India lost jets in Operation Sindoor due to ‘political constraint': Defence attaché to Indonesia
The Indian Air Force lost fighter jets to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor on May 7 because the political leadership had directed that no military establishment across the border was to be attacked that day, The Times of India quoted India's defence attaché to Indonesia as having said earlier this month.
A controversy erupted after a purported video of Captain Shiv Kumar's remarks from June 10 surfaced online on Sunday.
Following this, the Indian Embassy in Jakarta stated that the Navy officer had only said that India's armed forces serve under ' civilian political leadership ', unlike some neighbouring countries.
'It was also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure and the Indian response was non-escalatory,' it added.
The Indian Embassy also said that Kumar's remarks were 'quoted out of context' and 'the media reports are a misrepresentation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker'.
The officer had made the comments while speaking at a seminar titled 'Analysis of the Pakistan-India Air Battle and Indonesia's Anticipatory Strategies from the Perspective of Air Power' at a university in Jakarta.
Kumar's statement came more than a month after Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan's May 31 comments that were seen by some as an acknowledgement of the Indian Air Force's loss of aircraft during the operation. General Chauhan had told Bloomberg that what was important was 'not the jet being down, but why they were being down'.
The Narendra Modi-led Union government has yet to officially state the number of fighter jets lost during Operation Sindoor.
Kumar made the statement in response to Pakistan's claim of having downed six aircraft, including three Rafales.
'I may not agree…that India lost so many aircraft,' The Print quoted him as having said. 'But, I do agree that we did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishments'.
Kumar added that the tactics were changed after the loss and 'we went for their military installations'.
After a video from the seminar surfaced online, the Congress accused the Union government of having 'misled' the country.
Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh, in a social media pos,t asked why the prime minister was 'refusing' to preside over an all-party meeting to take the Opposition into confidence and why the demand for a special session of Parliament has been rejected.
He added: 'First the Chief of Defence Staff makes important revelations in Singapore. Then a senior defence official follows up from Indonesia.'
Tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad escalated on May 7 when the Indian military carried out strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on what it claimed were terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
The strikes were in response to the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which killed 26 persons on April 22.
The Pakistan Army retaliated to Indian strikes by repeatedly shelling Indian villages along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. At least 22 Indian civilians and eight defence personnel were killed in the shelling.
India and Pakistan on May 10 reached an 'understanding' to halt firing following the four-day conflict.
The Indian government has maintained that Operation Sindoor targeted only terror camps, intentionally avoiding military installations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
15 minutes ago
- India.com
Asim Munir Courts Fresh Remark, Labels What India Calls Terrorism As Legitimate Struggle
Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir has said that Pakistan will continue to provide diplomatic, political, and moral support to the people of Kashmir, and also stated that what India terms as terrorism is the "legitimate struggle". His statement comes over a month after New Delhi and Islamabad reached a ceasefire agreement after exchanging several airstrikes for multiple days. According to a report by the Hindustan Times, Munir made the controversial statement as he was addressing a passing out parade at the Pakistan Naval Academy on Saturday. The Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Munir said, 'What India tends to term as terrorism is in fact the legitimate struggle as per the international conventions." "Those who endeavoured to subdue the will of Kashmiri people and sought conflict elimination instead of resolution have made it more relevant and pronounced through their own actions,' he added. In his apparent support for the people of Kashmir, Munir said, 'We stand firm with the Kashmiri people for their right of self-determination for the resolution of the internationally recognised long-standing dispute in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the people of Kashmir." As per HT, Munir said, "Pakistan will always continue to provide political, diplomatic, and moral support to the valiant people of... Jammu and Kashmir." Munir On Indian Attacks The Pakistan Army Chief also said that India has 'twice undertaken acts of unprovoked aggression against Pakistan', under the 'pretext of counter terrorism'. Praising his own country, Munir also stated that 'Pakistan, despite grave provocations, acted with restraint and maturity and demonstrated its commitment to regional peace and stability...' He also added, "The assumption that Pakistan would have any constraints in the face of any future violation of its sovereignty reflects a dangerous misreading of strategic fundamentals…" The speech echoed Munir's fiery address at the Overseas Pakistanis Convention in Islamabad on April 16, just days before the Pahalgam terror attack, where he provocatively declared Kashmir as Pakistan's 'jugular vein.' Operation Sindoor The Indian Armed Forces, on May 7, launched 'Operation Sindoor' targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This action was taken to avenge the brutal Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 individuals were killed. Following the launch of Operation Sindoor, tensions between India and Pakistan escalated, and both nations exchanged a series of attacks. However, a ceasefire agreement was reached after the Pakistan Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) contacted his Indian counterpart.
