logo
Indian official blames ‘political constraints' for loss of jets during clash with Pakistan

Indian official blames ‘political constraints' for loss of jets during clash with Pakistan

Independent7 hours ago

Indian 'political constraints' are to be blamed for the loss of fighter jets during the air force's operation in Pakistan, an Indian military attache to Indonesia has said, in remarks that have triggered a political row in the country.
In a seminar at an Indonesian university analysing the India -Pakistan conflict, Captain Shiv Kumar said the Indian government did not permit strikes on Pakistani military bases at the start of the hostilities between the two countries, claiming this allowed Islamabad to shoot down an unspecified number of fighter jets.
'I may not agree with him that India lost so many aircraft. 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 and their air defences,' Captain Kumar of the Indian Navy said at the Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma on 10 June.
New Delhi and Islamabad stepped back from the brink of all-out war on 7 May following their worst military escalation in decades, during which both sides fired drone and missile strikes in a four-day showdown while border forces fired artillery at the border, killing dozens of people.
The conflict followed a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir on 22 April that led to the deaths of 26 civilians, the worst attack on civilians in decades in the region. India called it an act of terrorism and blamed Pakistan-based militants for the attack, while Pakistan denied any involvement.
Captain Kumar's comments follow weeks in which the Indian government formally refused to admit any of its jets had been shot down. India's chief of defence staff Anil Chauhan eventually admitted India suffered some losses but declined to give figures or details on how the planes came down.
He blamed the loss of jets on tactical mistakes, which he claimed were then rectified during subsequent days.
'What is important is that... not the jet being downed, but why they were being downed,' he told Bloomberg TV on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in May.
Captain Kumar's latest comments represent the clearest explanation yet from the Indian side about why it lost fighter jets during the conflict, amid scrutiny of prime minister Narendra Modi's government from opposition parties at home.
The opposition Congress party doubled down on its criticism of the government, using the Indonesian official's comment to argue that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had "misled" the country.
'There are several unanswered questions related to the untimely ceasefire – especially when India actually had an upper hand in the escalation,' it said.
It prompted the Indian embassy in Indonesia to issue a clarification on Captain Kumar's remarks, saying his statements were misrepresented.
'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,' it said on X.
'The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood.'
During the speech at the university, Captain Kumar said India reassessed its policy after suffering initial losses and went about targeting Pakistan's air defences, allowing New Delhi to hit several military targets.
He said it was the Indian strikes on airbases that led to Pakistan calling for a ceasefire.
The intense fighting came to a halt after the two governments announced a ceasefire following talks between their national security advisers. US president Donald Trump claimed credit for brokering the truce but Indian officials quietly rowed back against the idea that his intervention was pivotal.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India wants ‘big beautiful' trade deal with US after Trump tariff threats
India wants ‘big beautiful' trade deal with US after Trump tariff threats

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

India wants ‘big beautiful' trade deal with US after Trump tariff threats

Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman revealed India 's strong desire for a 'big, beautiful' trade deal with the US, even as negotiations face challenges. A critical 9 July deadline approaches, after which the US could impose additional tariffs of up to 26 per cent on Indian goods. India has established clear red lines in the Bilateral Trade Agreement talks, primarily concerning the protection of its agriculture and dairy sectors. Trump has accused India of being a 'tariff king' and seeks greater market access for its agricultural exports, while India defends its tariffs as necessary and WTO -compliant. Negotiators have extended their discussions in Washington, indicating efforts to bridge differences and secure an agreement before the deadline.

India appeals to Donald Trump for a ‘big, beautiful trade pact'
India appeals to Donald Trump for a ‘big, beautiful trade pact'

The Independent

time5 hours ago

  • The Independent

India appeals to Donald Trump for a ‘big, beautiful trade pact'

