Political Constraints Blamed for India’s Fighter Jet Losses in Operation Sindoor

Political Constraints Blamed for India’s Fighter Jet Losses in Operation Sindoor Jun, 30 2025

India’s Narrow Strikes and the Cost of Political Decisions

Here’s something that doesn’t show up in the government pressers: during Operation Sindoor, India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack, a high-ranking navy officer admitted that political constraints actually boxed in the air force. Instead of hitting back at Pakistan with full force, Indian fighter jets were told to avoid any Pakistani military targets or air defences—focusing their attacks only on terror camps. The man behind this reveal is Captain Shiv Kumar, India’s Defence Attaché to Indonesia, who laid it out in front of a Jakarta audience earlier this month.

Kumar revisited the operation, which launched after the deadly 22 April assault in Pahalgam. He was blunt: yes, there were jet losses. But he pushed back against rumors that India lost as many as six jets, including three high-profile Rafales. Still, he agreed that fighter jets did go down and pointed the finger at a policy restricting Indian pilots from taking out Pakistani air defences or military infrastructures. In his view, these lost jets were casualties of political caution rather than technical flaws or pilot errors. The orders came from the top: don’t escalate, keep it surgical, and make sure no Pakistani assets outside the terror camps take a hit.

The operation was targeted: nine specific terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir got the attention of India’s strike teams. And while that shows capability, Kumar stressed that all these actions were really political signals—shouting across the border without actually breaking the glass. Everything about Operation Sindoor was tightly controlled, with a clear message to the international community: we’re not here to start a war, but we won’t just sit silently after terror attacks either.

Questions Over Civilian Safety and the Morality of War Decisions

As if downed jets weren’t enough, there’s another controversy swirling around Operation Sindoor—one that would make any frequent flyer uneasy. Reports surfaced suggesting that, during the strikes, Indian authorities redirected some commercial flights into airspace close to, or directly over, conflict zones. Now, that isn’t standard practice, and it’s raised more than a few eyebrows in civil aviation and human rights circles. While officials haven’t admitted wrongdoing, critics argue this practice could have put civilian passengers at unnecessary risk, just to serve tactical or appearance purposes.

  • Restricted engagements: Indian pilots couldn’t neutralize Pakistani military defences, making their missions more dangerous.
  • Aircraft losses: The operation saw jets going down—details are still murky, but political orders seem to be a shared theme behind the losses.
  • Ethical questions: Possible routing of commercial flights into danger zones may have endangered civilians, raising new moral dilemmas about military decision-making.

Operation Sindoor has now become a case study in how military strategy gets molded by the politics of escalation. The choice to avoid direct conflict with Pakistan’s military might have satisfied global pressure and diplomatic balance, but it meant Indian fighter pilots had to operate under heavier risk, and perhaps pushed the envelope on what’s acceptable when it comes to non-combatant safety. The story isn’t just about jets and targets—it’s about how far a nation will go to make a statement without making war, and what gets lost in translation when politics trumps military doctrine. Operation Sindoor might be over, but the second-guessing is just beginning.