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
India hardens stance on farm sector concessions as India-US trade talks stretch
India-US trade deal (Representative AI image) NEW DELHI: As India-US trade talks stretch into a new week with both sides chasing the July 9 deadline, government has hardened its stance on offering concessions in the farm sector. 'The Indian team may stay longer as crucial talks are continuing, but we don't just want to open up whatever is the demand (from the US) on agriculture as lives of millions of farmers are involved,' said a government source. Last week, India's chief negotiator Rajesh Agarwal and other officials had gone to the US on a two-day visit, but the talks have stretched as the US is also keen to conclude some deals before the pause on reciprocal tariffs – 26% in India's case -- ends in. In fact, on Thursday, US president Donald Trump had announced that a 'very big deal' with India is likely – the seventh time that he had announced an agreement. The Indian industry is also being prepared for dealing with reciprocal tariffs, in case the early tranche of the proposed bilateral trade deal does not work out. For India, a key concern is allowing lower duty import on agricultural products like maize, soybean and dairy products, which is being demanded by the US side. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending Local Enterprise Accounting Software [Click Here] Accounting ERP Click Here Undo Privately, several industry representatives have met commerce department brass and suggested that India should agree to the demands from the Trump administration, but government is keen to ensure that it is not a one-sided deal. Officials also conveyed to exporters on Monday that the limited deal, if it works out, will cover only a limited set of products with more tranches likely in the coming months. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
17 minutes ago
- First Post
How did Pakistan get picked to lead the UN Security Council?
In July 2025, Pakistan assumes the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council, a position it takes on as part of its two-year term as a non-permanent member. The presidency rotates monthly among the Council's 15 members based on English alphabetical order. Pakistan last held UNSC membership in 2012–13, and has served seven times since 1952 read more Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, speaks during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council at UN headquarters in New York City, US, June 20, 2025. File Image/Reuters The Islamic Republic of Pakistan will take over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the month of July 2025. This role falls within Pakistan's current two-year tenure as a non-permanent member of the Council, which commenced on at the start of this year. Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, will lead the Council throughout the month. He recently met with UN Secretary-General António Guterres to outline the Security Council's agenda during Pakistan's presidency. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This marks the eighth time Pakistan has served on the Security Council, having previously held non-permanent membership in 1952–53, 1968–69, 1976–77, 1983–84, 1993–94, 2003–04, and 2012–13. The presidency offers Islamabad a platform to steer discussions and spotlight key international issues. Pakistan is expected to convene at least two open meetings during its presidency of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in July, with indications that it may bring up topics such as Operation Sindoor and the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. According to a source speaking to The Print, there is a prevailing view within the Indian establishment that Islamabad could use its current seat on the UNSC — where India is not presently represented — to spotlight regional South Asian matters on the global stage, particularly in the context of recent developments following Operation Sindoor. During its presidency, Pakistan will also reportedly convene two major high-level signature events. One will focus on multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes, while the second will examine cooperation between the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). How is the UNSC presidency determined? The presidency of the Security Council rotates monthly among its 15 members, according to Rule 18 of the Security Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure, which states: 'The presidency of the Security Council shall be held in turn by the members of the Security Council in the English alphabetical order of their names. Each President shall hold office for one calendar month.' This rotation includes both permanent and non-permanent members and follows a fixed alphabetical order to ensure equity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In 2025, Pakistan's presidency follows Guyana (June) and precedes Panama (August). Earlier in the year, Algeria (January), China (February), Denmark (March), France (April), and Greece (May) held the presidency. Later months will see the Republic of Korea (September), the