Latest news with #ShivKumar
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Opposition slams Modi government for concealing details of IAF
India's opposition parties have launched a sharp tirade against the Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government, accusing it of concealing information about the Indian military's losses during the May 7 air confrontation with Pakistan and compromising national security under foreign pressure. Opposition leaders have referred to recent media reports quoting Defence Attaché Captain Shiv Kumar to state that his remarks confirm their long-standing concerns. Rahul Gandhi was absolutely right to call Modi 'Surrender Narender' and Jaishankar 'JJ.' Captain Shiv Kumar's statement corroborates what the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, had raised long ago. He had rightly questioned who authorized informing Pakistan, as it is… — Srivatsa (@srivatsayb) June 30, 2025 Congress leader Rahul Gandhi reiterated that PM Modi's political decisions weakened India's defence posture and accused him of accepting a ceasefire under pressure from former US President Donald Trump. Read more: India again admits jet losses in Pakistan clash, citing political limits 'Captain Shiv Kumar's statement corroborates what Rahul Gandhi has said all along. It is clear that aircraft were lost due to the political leadership's directive not to engage Pakistani military assets,' said a Congress spokesperson. The party also called Modi 'Surrender Narender' and criticised External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar as 'JJ', accusing the government of prioritising optics over operational effectiveness. As shocking as this revelation is, Rahul Gandhi ji was once again right. There is a reason Trump keeps bringing up the ceasefire thing. Modi's diplomacy handicapped not only our defence but also our country — Armaan (@Mehboobp1) June 30, 2025 The remarks in question were made by Captain Shiv Kumar at a seminar titled 'Analysis of the Pakistan–India Air Battle and Indonesia's Anticipatory Strategies from the Perspective of Air Power', held at Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma in Jakarta. According to Indian media, Kumar acknowledged that the Indian Air Force (IAF) "lost some aircraft" and attributed the losses to operational restrictions imposed by political leaders in New Delhi. 'IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership's Constraints': Indian Defence Attachehttps:// — The Wire (@thewire_in) June 29, 2025 In response, the Indian Embassy in Indonesia issued a formal statement rejecting the media's interpretation of Kumar's comments. 'His remarks have been quoted out of context, and the reports are a misrepresentation of the intention and thrust of the presentation,' the statement said. 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 The embassy clarified that Kumar's presentation emphasised civilian control over the Indian armed forces and reiterated that Operation Sindoor was a limited, non-escalatory mission targeting terrorist infrastructure, not Pakistani military installations. The conflicting narratives have further fuelled political tensions in India, with the opposition demanding transparency on the actual scale of losses and decisions made during the 86-hour conflict. Pakistan-India Ceasefire Tensions between Pakistan and India escalated on April 22, when an attack in Pahalgam killed 26 people. India immediately blamed Pakistan for the incident. Pakistan categorically rejected Indian accusations. India then undertook a series of hostile actions the next day on April 23, suspending the 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), cancelling visas for Pakistani citizens, closing the Wagah-Attari border crossing and ordering the shutdown of the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi. Both the countries subsequently reduced diplomatic staff at their respective embassies in the other's territory. Tensions further escalated in the early hours of May 7, when Indian missile strikes hit six cities in Punjab and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), destroying a mosque and killing dozens of civilians, including women, children, and the elderly. Read More: French intelligence official confirms downing of Rafale by Pakistan In a swift military response, Pakistan's armed forces shot down Indian warplanes, including three Rafale jets. The confrontation intensified again in the early hours of May 10, when India targeted several Pakistani airbases with missile strikes. In retaliation, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, damaging Indian military installations, including missile storage sites, airbases and other strategic targets. On May 10, US President Donald Trump announced that a ceasefire had been reached following intense diplomatic efforts overnight. Minutes later, the agreement was confirmed separately by Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and the Indian foreign secretary.
