
‘Political limits': Why did India lose jets to Pakistani fire in May fight?
Captain Shiv Kumar, defence attache at the Indian embassy in Jakarta, made the comments at a seminar in Indonesia on June 10. The remarks went largely unnoticed at the time until The Wire, an Indian publication, reported on them on Sunday.
Kumar's claims have sparked a political storm in India, where the opposition Indian National Congress party called them an 'indictment' of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government.
So what did Kumar say, how have the Indian government and opposition responded, and what happened between India and Pakistan on May 7?
What happened between India and Pakistan on May 7?
Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated into a military confrontation on May 7 when India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting nine sites in six cities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir with multiple missile attacks.
India said it hit 'terrorist infrastructure' in response to the killings of tourists on April 22 in Pahalgam in India-administered Kashmir. Pakistan, on the other hand, said dozens of civilians were killed in the missile attacks along with several military personnel.
Islamabad said it downed six Indian jets in retaliation, including at least three Rafale fighters. Pakistan military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said all the planes were downed inside Indian territory. An information war also ensued, in which India and Pakistan traded conflicting allegations and claims, but they both agreed on one fact: Aircraft from neither side crossed into the other's territory during the attacks.
In subsequent days, the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours exchanged tit-for-tat missile strikes and drone attacks on each other's territory until a ceasefire was reached on May 10. It was announced by United States President Donald Trump, who insisted he brokered it – a claim New Delhi rejects. India insisted all its disputes with Pakistan must be settled bilaterally and there is no room for third-party involvement.
What has the Indian naval attache in Indonesia said?
During the seminar organised by Air Marshal Suryadarma University in Indonesia, Kumar said he 'may not agree [with an earlier Indonesian speaker's claim] that we lost so many aircraft, but I do agree we did lose some aircraft'.
Kumar added: 'That happened only because of the constraints given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or their air defence' on May 7.
The naval attache said the Indian military subsequently changed tactics and began to target Pakistani military installations.
'We first achieved suppression of enemy air defences, and then that's why all our attacks could easily go through using Brahmos missiles,' Kumar added.
The Brahmos, a product of an Indian-Russian joint venture, is a long-range missile. Indian media reported that India fired Brahmos missiles at Pakistani airbases on the night of May 9-10.
What has India previously said about the fighter jets?
After Pakistan first said it had shot down six Indian jets on May 7, New Delhi did not officially confirm or deny those assertions.
When Chinese state news outlet The Global Times reported that Pakistan had brought down the Indian fighters, the Indian embassy in China described it as 'disinformation'.
But subsequently, Indian officials started to suggest that they had lost planes.
When asked by reporters on May 11 whether Pakistan had managed to down Indian jets, Indian Director General of Air Operations AK Bharti said: 'We are in a combat scenario, and losses are a part of it. As for details, at this time, I would not like to comment on that as we are still in combat and give advantage to the adversary. All our pilots are back home.'
Then, General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defence staff admitted that Indian jets were downed by Pakistan, without specifying the number of jets, during interviews on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore, which took place May 30 to June 1.
Chauhan's acknowledgement, made during interviews with the Reuters news agency and Bloomberg TV, marked the first time an Indian official admitted that Indian jets were shot down. 'What was important is why did these losses occur and what we'll do after that,' Chauhan said.
When a Bloomberg reporter asked Chauhan about Pakistan's claims that six Indian jets were downed, Chauhan responded that this information was incorrect. He added that 'what is important is … not the jets being downed but why they were downed'.
Chauhan said India 'rectified tactics' after the May 7 losses and then 'hit airbases deep inside Pakistan, penetrated all their air defences with impunity, carried out precision strikes' before the May 10 ceasefire.
How has the Indian government responded to Kumar's comments?
In a statement posted on its X account on Sunday, the Indian embassy in Indonesia said: '[Kumar's] remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker.'
