IAF lost the aircraft due to ‘obstruction by political leadership’, saying defense attachment in Jakarta; ‘Quote from reference,’ Embassy. Bharat News

Captain Kumar said the Indian forces were directed to target Pakistan’s military infrastructure or aerial rescue. “To attack military establishments or their aerial rescue due to an obstacle given by political leadership only,” he said, “he said,” Why the IAF suffered a loss of fighter jets, “he said.

“After the loss, we changed our strategy and we moved to military installations … we first gained suppression of the enemy’s aerial rescue and then … all our attacks can easily go using missiles of Brahmas,” he said.

Captain Kumar’s statement explains a reason for the first example of an Indian military officer as to why India had lost the aircraft in Operation Sindoor. This is also the first time that an Indian military officer has highlighted the revised strategy adopted by India after the initial loss during the operation.

After his comment came out, Congress Communications Head Jairam Ramesh sought clarification from the government. “Why are PM refusing to preside over an all-party meeting and take the opposition into confidence? Why is the demand for a special session of Parliament rejected?” He said in a post on X on 29 June.

Later, the Indian Embassy in Jakarta issued an explanation, stating that they were quoted out of the context and just being repeated to the operation vermilion, which was aimed at targeting the terrorist infrastructure.

“His comment is quoted from the context, and media reports are a wrong representation of the intention and emphasis of the presentation by the speaker, the embassy said.

“The presentation stated that the Indian Armed Forces work under the citizen political leadership unlike some other countries in our neighborhood,” said in a veil in Pakistan.

What did the armed forces say earlier

Earlier, the top Indian military officials publicly acknowledged that India had suffered losses of some aircraft, but subsequently adopted the causes and strategic changes.

For example, last month, the head of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan had accepted the loss during the early stages of Operation Sindoor, but did not offer specific numbers. He had told the news agencies in Singapore as to why the jets were demolished, and the way further IAF was given more importance than the number of fighters. He also said that after the air damage initially, India had cured its strategy and went back to a large number of Pakistan to hit its airbase.

His comments marked India’s first official entry to the global audiences, who lost a jet unspent in the operation, although India never denied such damage.

In an official briefing in May, the only official comment on the matter was made by Air Marshal Ak Bharti, Director General of IAF, where they said that the losses are part of any match, the Indian Army had achieved all its selected objectives and all IAF pilots returned home. He had said that he would not like to comment on whether India had lost any aircraft in Operation Sindoor due to the prevailing fighter situation.

Takeaway from Operation Sindoor: ‘Air defense is very important’

Captain Kumar’s 20-minute detailed presentation was part of a seminar of analysis of Pakistan-India Air Battle and Indonesia’s advance strategies organized by Suryaduma University, which was also attended by senior military officers from Indonesia.

While India operated the “punitive strike” as an act of “political signaling” during Operation Sindoor, as a medium of choice with “air power”, the text learned by the military establishment from this operation is that “air defense is very important”, he said.

On the operation from the operation, he said that “air protection is very important and has to be integrated-long distance, medium boundary, shorter border, heritage system-Russian, Indian, can be Israel. (We have also learned) that the era of the human-fed fighter aircraft is not over.”

Among the 21 terrorist camps shortlisted by India, “Based on intelligence, we decided to target nine of them (four in Pakistan and five in Pakistan -occupied Kashmir),” Captain Kumar said.

He said, “The only obstacle given by the government to the armed forces was not to target anything, but terrorist camps – no military establishments, no civil establishments and anything that is not associated with terrorists,” he said about the operation.

Born in Chennai, 46 -year -old Captain Kumar obtained a bachelor’s degree from Naval College of Engineering in New Delhi, and three master’s degrees in Computer Science Engineering, Defense and Strategic Studies and Management Studies, according to his bio. He was commissioned in the Navy in January 2002.

He was serving as a faculty in the College of Defense Management in Secunderabad, before being appointed as defense attaching in the Embassy of India, Jakarta, with concurrent recognition of Timor-Laste.

The official highlighted the evidence about Pakistan’s participation in India’s attacks, mentioning that in addition to the claims and eyewitness accounts of the resistance, technical intelligence confirmed the safe communication hub of the terrorists; Forensic investigation of recovered digital artifacts was also done.

He said that despite giving enough time in India – for more than two weeks – after a response to diplomatic, economic and political domains, Pakistan did not take any concrete measures against terrorist organizations and infrastructure. “When India started Operation Sindor, he said.

Subsequently, the Director General of Military Operations and a spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs told (Pakistan) that India only targeted terrorist camps and did not wish to move forward, Kumar said. “This would be the conclusion of the clash,” according to Kumar, the Indian side also said that “any more attacks will be taken as another escape”.

However, even when Pakistan Operation Sindoor moved forward after the counter-reston of India, he said, “IntenseOn the exact and non-esclery “. On the nuclear situation, he clarified that even India does not have a first use policy, and there is also reliable detention in terms of such attacks,” vengeance will be largely, and Pakistan will end existence “.