Who should reveal asset losses - Modi govt or Indian Armed Forces?

New Delhi: The recent political furore triggered by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s demand for a special Parliament session, following CDS Gen Anil Chauhan’s comments at the Shangri-La Dialogue, has brought forth a critical question: who bears the responsibility of acknowledging wartime losses – India’s elected government or its armed forces?

At the heart of the matter lies the Indian military's institutional protocol: it is not the elected civilian leadership that confirms the loss of assets in combat but the armed forces themselves. That is precisely why, on May 11, just a day after Operation Sindoor concluded, the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) held a press briefing where he categorically acknowledged that India had indeed suffered losses, albeit without disclosing numbers. This was evidently not a slip or oversight. It was a deliberate strategic stance in line with India's decades-old military communication doctrine.

CDS Gen Chauhan’s interview to Bloomberg TV in Singapore is being presented as a revelation by global media and the Congress leadership, when in fact, it was a reiteration of what had already been communicated. “We made tactical mistakes, we remedied them, rectified them and flew our jets again after two days,” he said. 

On Pakistan’s claim of downing six Indian jets, his answer was unequivocal: “Absolutely incorrect.”

So why are we witnessing a renewed political offensive from the Opposition? If Congress continues to press the Modi government to disclose details of the military losses, is it not, inadvertently or otherwise, calling into question the credibility of the Indian Armed Forces?

This line of questioning risks blurring the lines between political accountability and institutional autonomy. The Armed Forces, and only they, have the mandate to report on asset and personnel losses during an ongoing or recent conflict. Pressing the political executive for specifics, already shared, but within the limits of strategic restraint, undermines the authority and operational discipline of the military.

In fact, by harping on the CDS’s Singapore interview, Congress seems to be walking into a narrative trap. The very questions it raises are those already answered by military leadership, first by the DGMO and then by the CDS. Kharge’s charge that the “Modi Government has misled the nation” and Jairam Ramesh’s claim that Parliament was kept in the dark ignore the timeline of events and disclosures.

What’s worse, the Opposition’s stance also plays into the hands of global media and Pakistani propaganda, which are selectively quoting from Chauhan’s remarks while ignoring the context and India’s existing disclosures. By framing the CDS’s reaffirmation as a “first-time admission,” these outlets aim to suggest a cover-up, when the facts suggest clarity and transparency within the bounds of national security.

The Congress must ask itself: does it want answers or headlines?

India’s military doctrine doesn’t permit real-time enumeration of operational losses for good reason, it prevents escalation, ensures morale, and denies adversaries the satisfaction of claimed victories. Operation Sindoor was a retaliatory strike, calibrated and precise, not a media campaign. Its objective was deterrence, not disclosure.

If Congress believes in the professionalism of the Indian Armed Forces, it must let them communicate what they must, when they must. Anything else amounts to playing politics with the uniform.