A storm of criticism has erupted following the remarks made by India’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Anil Chauhan, during his interaction with international media in Singapore. Speaking at the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue, General Chauhan made a candid admission that the Indian Air Force had suffered the loss of fighter jets in combat operations—arguably the first official acknowledgment of such a significant event. “We lost jets. These losses occur, and what do we do after that?” he remarked. “We rectify it.”
While the transparency may seem commendable at first glance, the context and delivery have raised several concerns. Critics point out that the CDS chose to reveal this sensitive information not just to foreign agencies like Reuters and Bloomberg, but on foreign soil—a move seen by many as diplomatically tone-deaf and strategically misguided. The manner in which the information was presented—nonchalantly brushing aside the number of jets lost—has further fueled discontent.
More contentious, however, was his bizarre assertion: “The Indian Air Force flew all types of aircraft with all types of ordnances on the 10th.” This sweeping and oddly phrased statement has drawn both ridicule and alarm. Defence analysts and social commentators alike question not only the factual depth of such a generalization but also the choice of vocabulary. The use of the word “ordnances”—a term rarely, if ever, used by senior military leaders—has been seen as a linguistic faux pas. This follows an earlier public gaffe where the term “evidences” was used in an official setting.
The timing of this revelation is equally significant. It comes exactly three weeks after India and Pakistan agreed on a ceasefire, amidst intense media speculation and contradictory narratives. During the height of hostilities, Indian mainstream media had painted an overwhelmingly victorious picture—suggesting major gains and deep incursions into Pakistani territory. However, the latest comments from the CDS now seem to inadvertently validate earlier Pakistani claims about Indian losses—claims that were summarily dismissed by Indian outlets at the time.
In a broader context, this episode has raised fundamental questions about civil-military communication, media strategy, and narrative control. Should a serving military officer be the face of a politically charged military narrative? Why was such a crucial data point buried so deep into the discourse, and why was it addressed only after foreign media pressure?
For many, the key takeaway isn’t just the technical or strategic implication of what was said, but the manner, setting, and casual tone with which it was delivered. As one commentator quipped, “This kind of foolish talk wouldn’t have fit in even with DiCaprio playing Howard Hughes. Scorsese wouldn’t have allowed it.” Perhaps it’s time for a deeper introspection into not just how the Armed Forces operate, but how they communicate—with their own people and the world.