the information war. The Indian Armed Forces have never shied away from publicly admitting military losses, even in the middle of battle. The unnecessary equivocation over India’s aircraft losses contributed to widespread global acceptance of Pakistan’s claim of having downed up to six Indian warplanes. There was surprisingly little sympathy for the country that had actually been subject to a horrific terror attack in Pahalgam on 22 April.
This PR self-goal could have been avoided if the Ministry of Defence had been allowed to present the facts fair and square shortly after hostilities had ended. The decision to “suspend” rather than declare Operation Sindoor complete, and thereby to postpone any official disclosures, seems to have been guided primarily by a desire to protect Prime Minister Modi’s political image and electoral interests.
Two questions arise:
First, why was India taken by surprise by Pakistan’s escalation in the air? The External Affairs Minister’s message to Pakistan that it should not retaliate because India was attacking only terror targets was naive. Pakistan had already established from its actions in 2019 that it would counter with airstrikes at Indian military targets and would intercept Indian warplanes.
India had clearly telegraphed its intention to strike. The prime minister stated in Madhubani, Bihar on 24 April, that “the time has come to raze whatever is left of the haven of terrorists”. Did the long delay of two weeks between the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor give Islamabad and Beijing time to prepare? Whatever happened to “Cold Start” and to rapid contingency planning?
Second, does Modi’s new doctrine make any sense given these events? As I had explained in a previous column, this doctrine (1) raises the likelihood of war with Pakistan, (2) empowers spoilers like China or ISIS-K and (3) limits India’s own covert options.
It is now clearer that India will bear significant costs for any future military operation, especially given Chinese support to Pakistan. This calls for levelling with Indian citizens. We await a parliamentary session to debate these questions and to reach a national consensus on how India can deal with this challenge. If the prime minister would rather play politics, the country may pay a much greater price.
Amitabh Dubey is a Congress member. He tweets @dubeyamitabh. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
A vicious article written with pure malice. The opposition has every right to question the government- but only to cry over and count the losses without appreciating the huge success of the mission is both bad politics and optics. The Congress should remember that no government comes out to admit the losses, anywhere in the world. And there is no need to. When a defeated country celebrates victory, why should we keep crying over the losses except for an internal audit which the government and the armed forces would anyway be doing already?
Amitabh Dubey is promoting the impotent Congress way to beg in front of United Nations with dossiers when terrorists kill civilians in your city. What did Manmohan Singh do? Also if you conducted 6 surgical strikes like your party says where is the proof? Why not tell the people of India where you spent their money and their soldiers lives on? Why were we not informed then? Or do you believe Indians should just continue to believe your lies?
I would like to see an article by Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, instead of these paid ghost writers. Let us see in writing what they stand for? So we can hold them accountable. They can always hide by suspending and sidelining people like Dubey
Mr Dubey, your ridiculous logic is that India shud not fight a war like op Sindoor because it will result in significant costs to India! Sir did we not fight a war in 1947,62,65,71 and 1999. I am sorry but are u unaware that we had significant losses even then. Sorry my mistake all except 1 was fought during congress govt. That’s right military losses did not matter at that time!
Your selfishness of putting yourself or your party before the country and its armed forces is amply demonstrated by your desire to get information on our losses before a ceasefire. Did u ever hear the ISPR talk of their losses before the ceasefire?
Honestly u seem to want to support Pak narrative of making it about air combat between Rafale and JF-17 / J10 rather than India avenging Pahalgam and as a bonus hitting at least 11 of their air bases and hitting 9 terror bases.
Don’t know what your situational awareness or cerebral capacity is (doesn’t seem to be anything to be proud of), but since when do victors in a conflict sue for ceasefire and peace.
Ceasefire happened only because Pak was getting hammered irrespective of whether PAF downed a few IAF aircraft. Any further escalation on their part would have resulted in much heavier Pak losses affecting civilian population and decimation of the Punjabi military egos with no answer as none of their nuke red lines would have been impacted.
If u aren’t able to understand that much then please don’t display your ignorance in Print. Doesn’t serve u or your beleaguered party.
Dear Amitabh ,
Regardless of whether india lost a jet or not this current govt showed more spine than UPA1/UPA2 . Made us chuckle with your hot takes on this
Congrress members are trying badly for Pakistan it seems..