Indian finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman has said India would love to have a 'big, beautiful' trade deal with the US, as Washington and New Delhi race to clinch an agreement before the 9 July deadline when punitive tariffs are set to kick in. However, the minister also laid out India's red lines as she expressed hopes for an interim Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) between the two 'strong economies.' Her remarks came after US president Donald Trump last week said a 'very big' deal with India was 'coming up' soon, even though negotiators on both sides appeared to have hit a deadlock over key issues. The US is India's largest trading partner, with the value of their bilateral trade reaching $190bn recently. But after taking office for his second term in January, Mr Trump branded India a "tariff king" and a "big abuser" of trade ties. He has threatened to impose an additional tariff of up to 26 per cent on Indian goods. Although steep, the levy is still lower than the total 104 per cent imposed on China, 49 per cent on Cambodia, and 46 per cent on Vietnam. The additional duties are due to kick back in after a 90-day pause, targeting products like machinery, pearls, mineral fuels, and more. 'I'd love to have an agreement, a big, good, beautiful one; why not?" Ms Sitharam said in an interview with The Financial Express. "The US is one of our leading trade partners, topmost if anything. At the junction we are in, and given our growth goals and ambition to reach Viksit Bharat [developed India] by 2047, the sooner we have such agreements with strong economies, the better they will serve us. So, I'd rather put my own statement on (Trump's)," she added. She nonetheless noted that protecting India's agriculture and dairy industries have been among the 'major red lines' in the BTA talks with the US. "The negotiating team ensured that the industry's concerns were all taken on board before they sat at the table. Agriculture and dairy have been among the very big red lines, where a high degree of caution has been exercised," she said in the interview. The finance minister pushed back against Mr Trump's accusations that India was a 'tariff king', saying the label is 'unjustified' and that India's tariffs against the US were modest and within the World Trade Organisation 's guidelines. "We have only eight duties, inclusive of zero tariffs. There have been drastic cuts in both the July and February budgets. The effective tariff rates are far below the WTO thresholds. So, for India to be called a 'tariff king' is absolutely unjustified," she said. A major sticking point in the India–US trade deal is agriculture, where deep structural differences persist. The US wants greater access for its big-ticket farm exports like wheat, corn, cotton, and genetically modified (GM) crops to narrow its trade deficit, but India has resisted, citing the need to protect food security and the livelihoods of millions of small farmers. Unlike the US, where large-scale, heavily subsidised farming is the norm, India's agriculture is dominated by small landholdings and low productivity. High tariffs – up to 150 per cent – are used by India to shield its farmers from cheaper imports. The US argues these barriers are unfair, while India sees them as essential for survival. After Mr Trump unveiled his Liberation Day tariffs, India acted swiftly by reducing tariffs on select US goods, including motorcycles and whiskey, and offered concessions in the agricultural and defence sectors in an effort to ease tensions with Washington. The two countries have engaged in a series of high-level negotiations aimed at finalising a trade deal before the full impact of Trump's new tariffs takes effect. But progress has been slowed by political sensitivities in India, particularly around the farming and auto industries, which remain key domestic concerns. According to Bloomberg, Indian negotiators in Washington have extended their stay to resolve these differences and reach a deal before the deadline. People familiar with the matter said the negotiations that were supposed to run until 27 June were extended by a day, raising hopes of a timely trade deal.

Judge grants Palestine Action urgent hearing to try to stop ban taking effect
Judge grants Palestine Action urgent hearing to try to stop ban taking effect

The Guardian

time5 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Judge grants Palestine Action urgent hearing to try to stop ban taking effect

Palestine Action has been granted an urgent high court hearing on Friday to try to prevent a banning order against the direct action protest group coming into effect. An order is due to be laid before parliament on Monday which would proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation, making being a member of – or inviting support for – Palestine Action a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail. The move, announced by the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, last week, would place Palestine Action alongside the likes of al-Qaida, Islamic State and National Action. It has been criticised as draconian by protest groups, civil liberties organisations and various politicians. At a short-notice hearing at the high court on Monday, it emerged that Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, is to be given an opportunity to apply for 'interim relief' with respect to the proscription order. David Blundell KC, representing the Home Office, said that the plan had been for the order to be debated in parliament this week and then signed on Friday to come into effect on Saturday. But the judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, said if an application by Palestine Action for interim relief on Friday was successful it would 'have the effect of suspending its [the order's] operation'. Ammori's lawyers contend 'there has been a failure of the duty to inform the claimant of the basis on which it is proposed to restrict her rights through proscription' and to 'afford her the opportunity to make representations before any decision to restrict her rights'. The submission also states that while 'extensive consultation has taken place with the Israeli government and arms companies … no opportunity has been provided for other groups affected or concerned by the proposal to proscribe Palestine Action, including Liberty, Amnesty International and other civil society organisations'. Liberty, Amnesty International and the European Legal Support Center have submitted supporting witness statements for Ammori's case alleging the unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures to criminalise dissent, Palestine Action said. Ammori said: 'The court's decision to grant an urgent hearing this week is indicative of the vital importance of what is at stake in this case, including the far-reaching implications any proscription of Palestine Action would have on fundamental freedoms of speech, expression and assembly in Britain. 'This is the first attempt in British history to criminalise direct action, political protest, as terrorism, mimicking many authoritarian regimes around the world who have used counter-terrorism to crush dissent. This would set an extremely dangerous precedent, with repressive impacts right across the Palestine movement.' 'Spraying red paint on war planes is not terrorism. Causing disruption to the UK-based arms factories used by Israel's largest weapons firm, Elbit Systems, is not terrorism.' Palestine Action says it uses direct action to seek to prevent serious violations of international law by Israel in and against the Palestinian people. Cooper took the decision to ban it under anti-terrorism laws three days after the group claimed an action against military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Five people have been arrested in connection with the incident. Cooper said there had been 'a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action'. Another hearing has been scheduled for 21 July when Ammori would seek permission for a judicial review to argue that the proscription order should be quashed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store