Russian Federation (October), Sierra Leone (November), and Slovenia (December) take on the rotating role. The monthly presidency allows each Council member, regardless of permanent or elected status, to chair meetings, steer the Council's agenda, and represent the body publicly. Although largely procedural in nature, it grants the presiding country notable visibility and agenda-setting influence. How are UNSC members chosen? The UNSC is composed of 15 member states: five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. These non-permanent members are chosen by the General Assembly and must secure a two-thirds majority in a secret ballot, in accordance with Rule 83 of the Assembly's rules of procedure. Notably, there are no formal nominations, and retiring members are ineligible for immediate re-election as per Rule 144. The criteria for election to the Security Council include a country's contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security — often demonstrated through leadership in regional peace initiatives, troop contributions to peacekeeping missions or financial support — as well as equitable geographical distribution, which was formalised through a 1963 amendment to Article 23 of the UN Charter. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That amendment came into force in August 1965 and expanded the number of non-permanent members from six to ten. As per the General Assembly's Resolution 1991 A (XVIII), the distribution of non-permanent seats follows this pattern: Five from African and Asian states One from Eastern European states Two from Latin American states Two from Western European and other states An informal agreement ensures that one of the Asian or African seats is always held by an Arab country, alternating between the two regions. What does the Security Council do? The Security Council is the UN's chief organ for international peace and security. It is empowered to make decisions that are binding on all 193 UN member states. It can impose sanctions, authorise peacekeeping missions and even permit the use of military force to address conflicts. The Council's authority stems from Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VI encourages peaceful resolution through dialogue, arbitration or mediation, while Chapter VII provides for stronger measures — including coercive sanctions or military intervention — if peaceful means fail. Over the decades, the Council has dealt with a wide spectrum of global crises: civil wars, nuclear proliferation, humanitarian disasters, terrorism, and more. Yet its effectiveness has increasingly come under scrutiny, particularly when the interests of its five permanent members diverge. The permanent members, collectively known as the P5, hold veto power — any one of them can block the adoption of any substantive resolution. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This has repeatedly led to stalemates, especially on high-profile matters such as Syria, Ukraine and Palestine. For instance: Russia (including during the Soviet era) has used the veto 158 times, making it the most frequent user. The United States has used the veto 92 times, including to block a resolution in April 2024 supporting Palestinian statehood. China has increasingly exercised its veto rights, often aligning with Russia—more than three-quarters of China's vetoes have had Russian support. France and the UK have not used the veto since 1989 and have called for restraint in its usage. Despite structural limitations, the Council remains central to multilateral diplomacy. It oversees 11 peacekeeping operations as of 2024, with nearly 100,000 uniformed personnel deployed across three continents. These missions range from traditional peacekeeping to more robust interventions that include civilian protection, electoral assistance and legal institution-building. Why aren't other global powers involved actively in the UNSC? Criticism of the UNSC's composition and effectiveness has grown louder in recent years. While the last structural reform occurred in 1965, many argue that the Council no longer reflects today's geopolitical realities. Global powers like India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Nigeria and South Africa have long pushed for a more inclusive Security Council — either through permanent seats or an expansion in elected membership. There have also been suggestions that France could relinquish its seat in favour of the European Union, particularly after Brexit. In 2019, France and Germany took the unprecedented step of jointly presiding over the Council for two months. In 2021, the UK publicly supported Germany's bid for permanent membership. More recently, in January last year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed hope that Africa would receive permanent representation, citing support from each of the five permanent members. Despite such advocacy, progress remains slow. With every structural change requiring the approval of the current P5 — who are unlikely to dilute their power — UNSC reform continues to be one of the most contentious and unresolved issues in international governance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
