Here's Why Defence Attache's Claim of Political Constraints Leading to IAF Losses is Significant

The Wire

a day ago

The recent admission by the Indian defence attaché to Indonesia, Captain (IN) Shiv Kumar that political constraints led to the loss of IAF jets during Operation Sindoor casts a harsh spotlight on the Modi government's national security claims. This revelation not only contradicts Modi's boasts of granting 'full operational freedom' but also exposes the hollowness of his rhetoric around military modernisation and decisive leadership.
It is deeply significant for the following reasons:
Direct contradiction of Modi's 'full operational freedom' claim
Despite Modi's repeated public assurances, especially after the Pahalgam attack, that the armed forces have 'complete operational freedom to decide on the mode, targets and timing of our response', the defence attaché's statement exposes a stark gap between rhetoric and reality.
The IAF was explicitly ordered not to target Pakistani military infrastructure or air defences during the initial strikes on terror sites on May 7, a political directive that directly compromised mission effectiveness and pilot safety. This directly contradicts Modi's cultivated image of a leader who 'lets the military do its job', revealing instead that political caution, not military professionalism, dictated operational limits during the recent India-Pakistan clash.
[Watch 3:50:00 onwards]
Political constraints led to IAF losses
The defence attaché's remarks confirm that the loss of IAF jets was not due to poor training, military planning or pilot error, but because the Modi government's political leadership imposed artificial operational constraints. By forbidding strikes on air defences and military installations, the government denied the IAF the ability to neutralise the most immediate threats, a standard air campaign doctrine practice. This left IAF fighter pilots exposed and ceded the tactical initiative to Pakistan, which did not impose reciprocal constraints.
It resulted in the IAF fighter jets, including Rafale, being shot down in the Indian airspace even when no Pakistani military targets had been hit by then. This was the biggest loss suffered by the IAF since the 1971 India-Pakistan war.
Modi's 'Rafale as game changer' claim exposed
The government has aggressively promoted the controversial acquisition of 36 Rafale fighter jets at an exorbitant price from France as a transformative leap for India's air power, with Modi himself touting it as a 'game changer' that would decisively tilt the balance against Pakistan. Yet, the defence attaché's admission and subsequent events show that even the most advanced hardware is rendered moot if political leadership denies the military the freedom to use it effectively.
The loss of jets during constrained operations highlights that political will, not some expensive military equipment, still determines outcomes. The Rafale's much-vaunted capabilities were neutralised by the Modi government's own directives.
Lack of transparency and evasion of political accountability
The Modi government's response, which includes issuing of clarifications, refusing to disclose loss figures and rejecting calls for parliamentary debate or an all-party meeting, signals a deliberate attempt to evade accountability and suppress uncomfortable truths.
Opposition leaders have rightly called this a 'direct indictment' of Modi's handling of national security, demanding transparency and a full accounting of both the losses and the decision-making that led to them. The episode exposes a government more interested in narrative control and optics than in honest reckoning with the consequences of its own political choices.
In all, the defence attaché's statement is a damning indictment of the Modi government's approach: political caution trumped military necessity, operational freedom was a myth and the much-hyped Rafale 'game changer' was rendered irrelevant by self-imposed constraints. The government's subsequent obfuscation only deepens the credibility crisis.