Admitting Losses Is Not Defeat: Time for Transparency in India&rsquo;s Air Conflict Narrative
General Anil Chauhan, the Chief of Defence Staff, has done what no Indian official had yet acknowledged publicly: confirm that the Indian Air Force suffered losses in the May 7 aerial combat with Pakistan. His remarks, made during the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, mark a significant &ndash; though cautious &ndash; departure from official silence on the matter.
&ldquo;What is important is not the jet being down, but why they were being down,&rdquo; he said, stressing lessons learnt over numeric clarity. His argument that the loss of platforms matters less than the tactical evolution that followed may well be operationally sound. After all, the CDS himself noted that India re-entered Pakistani airspace with precision and confidence just days later, carrying out deep strikes and asserting air dominance.
Yet, the reluctance to disclose exact figures, even weeks after hostilities paused under Operation Sindoor, raises uncomfortable questions. If the Director General of Military Operations has already admitted that &ldquo;losses are part of combat,&rdquo; then why shy away from stating what the country already suspects?
The government&rsquo;s current stance &mdash; that it is not the right time to reveal specifics &mdash; can be seen as consistent with strategic restraint. In times of ongoing conflict or unstable ceasefire, prudence is often the best form of posturing. The focus, as General Chauhan argued, should be on introspection and improvement, not accounting.
However, the concern remains: does withholding such information serve national security, or is it a political calculation to shield the government from scrutiny? Democracies do not weaken when their armed forces suffer losses &mdash; they weaken when facts are obscured under the guise of political convenience.
Public confidence in military leadership remains unshaken, but transparency from civilian authority is a different matter. Is the silence rooted in fears of tarnishing a narrative of dominance, particularly in an election-charged atmosphere?
Predictably, the opposition has seized upon this ambiguity. Demanding clarity on the exact scale of losses, they argue that citizens have a right to know &mdash; especially when conflicting claims by Pakistan threaten to shape perception internationally. While political opportunism may colour some of these calls, the fundamental question they raise is valid: in a democracy, when and where does national security end and public accountability begin?
To be clear, this is not about echoing adversarial propaganda or undermining military morale. It is about trusting the Indian public to handle the truth with maturity. By acknowledging its losses, India does not appear weak &mdash; it appears strong enough to own the cost of its strategic choices.
As the dust settles on Operation Sindoor, a time for closure must follow. That includes letting the numbers speak, however uncomfortable they may be. Because in the end, as General Chauhan rightly noted, what matters most is what comes after. But what came before deserves to be acknowledged, too.

Operation Sindoor Air Strike in Deep Pakistan (file Photo)

As India admits air losses, debate grows: is secrecy strategic prudence or political fear?

India's Air Losses: Truth, Timing, and Transparency

As India admits air losses, debate grows: is secrecy strategic prudence or political fear?

June 1, 2025 | 11:03 IST

Leave a Comment :