Operation Sindoor report collapses under scrutiny!

Serious military analysis requires verifiable evidence, internal coherence and analytical restraint, especially when examining conflict between two nuclear-armed neighbours. The Centre for Military History and Perspective Studies (CHPM) report titled 'Operation Sindoor: The India-Pakistan Air War (7-10 May 2025)' fails on all three counts. Rather than offering a credible assessment of air warfare, it amplifies Indian official narratives, ignores contradictory evidence in the public domain and advances claims that range from speculative to operationally implausible.

At the most basic level, the report's framing is flawed.

There is no established operational history, doctrine or officially acknowledged campaign known as 'Operation Sindoor'. Unlike Pulwama or Balakot — events rooted, however controversially, in identifiable timelines — the label appears to be a post-facto narrative construct. CHPM never explains its origins, command structure or formal authorisation, yet proceeds as if it were a documented military operation.

The pattern begins with the report's treatment of the Feb 2019 Pulwama incident. CHPM presents as settled fact the Indian state's claim that Jaish-e-Mohammed carried out the suicide bombing in IIOJK. This has never been proven through independent forensic investigation, judicial findings or third-party intelligence validation.

The same selective logic governs its account of the Balakot air strikes.

The report repeats Indian claims that munitions struck militant targets, asserting that missiles hit the camp. This narrative was contradicted within days. Pakistan facilitated visits by international journalists and foreign diplomats to the site. Independent reporting showed bombs landing in a forested gorge, with no destroyed structures, no casualties and only damaged trees.

On one hand, the report claims Pakistan aborted its strike mission and dumped ordnance in haste. On the other, it asserts that Pakistani munitions landed near Indian military posts and headquarters. These claims cannot logically coexist.

What the report omits is crucial context. Pakistan stated clearly on the same day that it deliberately avoided striking Indian military installations. The intent was to demonstrate capability and resolve without causing casualties, mirroring the outcome of India's Balakot strike. CHPM inverts this logic to preserve a narrative of Indian coercive success.

The report's treatment of the May 2025 crisis descends further into contradiction. It claims that seven of nine Indian targets were assigned to the Indian Army, yet offers no explanation of how or when the Army conducted these strikes. The narrative then proceeds as if all operations were carried out by the Indian Air Force, which is what actually occurred.

Equally incoherent is the discussion of air operations. CHPM claims Pakistan failed to detect the Indian strike package, yet also claims Pakistani fighters engaged Indian aircraft at the moment weapons were released. These assertions are mutually exclusive. Indian aircraft launched long-range weapons from within Indian airspace. Engagement implies detection; absence of detection makes engagement impossible.

The claim that an Indian S-400 battery ambushed and shot down a Pakistani Erieye AEW&C aircraft some 300km inside Pakistan is particularly implausible. Such an engagement would require extraordinary targeting data, sustained radar illumination deep inside hostile airspace and a complete absence of Pakistani countermeasures. No wreckage, radar data or corroboration exists.

Factual errors compound these flaws.

The report alleges Pakistani missile and air strikes on the nights of 7-8 and 8-9 May. In reality, Pakistan's retaliation occurred only on the morning of 10 May, involving the PAF and Fateh-series missiles. Prior to that, only limited drone surveillance took place. Even the ceasefire chronology is distorted. Pakistan did not "beg" for a ceasefire; it publicly announced an agreed ceasefire hours before it came into effect, following India's own statement of readiness.

Most revealing is the report's asymmetry of evidence. Indian claims of destroying Pakistani air assets are accepted without a single photograph, video or wreckage fragment.