The embassy said that in the presentation, Kumar explained that Operation Sindoor was launched to target 'terrorist infrastructure' and the attache was trying to emphasise that the Indian response was deliberately not escalatory.
'The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood,' it added in a barb at Pakistan, where the military is the most dominant institution.
We have seen media reports regarding a presentation made by the Defence Attache at a Seminar.
His remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker.
The presentation…
— India in Indonesia (@IndianEmbJkt) June 29, 2025
Is this a shift in India's position?
Not really. While neither the Indian government nor the military has ever bluntly linked the loss of jets to the Modi administration's orders to the armed forces on May 7, New Delhi has been consistent in its narrative over its objectives that day.
In a media statement after India launched missiles on May 7, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said the actions of India's military 'were measured, nonescalatory, proportionate and responsible'.
Colonel Sofia Qureshi of the Indian army, who accompanied Misri to the briefing, emphasised that 'no military establishments were targeted'.
After the ceasefire, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar told reporters that before firing at Pakistan on May 7, New Delhi had 'sent a message to Pakistan that we are firing at terrorist infrastructure, we are not striking at the military, so the [Pakistani] military has the option of standing out and not interfering in this process'.
'They chose not to take that good advice,' Jaishankar said.
The Indian government argued that the Pakistani military's response to New Delhi's May 7 attack forced it to also retaliate, culminating in the missile exchanges on May 10.
Why has this reignited the row with India's opposition party?
The main opposition Congress party has been asking Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party government to inform parliament about India's air losses during the conflict.
When Chauhan admitted Indian planes were downed, Congress members demanded a review of India's defence preparedness.
'There are some very important questions which need to be asked,' Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge wrote in an X post at the time. 'These can only be asked if a Special Session of the Parliament is immediately convened.'
Kumar's remarks have revived those calls.
'The Modi government has misled the nation from the start – failing to disclose the aircraft losses during Operation Sindoor,' Congress leader Pawan Khera wrote on X on Sunday, calling the comments by Kumar an 'indictment' of the government.
'No wonder they are ducking our demand for a Special Session of Parliament like the plague. They know they've compromised national security, and they're terrified of what the Congress Party will expose before the people of India,' Khera wrote.
Another Congress leader, Jairam Ramesh, posted on X on Sunday: 'Why is the PM refusing to preside over an all-party meeting and take the Opposition into confidence? Why has the demand for a special session of Parliament been rejected?'
What sparked the May conflict?
On April 22, a group of armed men killed 26 people – almost all of them tourists – in Pahalgam, a popular tourist destination in India-administered Kashmir. An armed group called The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility for the attack.
New Delhi insisted that the TRF is an offshoot of another Pakistan-based armed group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and has blamed Pakistan for supporting such groups. Islamabad denied the allegation and called for a neutral inquiry into the attack.
After the Pahalgam attack, the already dwindling relationship between the neighbours worsened. Pakistan and India scaled back their diplomatic engagement, suspended their participation in bilateral treaties and expelled each other's citizens.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Political limits': Why did India lose jets to Pakistani fire in May fight?
