Indian military official blames politics for downed fighter jets in Pakistan conflict
India 's political leadership did not permit strikes on Pakistani military bases at the start of hostilities between the two countries in May, allowing Islamabad to shoot down its fighter jets, according to a military official.
Advertisement
'I do agree we did lose some aircraft. That happened only because of the constraints given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or their air defence,' India's military attache to Indonesia, Shiv Kumar, said at a seminar on the India-Pakistan conflict at the Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma in Jakarta on June 10.
The worst clash between the nuclear-armed neighbours in half a century erupted on May 7, with both sides trading air, drone and missile strikes, as well as artillery and small-arms fire along their shared border. It was triggered by an attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir on April 22
that killed 26 civilians in what India called an act of terrorism orchestrated by
Pakistan . Islamabad has denied involvement.
03:12
India launches strikes on Pakistan, Islamabad vows to 'settle the score'
India launches strikes on Pakistan, Islamabad vows to 'settle the score'
Kumar's comments are the most direct explanation so far from an Indian official on why the country
lost fighter jets during the conflict with Pakistan. The assertion from a military official that a political directive at the start of the conflict could be responsible for the downing of the planes may embolden India's opposition, which is scrutinising Prime Minister
Narendra Modi 's government over the hostilities.
India's Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of External Affairs did not respond to emails seeking comments sent after office hours.
India's embassy in
Indonesia said in a social media post that Kumar's comments at the seminar were 'quoted out of context' and that he had wanted to convey that the 'Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership'.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses armed forces personnel during a visit to an airbase in India's Punjab state last month. Photo: Indian Press Information Bureau / AFP
In an interview last month, Anil Chauhan, chief of defence staff of the armed forces, accepted that India lost an unspecified number of fighter aircraft but blamed the downing of the jets on tactical mistakes which were rectified.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
13 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Indian tech hub's ‘fake news' bill sparks free speech fears
Draft legislation by India's tech hub state of Karnataka that would impose jail terms of up to seven years for spreading 'fake news' and other misinformation has stirred concerns among free speech activists that it could lead to censorship. With nearly 1 billion internet users, the stakes are high in a sprawling country of many ethnic and religious communities where fake news risks stirring deadly strife and AI deepfake videos have alarmed officials during elections. India's federal government already regulates social media content, with legislation empowering it to order takedowns of disputed content. But some states, such as Karnataka, have begun taking their own measures. Karnataka's bill, the strictest of its kind yet, stipulates that those posting 'fake news' and 'antifeminist' content, or 'promoting superstition', would face imprisonment along with potential fines. The 11-page Karnataka Mis-Information And Fake News (Prohibition) Bill does not define such offences in practice, but said special courts and a regulatory committee would be set up to implement it. Free speech advocates have cited what they say would be the risk of selective enforcement arising from Karnataka's measure, and flagged concerns that people posting memes or making honest mistakes online could be prosecuted. 'Misinformation is fairly subjective and every person who uses the internet is susceptible to falling within the dragnet of this law,' said Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, a New Delhi-based digital advocacy group which first made the Karnataka draft legislation public.
South China Morning Post
14 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US shift towards Pakistan may unsettle India and the South Asia balance
The recent White House lunch date between Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, and US President Donald Trump was a renewal of high-level US-Pakistani engagement that suggested a potential rebalancing of US priorities in South Asia. Advertisement The visit, closely watched by stakeholders in South Asia and observers of Washington's policy on the region, has raised questions about the future of the US-India strategic partnership – particularly as US-China tensions appear to be easing and Trump seems more than eager to strike a deal with China, an 'iron brother' of Pakistan. Yet the significance of the lunch meeting should not be overstated: it signals flexibility, not a complete shift in priorities. It reflects a deal-centric approach that aligns with Trump's broader foreign policy instincts while introducing risks that could unsettle South Asia's delicate geopolitical balance. For one, the meeting – the first time a senior Pakistani official has been hosted in the White House in six years – marks a clear departure from the Biden administration's approach, which prioritised strengthening ties with India. Former president Joe Biden's strategy leaned heavily on India as a counterweight to China, emphasising shared democratic values. In contrast, Trump's decision to allow Pakistani leadership back into the White House for a visit reflects a return to transactional diplomacy , favouring more immediate economic and strategic interests over ideological alignment. Advertisement
AllAfrica
19 hours ago
- AllAfrica
India's trade gambit: sovereignty vs. Trump's tariff deadline
