Delayed honour: On Operation Sindoor, gains and losses
War is secretive and strategy may require deception. But that is no good explanation for the fact that the Narendra Modi government took over a year before formally acknowledging that six soldiers had lost their lives in Operation Sindoor in 2025. India had launched cross-border military strikes in Pakistan in retaliation for the Pahalgam terrorist attack , in April 2025, that killed 26 innocent people . From the beginning, the government has been reluctant to share any meaningful details of Operation Sindoor even as it continuously kept the hyperbolic self-congratulatory posture. Its decision to not publicly acknowledge and honour the supreme sacrifice of the fallen soldiers contemporaneously was hardly a sign of any wise strategy. Casualties can happen in any military operation and that is a key consideration in any military planning, and more importantly, the political decision to go to war or not. Not being transparent about losses, human and material, may serve the political interests of the ruling party, but not national interest. By trying to be clever and selective about facts, the government undermined its own credibility and did a disservice to those who paid with their lives. Soon after the operation concluded in May 2025, the then Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, paid tribute, during a press briefing on May 11, 2025 , to Indian military personnel who had made the supreme sacrifice, though their names were not disclosed. The cremations were done with full military honours. In August 2025, Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh visited the family of Sergeant Surendra Kumar, who was killed during the operation, while the Ministry of Defence also announced gallantry awards for the fallen personnel. Tributes were simultaneously carried on the Indian Army’s official social media platforms. In the Lok Sabha on July 28, 2025, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that “no Indian soldiers were harmed” during Operation Sindoor . Following accusations that it has misled Parliament, the government is now explaining that the Minister’s remarks were made in the context of reports that Indian aircraft were shot down and were meant to clarify that no pilot was killed during the mission. The government has also maintained that details relating to aircraft losses during the conflict remain operationally sensitive and refused to disclose them. There is a distinction to be made between operational secrecy and requirements of public accountability. War is a stark demonstration of the fact that it is the public that always pays for all actions of the government. A public accounting of the gains and the losses is the best way to ensure wise decision making. Published - June 30, 2026 12:20 am IST Read Comments Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit READ LATER SEE ALL Remove Related Topics Operation Sindoor 2025 / Narendra Modi / government / Pahalgam terror attack 2025 / armed Forces / Parliament proceedings / ministers (government)
- 1The editorial highlights the tension between executive privilege and parliamentary accountability—a cornerstone of India's Westminster-modelled governance. Article 75(3) of the Constitution establishes collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha, making truthful disclosure to Parliament a constitutional imperative. When Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's statement that 'no Indian soldiers were harmed' appeared to contradict acknowledged facts about casualties, it raised serious questions about whether strategic ambiguity can ever justify misleading the legislature.
- 2Operation Sindoor—India's cross-border strikes against Pakistan following the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians—marked a significant escalation in India-Pakistan relations. The government's delayed acknowledgment of six soldier deaths and continued silence on aircraft losses affects India's strategic credibility, as adversaries and allies calibrate assessments of Indian military capability on publicly available information. Major democracies like the United States and Israel have established norms for timely, calibrated casualty disclosure that balance operational security with democratic accountability.
- 3India's Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Rule 8 of the Army Rules, 1954 provide the government legal cover to withhold certain military operational details. However, the Supreme Court has affirmed in cases such as People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) that national security justifications must be proportionate and cannot serve as a blanket shield against accountability. The article's critique—that information about casualties, as distinct from ongoing operational details, could have been disclosed sooner—aligns squarely with this proportionality principle.
- 4The social cost of inadequate acknowledgment of military casualties extends beyond the families of the fallen. Studies in military psychology identify what researchers call 'ambiguous loss' when deaths are unacknowledged, severely affecting families' grief and mental health outcomes. India has approximately 1.4 million active military personnel; the precedent set by Operation Sindoor's casualty disclosure may affect institutional trust among this demographic. India's defence budget stood at approximately Rs 6.21 lakh crore in 2024-25, and long-term public support for such expenditure depends partly on the transparency with which the government accounts for human cost.
Related from CLAT Tribe Blogs
- Operation Sindoor — CLAT Current Affairs Guide
Master Operation Sindoor for CLAT 2026, Phalgam attack, legal angles, IWT suspension, key persons, weapons used & 10 practice MCQs. Your complete GK guide.