An Indian naval officer has conceded that the country lost fighter jets to Pakistani fire during their conflict in May and says the losses were a result of 'constraints' placed on Indian forces by the government in New Delhi. Captain Shiv Kumar, defence attache at the Indian embassy in Jakarta, made the comments at a seminar in Indonesia on June 10. The remarks went largely unnoticed at the time until The Wire, an Indian publication, reported on them on Sunday. Kumar's claims have sparked a political storm in India, where the opposition Indian National Congress party called them an 'indictment' of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government. So what did Kumar say, how have the Indian government and opposition responded, and what happened between India and Pakistan on May 7? What happened between India and Pakistan on May 7? Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated into a military confrontation on May 7 when India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting nine sites in six cities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir with multiple missile attacks. India said it hit 'terrorist infrastructure' in response to the killings of tourists on April 22 in Pahalgam in India-administered Kashmir. Pakistan, on the other hand, said dozens of civilians were killed in the missile attacks along with several military personnel. Islamabad said it downed six Indian jets in retaliation, including at least three Rafale fighters. Pakistan military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said all the planes were downed inside Indian territory. An information war also ensued, in which India and Pakistan traded conflicting allegations and claims, but they both agreed on one fact: Aircraft from neither side crossed into the other's territory during the attacks. In subsequent days, the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours exchanged tit-for-tat missile strikes and drone attacks on each other's territory until a ceasefire was reached on May 10. It was announced by United States President Donald Trump, who insisted he brokered it – a claim New Delhi rejects. India insisted all its disputes with Pakistan must be settled bilaterally and there is no room for third-party involvement. What has the Indian naval attache in Indonesia said? During the seminar organised by Air Marshal Suryadarma University in Indonesia, Kumar said he 'may not agree [with an earlier Indonesian speaker's claim] that we lost so many aircraft, but I do agree we did lose some aircraft'. Kumar added: 'That happened only because of the constraints given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or their air defence' on May 7. The naval attache said the Indian military subsequently changed tactics and began to target Pakistani military installations. 'We first achieved suppression of enemy air defences, and then that's why all our attacks could easily go through using Brahmos missiles,' Kumar added. The Brahmos, a product of an Indian-Russian joint venture, is a long-range missile. Indian media reported that India fired Brahmos missiles at Pakistani airbases on the night of May 9-10. What has India previously said about the fighter jets? After Pakistan first said it had shot down six Indian jets on May 7, New Delhi did not officially confirm or deny those assertions. When Chinese state news outlet The Global Times reported that Pakistan had brought down the Indian fighters, the Indian embassy in China described it as 'disinformation'. But subsequently, Indian officials started to suggest that they had lost planes. When asked by reporters on May 11 whether Pakistan had managed to down Indian jets, Indian Director General of Air Operations AK Bharti said: 'We are in a combat scenario, and losses are a part of it. As for details, at this time, I would not like to comment on that as we are still in combat and give advantage to the adversary. All our pilots are back home.' Then, General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defence staff admitted that Indian jets were downed by Pakistan, without specifying the number of jets, during interviews on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore, which took place May 30 to June 1. Chauhan's acknowledgement, made during interviews with the Reuters news agency and Bloomberg TV, marked the first time an Indian official admitted that Indian jets were shot down. 'What was important is why did these losses occur and what we'll do after that,' Chauhan said. When a Bloomberg reporter asked Chauhan about Pakistan's claims that six Indian jets were downed, Chauhan responded that this information was incorrect. He added that 'what is important is … not the jets being downed but why they were downed'. Chauhan said India 'rectified tactics' after the May 7 losses and then 'hit airbases deep inside Pakistan, penetrated all their air defences with impunity, carried out precision strikes' before the May 10 ceasefire. How has the Indian government responded to Kumar's comments? In a statement posted on its X account on Sunday, the Indian embassy in Indonesia said: '[Kumar's] remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker.' The embassy said that in the presentation, Kumar explained that Operation Sindoor was launched to target 'terrorist infrastructure' and the attache was trying to emphasise that the Indian response was deliberately not escalatory. 