With just days remaining before President Trump's July 9 deadline to reimpose steep 'reciprocal tariffs,' US-India trade talks have reached a critical juncture. Trump's recent declaration of a 'very big deal' with India, one that would 'open up' its markets stands in stark contrast to the gridlock reported by negotiators in Washington. As an Indian delegation races against time, fundamental disagreements over agriculture, industrial goods and fair reciprocity threaten to derail a pact both leaders have touted as transformative. The delegation, led by Rajesh Agarwal, faces immense pressure to concede, but New Delhi's resolve to protect its economic sovereignty has only intensified. With both nations refusing to blink, the outcome may redefine not just bilateral trade but India's resolve to protect its economic sovereignty while navigating Trump's high-pressure tactics. Agriculture, India's hill to die on: The US demand for tariff cuts on soybeans, corn, and dairy and market access for genetically modified (GM) crops strikes at India's most sensitive nerve. Washington frames this as 'fair trade,' but India sees an existential threat to its agrarian economy, which sustains 700 million people. US farm subsidies, exceeding $30 billion annually, create artificially cheap exports that could devastate India's smallholders (average landholding: 1.15 hectares). Politically, concessions are untenable as farmer unions still recall the 2020-21 protests. Ajay Srivastava of the Global Trade Research Initiative has said 'No tariff cuts are expected for dairy or key food grains.' Industrial asymmetry, a lopsided battle: India's push for relief from Trump's 26% reciprocal tariffs faces stiff resistance, especially on steel and auto parts. Meanwhile, the US insists India slash duties on American cars (currently 100-110%) and alcohol (150%). This imbalance mirrors the US-UK 'mini-deal,' where Britain accepted permanent 10% US tariffs while dismantling its own steel protections. For India, such terms would institutionalize disadvantage: Its exports are facing 'MFN+10%' rates in the US, while American goods gain significantly expanded access to Indian markets through deep tariff reductions. Trump's negotiation strategy thrives on ambiguity. His June 27 statement about the July 9 deadline, 'We can do whatever we want,' shows his use of unpredictability as a weapon. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted talks could extend to US Labor Day (September 1), while White House officials casually remarked that the deadline is 'not critical.' Yet Trump simultaneously threatens letters to 'non-deal' countries imposing 25-45% tariffs. This carrot-and-stick approach aims to spook India into concessions. Here, the recent US-China 'signed deal' offers a cautionary lesson. Although Trump hailed it as a breakthrough, that deal's substance is fragile: China's vague promise to 'review export applications' for rare earths (which dominate 90% of global supply) secured only loose US pledges to ease chip-material curbs, while Trump's 20% tariffs imposed on Chinese goods over Beijing's alleged failure to curb fentanyl precursor flows remain in place. For India, this highlights the peril of prioritizing optics over enforceable terms – a risk it cannot afford. India enters these talks with unusual leverage. April-May 2025 exports to the US surged 22% year-on-year to $17.25 billion, proving resilience despite tariffs. As S&P revises India's growth forecast upward (6.5%) and domestic consumption rebounds, officials project calm: 'We are keen, but not desperate,' one negotiator reiterated. India's counterstrategy hinges on diversification and unwavering red lines. Domestically, rejecting GM crops protects seed sovereignty and biodiverse farming; upholding data localization rules shields citizens from surveillance capitalism; and auto tariffs defend a $100 billion manufacturing ecosystem. Externally, India is mitigating US pressure through advanced EU FTA talks (accessing a $450 billion market), a sealed UK pact and Global South alliances with ASEAN and Africa. Crucially, robust domestic consumption (60% of GDP) insulates the Indian economy, although rupee flexibility and pharma strengths remain strategic projections rather than negotiation table commitments. Even if a limited pact emerges by July 9 – token concessions on almonds or LNG, paired with face-saving US tariff tweaks – the truce will be fragile. Trump's 'national security' tariffs on semiconductors, pharma and critical minerals, now under active Commerce Department probes, could target India by August. For India, signing a lopsided agreement risks perceptions of capitulation, while walking away affirms 'strategic autonomy' but invites 26% tariffs on key exports like textiles and seafood. Globally, others face similar challenges: Vietnam has rejected US claims of currency manipulation, and Trump ended talks with Canada over a digital tax, showing how US positions can shift quickly. A limited 'early harvest' deal appears the most plausible outcome, one covering $100-150 billion in bilateral trade while deferring contentious issues like agriculture, autos and data governance. India may offer calibrated concessions: reduced tariffs on US almonds, walnuts or LNG to narrow its trade surplus, alongside symbolic commitments on digital trade facilitation. The US, in turn, might suspend its 26% reciprocal tariffs but retain a 10% baseline duty on Indian goods mirroring its recent pact with the UK. Such an arrangement would let President Trump declare victory in 'opening up' India while India showcases 'protected national interests.' Yet this minimalist approach would paper over deeper asymmetries. The US demand for sweeping agricultural access clashes irreconcilably with India's defense of food sovereignty and smallholder livelihoods. Similarly, the United States' resistance to lifting auto and steel tariffs contradicts its rhetoric of 'fair reciprocity.' These tensions reflect a structural divide: The US views trade through mercantilist lenses (exports = wins), while India prioritizes developmental equity (protection = survival). As the head of Indian Institute of Foreign Trade notes, ' The ball is in the U.S. court. India isn't for a win-lose partnership . ' The China precedent remains instructive: Beijing's rare earths 'deal' with the US secured temporary relief but left core grievances unresolved. India, too, must weigh whether a hurried pact solves problems or merely postpones them. It remains to be seen whether both nations build a balanced framework that respects India's development needs while offering genuine US market access? Or will 'reciprocity' remain a one-way street? Lasting solutions require patient negotiation of equitable frameworks, not tactical concessions under deadline duress. Whether both nations can transcend zero-sum politics remains the real test beyond July's theatrics. Naina Sharma is a research assistant at the Center of Policy Research and Governance (CPRG).
