India’s recent military losses during a high-stakes clash with Pakistan were tied more to politics than capability, a top naval officer has now revealed. According to the Indian Navy’s defence attaché to Indonesia, Captain Shiv Kumar, restrictions from the country’s political leadership played a key role in the Indian Air Force’s early setbacks during Operation Sindoor.
The remarks, made at a low-profile seminar in Jakarta on June 10 and only now surfacing, have sparked fresh questions on the limits imposed on Indian military responses — especially when national sentiment demands a firmer hand.
Orders to Hold Back Meant Higher Risk in the Skies
Kumar’s comment wasn’t an offhand remark. It came while he was responding to an Indonesian aerospace expert who claimed that India had lost five jets in a single day — a claim he didn’t fully endorse, but didn’t deny outright either.
“I may not agree with him that India lost so many aircraft,” Kumar said during the event. “But I do agree that we did lose some aircraft, and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership not to attack the military establishments and their air defences.”
In short: the IAF was told to go soft.
Instead of a full-scale assault, pilots had to strike terrorist infrastructure while deliberately avoiding Pakistani military targets. That, many believe, left Indian jets exposed to air defence systems they weren’t permitted to take out preemptively.
What Was Operation Sindoor?
It was retaliation. And a long-awaited one.
Operation Sindoor, which translates to “vermillion” in Hindi — a word often associated with sacrifice and honor — was launched in direct response to a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, where 26 civilians, including women and children, were gunned down by Pakistan-backed militants. Many of them were tourists.
India’s response was swift but measured.
Rather than risk triggering an all-out war, the political command greenlit only limited, cross-border strikes — aimed squarely at terrorist camps and not at Pakistani army bases or radar facilities.
That decision, insiders say, was made to avoid an escalation spiral.
But some within the military saw it differently. For pilots flying into hostile airspace without the ability to neutralize threats, it felt like being told to “fight with one hand tied behind your back.”
Did India Really Lose Five Fighter Jets?
That number has been floating around since the seminar, but India hasn’t confirmed it.
The Indonesian expert — who remains unnamed — claimed that:
-
Three Rafale fighter jets,
-
One MiG-29,
-
One Sukhoi-30 MKI,
-
And a tactical surveillance drone
… were all lost in Pakistani airspace during Day 1 of the operation.
While Captain Kumar pushed back gently on that number, he didn’t deny that Indian jets were brought down. That quiet admission — especially from a serving officer — carries weight.
Here’s the only confirmed part: Some aircraft were indeed lost. And those losses, at least according to Kumar, were avoidable.
Military Versus Political Objectives — A Familiar Tension
This isn’t the first time India’s armed forces have been restrained mid-conflict. In past skirmishes too — including the Kargil War and the Balakot airstrikes — the military operated under strict political instructions.
Why? Because retaliation is one thing. But triggering a full-scale war with a nuclear-armed neighbor is quite another.
Still, the frustration inside the services is palpable. Privately, many officers argue that the enemy doesn’t care about the rules of engagement. So why should India?
One former IAF officer, speaking on background, said bluntly: “If we’d been allowed to take out the air defences on Day 1, those pilots would’ve returned.”
This Isn’t Just About Jets. It’s About Strategy.
The losses — whether three or five — hurt. But what’s sparked debate inside Delhi’s security circles is the broader message. Did India’s political leadership blink too early?
A short paragraph here won’t hurt.
Publicly, the government has stayed quiet. There’s been no official briefing on the aircraft losses. Nor any comment on whether military commanders sought broader targeting options — and were refused.
What we do know is that the restraint was intentional.
Here’s a quick summary of what Captain Shiv Kumar’s revelation hints at:
-
The IAF was directed not to destroy Pakistani military radar or bases.
-
Pilots were tasked with surgical strikes on terrorist camps only.
-
This approach exposed Indian aircraft to hostile anti-air systems.
-
At least some jets were shot down as a result of this political call.
A Balancing Act Between Retaliation and Restraint
The military’s job is to fight. The government’s job is to weigh the costs.
India has always emphasized “strategic patience” — a doctrine that leans more on diplomacy than destruction. But Operation Sindoor marked one of the first times that policy led to tangible battlefield losses, at least according to insiders.
Here’s what this means, in bullet format:
-
Civilian casualties from the April 22 Pahalgam attack forced a national response.
-
Military planners wanted a broader strike list.
-
Political leaders reportedly overruled them to limit escalation.
-
Result: Indian fighters flew into contested skies, unable to neutralize key threats.
It’s a tough needle to thread. And this time, it cost lives in the air.
Table: Claimed Aircraft Losses in Operation Sindoor (Unofficial)
| Aircraft Type | Claimed Lost | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Rafale | 3 | Unconfirmed |
| MiG-29 | 1 | Unconfirmed |
| Su-30 MKI | 1 | Partial confirmation |
| Tactical Drone | 1 | Unconfirmed |
One senior officer we contacted, who asked not to be named, said: “This kind of political micromanagement doesn’t just tie our hands. It risks morale.”
Another called it “Balakot 2.0 — but without the element of surprise.”
The Road Ahead: Silence, Strategy, or Showdown?
There’s still no official reaction from the Indian Defence Ministry to Captain Kumar’s comments. Nor is there any denial — which, in diplomatic-speak, sometimes says everything.
India’s military brass might have to wait longer for a freer hand. But the growing chorus of internal voices is hard to miss. They’re not calling for recklessness — just clarity.
And as Pakistan-backed attacks continue to mount, one has to wonder: Will the next Operation Sindoor look different?
Or will the same political caution rule the skies again?