'The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood,' it added in a barb at Pakistan, where the military is the most dominant institution. We have seen media reports regarding a presentation made by the Defence Attache at a Seminar. His remarks have been quoted out of context and the media reports are a mis-representation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker. The presentation… — India in Indonesia (@IndianEmbJkt) June 29, 2025 Is this a shift in India's position? Not really. While neither the Indian government nor the military has ever bluntly linked the loss of jets to the Modi administration's orders to the armed forces on May 7, New Delhi has been consistent in its narrative over its objectives that day. In a media statement after India launched missiles on May 7, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said the actions of India's military 'were measured, nonescalatory, proportionate and responsible'. Colonel Sofia Qureshi of the Indian army, who accompanied Misri to the briefing, emphasised that 'no military establishments were targeted'. After the ceasefire, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar told reporters that before firing at Pakistan on May 7, New Delhi had 'sent a message to Pakistan that we are firing at terrorist infrastructure, we are not striking at the military, so the [Pakistani] military has the option of standing out and not interfering in this process'. 'They chose not to take that good advice,' Jaishankar said. The Indian government argued that the Pakistani military's response to New Delhi's May 7 attack forced it to also retaliate, culminating in the missile exchanges on May 10. Why has this reignited the row with India's opposition party? The main opposition Congress party has been asking Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party government to inform parliament about India's air losses during the conflict. When Chauhan admitted Indian planes were downed, Congress members demanded a review of India's defence preparedness. 'There are some very important questions which need to be asked,' Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge wrote in an X post at the time. 'These can only be asked if a Special Session of the Parliament is immediately convened.' Kumar's remarks have revived those calls. 'The Modi government has misled the nation from the start – failing to disclose the aircraft losses during Operation Sindoor,' Congress leader Pawan Khera wrote on X on Sunday, calling the comments by Kumar an 'indictment' of the government. 'No wonder they are ducking our demand for a Special Session of Parliament like the plague. They know they've compromised national security, and they're terrified of what the Congress Party will expose before the people of India,' Khera wrote. Another Congress leader, Jairam Ramesh, posted on X on Sunday: 'Why is the PM refusing to preside over an all-party meeting and take the Opposition into confidence? Why has the demand for a special session of Parliament been rejected?' What sparked the May conflict? On April 22, a group of armed men killed 26 people – almost all of them tourists – in Pahalgam, a popular tourist destination in India-administered Kashmir. An armed group called The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility for the attack. New Delhi insisted that the TRF is an offshoot of another Pakistan-based armed group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and has blamed Pakistan for supporting such groups. Islamabad denied the allegation and called for a neutral inquiry into the attack. After the Pahalgam attack, the already dwindling relationship between the neighbours worsened. Pakistan and India scaled back their diplomatic engagement, suspended their participation in bilateral treaties and expelled each other's citizens.


Qatar Tribune
3 days ago
- Qatar Tribune
EU-India FTA set to unlock economic opportunities
Agencies Brussels India and the European Union (EU) have nurtured a strong and evolving economic relations rooted in shared democratic values, strong complementarities, and a long-term vision of mutual prosperity. As the global trade architecture undergoes a profound transformation, driven by shifting supply chains, worsening -geopolitical conflicts, and sustainability imperatives, the proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the EU presents an unparalleled opportunity to redefine their economic partnership in the new global economic order. India's trade engagement with the EU dates back several decades, but the most significant turning point came in 1994 with the signing of the India–EU Cooperation Agreement. This accord laid the foundation for structured political and economic dialogue and paved the way for deeper commercial cooperation. Throughout the 2000s and early 2010s, India liberalized its trade regime and embraced global markets, leading to a surge in trade withthe EU. By 2006, India's exports to the EU stood at approximately $25 billion, and by 2018, they had nearly doubled. The trade basket expanded from traditional textiles and apparel to include pharmaceuticals, chemicals, auto components, and information technology services. Services trade witnessed rapid growth, with India consistently maintaining a surplus, particularly in IT and consulting. In recognition of this economic convergence, negotiations for a Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) were launched in 2007. However, due to disagreements over tariff liberalization, intellectual property, and regulatory standards, talks stalled in 2013. Despite the pause, bilateral trade and investment ties remained resilient anddiversified. The post-COVID era provided a renewed impetus to reimagine global partnerships. Recognising the need for resilient supply chains and strategic diversification, India and the EU revived FTA negotiations in 2021. This time, the scope was broader and more forward-looking. Beyond trade in goods, the new talks aimed to cover services, investment protection, e-commerce, data governance, sustainability, and climate cooperation. The momentum received a further boost in March 2024 when India signed a landmark Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), comprising Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. The TEPA, India's first FTA with a European economic bloc, is