The Wire
11 hours ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Here's Why Defence Attache's Claim of Political Constraints Leading to IAF Losses is Significant
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.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
IAF lost aircraft due to ‘constraint by political leadership', says defence attache in Jakarta; ‘quoted out of context,' says embassy
A senior Indian military officer acknowledged last month that the Indian Air Force (IAF) lost 'some aircraft' during Operation Sindoor because of the 'constraint' laid down by the Indian political leadership not to attack the Pakistani military establishment or their air defences. This was detailed by Captain Shiv Kumar, India's Defence Attache to Indonesia, during a presentation at a seminar in Jakarta on June 10. In the presentation, he also stated that after the initial setback, Indian forces adjusted their strategy, while clarifying that although the skirmish continued till May 10, India incurred losses only on May 7. Captain Kumar said the Indian forces had been directed not to target Pakistan's military infrastructure or air defences. 'Only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or their air defences,' he said, explaining why the IAF suffered the loss of fighter jets. 'After the loss, we changed our tactics and we went for the military installations… We first achieved suppression of enemy air defences and then… all our attacks could easily go through using BrahMos missiles,' he said. Captain Kumar's statement marks the first instance of an Indian military officer attributing a reason as to why India lost aircraft in Operation Sindoor. It is also the first time that an Indian military officer has thrown light on the modified tactics adopted by India after suffering initial losses during the operation. After his remarks came to light, Congress communications chief Jairam Ramesh sought clarification from the government. '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?' he said in a post on X on June 29. Later, the Indian Embassy in Jakarta issued a clarification, saying that he was quoted out of context and was simply reiterating that Operation Sindoor aimed to target terrorist infrastructure. '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 embassy said. 'The presentation conveyed that the Indian Armed Forces serve under civilian political leadership, unlike some other countries in our neighbourhood,' it added, in a veiled jab at Pakistan. What the armed forces had said earlier Before this, top Indian military officers had publicly acknowledged that India had suffered some aircraft losses, but had cautiously held back the reasons and the tactical changes adopted thereafter. For instance, last month, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan had acknowledged losses during the early phases of Operation Sindoor, but did not offer specific numbers. He had told news agencies in Singapore why the jets were downed, and the way forward warranted greater importance than the number of IAF fighters downed. He also said that after suffering losses in the air initially, India had rectified its tactics and went back in large numbers deep inside Pakistan to hit their airbases. His comments marked India's first official admission to a global audience of having lost an unspecified number of jets in the operation, although India had never denied such losses. The only other official comment on this matter was made by Air Marshal A K Bharti, Director General Air Operations, IAF, in an official briefing in May, where he had said that losses are part of any combat, the Indian military had achieved all its selected objectives and all IAF pilots were back home. He had said that he would not like to comment on whether India lost any aircraft in Operation Sindoor due to the prevailing combat situation. Takeaway from Operation Sindoor: 'Air defence is very important' Captain Kumar's 20-minute detailed presentation was part of a seminar titled 'Analysis of the Pakistan–India Air Battle and Indonesia's Anticipatory Strategies' organised by Suryadarma University, also attended by senior military officials from Indonesia. While India conducted 'punitive strikes' during Operation Sindoor as an act of 'political signalling', with 'air power' as the medium of choice, the lessons learnt by the military establishment from this operation are that 'air defence is very important', he said. On the takeaways from the operation, he said that 'air defence is very important and has to be integrated — long-range, medium range, short range, legacy systems, from different OEMs – can be Russian, Indian, Israeli. (We have also learnt) that the era of manned fighter aircraft is not over.' Out of the 21 terror camps shortlisted by India, 'depending on the intelligence, we decided to target nine of them (four in Pakistan and five in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir),' Captain Kumar added. 'The only constraint that the government gave to the armed forces was not to target anything but the terrorist camps — no military installations, no civil installations and nothing which is not connected to terrorists,' he said about the operation. Born in Chennai, Captain Kumar, 46, holds a Bachelor's degree from the Naval College of Engineering in New Delhi, and three Master's degrees in Computer Science Engineering, Defence and Strategic Studies, and Management Studies, as per his bio presented at the beginning of the seminar. He was commissioned into the Navy in January 2002. Before being appointed as the defence attache at the Embassy of India, Jakarta, with concurrent accreditation to Timor-Leste, he was serving as faculty at the College of Defence Management in Secunderabad. The officer also threw more light on the evidence India has about Pakistan's involvement in the attacks, mentioning that besides The Resistance Front claims and eyewitness accounts, technical intelligence confirmed secured communication hubs of terrorists; there were also forensic investigations of recovered digital artefacts. He said that despite India giving enough time — more than two weeks — after a response across diplomatic, economic and political domains, no concrete measures were taken by Pakistan against terror outfits and infrastructure. 'That is when India initiated Operation Sindoor,' he said. After this, the Indian director general of military operations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson conveyed (to Pakistan) that India has only targeted the terrorist camps and did not wish to escalate further, Kumar said. 'This can be the conclusion of the skirmish,' the Indian side conveyed, as per Kumar, also adding that 'any more attacks will be taken as a second escalation'. However, even as Pakistan escalated further after Operation Sindoor, India's counter-response, he said, was 'swift, precise and non-escalatory'. On the nuclear situation, he clarified that even as India has a clear no first-use policy, and also has credible deterrence in place, in case of such an attack, 'the retaliation will be massive, and Pakistan will cease to exist'.
India Today
a day ago
- Business
- India Today
30 June 2025: India-US trade deal nears; China-led bloc eyes SAARC role; India clarifies Sindoor remark
India Today Podcasts Desk UPDATED: Jun 30, 2025 18:56 IST On News at 7, this 27 June, Jamshed Qamar Siddiqui brings you the day's most crucial headlines. India and the U.S. are set to finalize an interim trade deal by July 8, ahead of a key tariff deadline, aiming for early relief and a broader pact by autumn. China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh met on June 19 in Kunming to boost regional ties and proposed a new South Asian bloc to replace SAARC, signaling a shift in regional diplomacy. India's embassy in Indonesia clarified that Defence Attaché Capt. Shiv Kumar's remarks on Operation Sindoor were misinterpreted, affirming military operates under civilian control. Produced by Garvit Srivastava Sound mix by Rohan Bharti
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Politics
- 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.