expected to act as a catalyst for the India–EU FTA. In early 2025, diplomatic exchanges intensified with high-level meetings aimed at addressing critical issues impeding the FTA. Discussions focused on India's tariff structures, particularly on automobiles, wines, and dairy products. European concerns about sustainability and climate alignment, and India's expectations around professional mobility and data adequacy. These exchanges underscored a shared political commitment to conclude the agreement, albeit with an understanding of its complexity. India's trade trajectory with the EU over the past decade reflects steady growth trajectory. In the financial year 2014–15, India exported goods worth approximately $49.3 billion from the EU and imported about $48.3 billion with a total trade of $97.3 billion. The bilateral trade in goods expanded substantially with EU in 2024-25 at $136.4 billion showing a growth of more than 40 percent with exports expanding to $75.75 billion and imports at $60 billion with a trade surplus of about $15.75 billion. The top 10 items of exports and imports with EU include include a variety of goods, with machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, and manufactured goods. India's top 10 import items from the EU include machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, manufactured goods, and mineral fuels. Specifically, India imports electrical machinery, organic chemicals, machinery (including nuclear reactors and boilers), mineral fuels, and manufactured goods. India-EU also hold a strong trade trajectory of more than $ 50 billion with India in a trade surplus with EU. The bilateral trade in goods and services is expected to double within the five years of comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with EU Alongside trade, investment flows between India and the EU have expanded considerably. The EU is India's largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI), accounting for nearly 16 percent of total FDI inflows since 2000. As of December 2024, the cumulative EU investment stock in India stood at approximately $119 billion, marking a sharp rise from around $91 billion in 2019. In the fiscal year 2024–25 alone, EU investments in India exceeded $17 billion. These flows have been directed towards high-growth sectors such as automotive manufacturing, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals, and digital infrastructure. Major European companies including Airbus, Siemens, Schneider Electric, and Bosch have not only expanded their Indian footprint but have also actively participated in technology transfers and skill development initiatives. Conversely, Indian investments in the EU have also shown a steady rise, reaching an estimated $11.2 billion by 2024. Indian firms such as Tata Motors, Infosys, Sun Pharma, and Wipro have made strategic investments into the European market through greenfield investments, joint ventures, and acquisitions. These ventures span across sectors such as automotive, life sciences, financial technology, and business consulting. This two-way investment flow reflects growing mutual confidence and underlines the interdependence of the two economies. As of 2025, the India–EU FTA negotiations have entered an advanced phase, though several complex issues are expected to come at conclusions soon. The EU is seeking substantial tariff cuts on sectors like automobiles and alcoholic beverages, India, in return, wants more liberal visa policies, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and assurance on its data protection framework being deemed adequate under EU standards. A particularly contentious issue is the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes levies on carbon-intensive imports such as steel and cement. Despite these challenges, both sides are exploring a phased or modular approach. A possible roadmap involves signing an 'early harvest' agreement covering low-sensitivity sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, machinery, and IT services, followed by gradual liberalization in more sensitive areas. The successful implementation of the India–EFTA TEPA can offer useful lessons and establish trust around dispute resolution, labour standards, and environmental safeguards. Looking ahead, the future of India–EU bilateral economic relations appears promising. The EU is India's second-largest trading partner and a key source of capital, innovation, and clean technology. A comprehensive FTA could potentially double bilateral trade within five years and unlock new areas of cooperation. Digital trade stands out as a particularly promising domain, given India's prowess in IT and the EU's technological depth. Moreover, both partners are committed to climate goals under the Paris Agreement. This opens avenues for collaboration in green hydrogen, solar energy, electric vehicles, and circular economy models. Strategically, the India–EU partnership also serves as a hedge against rising protectionism and supply chain vulnerabilities. Amid growing geopolitical uncertainties, a robust India–EU economic corridor would not only strengthen regional stability but also reinforce global rules-based trade. The FTA, once concluded, could serve as a model for equitable, development-friendly trade agreements between developed and emerging economies. In conclusion, the proposed India–EU Free Trade Agreement holds transformative potential. While there are several hurdles to overcome, the long-term strategic and economic benefits make a compelling case for its early conclusion. A well-designed FTA would not only boost trade and investment but also enhance innovation, sustainability, and geopolitical cooperation. With sustained political will, stakeholder engagement, and creative diplomacy, the India–EU FTA could emerge as a landmark pact, reshaping global trade dynamics and advancing shared prosperity.


Al Jazeera
3 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Pakistan facing ‘crisis of injustice' in fight against climate change
Pakistan's climate change minister has slammed the 'crisis of injustice' facing the country and a 'lopsided allocation' of funding as heavy rains and the latest flash flooding cause more damage, destruction and loss of life. Officials in Pakistan said at least 32 people have been killed in the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces since the start of the monsoon season. Last month, at least 32 people were also killed in severe storms in a country that has reported extreme weather events in the spring, including strong hailstorms. The Climate Rate Index report in 2025 put Pakistan top of the list of the most affected countries based on 2022 data. Then, extensive flooding submerged approximately a third of the country, affecting 33 million people – including killing more than 1,700, and caused $14.8bn worth of damages, as well as $15.2bn of economic losses. Last year, more floods affected thousands, and a heatwave killed almost 600 people. 'I don't look at this as a crisis of climate. I look at this as a crisis of justice and this lopsided allocation that we are talking about,' Pakistan's climate change minister, Musadiq Malik, told Al Jazeera. 'This lopsided allocation of green funding, I don't look at it as a funding gap. I look at it as a moral gap.' Funding shortfall Earlier this year, a former head of the country's central bank said Pakistan needed an annual investment of $40 to $50bn until 2050 to meet its looming climate change challenges despite being responsible for about half a percent of global CO2 emissions. In January 2023, pledges worth about $10bn from multilateral financial institutions and countries were reported. The following year, Pakistan received $2.8bn from international creditors against those pledges. Earlier this year, the International Monetary Fund said Pakistan will receive $1.3bn under a new climate resilience loan programme, which will span 28 months. But Malik said those pledges and loans were not enough given the situation Pakistan finds itself in. 'Two countries in the world [China and United States of America] produce 45 percent of the carbon emissions. The fact that the top 10 countries of the world account for almost 70 percent of the carbon burden is also something people are aware of. But 85 percent of the world's green financing is going to the same 10 countries, while the rest of the world – some 180-odd countries – are getting 10 to 15 percent green financing. 'We are paying for it through these erratic climate changes, floods, agriculture devastation.' According to a study done last year by the climate change ministry and Italian research institute EvK2CNR, Pakistan is home to 13,000-plus glaciers. However, the gradual rise in temperatures is also forcing the melting of those glaciers, increasing the risk of flooding, damage to infrastructure, loss of life and land, threat to communities and water scarcity. 'In addition to land and life, flooding [due to glacier melt] swept away thousands of years of civilisation [in Sindh province]. The mosques, temples, schools, hospitals, old buildings, monuments, everything got washed away. 'Add to that the loss of education and access to health care, safe drinking water, waterborne diseases, lack of access to hospitals and clinics, and infant mortality,' the report said. Last month, Amnesty International said in a report that 'Pakistan's healthcare and disaster response systems are failing to meet the needs of children and older people who are most at risk of death and disease amid extreme weather events related to climate change'. 'Children and older people in Pakistan are suffering on the front line of the climate crisis, exposed to extreme heat or floods that lead to disproportionate levels of death and disease,' said Laura Mills, researcher with Amnesty International's Crisis Response Programme. This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center.