Foreign Media First to Report IAF Losses; Govt Keeps Parliament Waiting

On the Government’s Duty to Keep Parliament Informed

June 2, 2025

The Indian public, and even members of Parliament, first learned about the Indian Air Force’s losses during the early phase of Operation Sindoor through foreign media reports quoting Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan on May 31. This confirms that the information about the initial setbacks is not classified on grounds of national security. Why, then, has the central government not provided a clear explanation of what transpired during those four days of armed conflict?

Responding to a question from a Bloomberg journalist on whether Pakistan’s claim of downing six Indian jets was accurate, General Chauhan dismissed the figure as “absolutely incorrect.” But he added that the real issue was “why they went down,” admitting that some jets were indeed lost during the fighting. He said the Air Force understood the tactical mistake, adjusted its strategy, and resumed operations two days later.

No official government communication had mentioned any such tactical setback or adjustment. No parliamentary briefing had followed the operation.

It is worth recalling how, during the 1999 Kargil conflict, regular briefings were held in Delhi, and updates came from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Defence, and the military leadership.

In a country where the military operates under civilian control—because it reports to the Minister of Defence, who is part of the civilian government—the government has an obligation to keep Parliament informed and the public aware, especially after a military operation, for purposes of accountability. Elected leaders do not own the state. They hold temporary authority to act on behalf of the people, and they must account for what is done in their name.

This is why, even in wartime democracies like the United Kingdom during the 1982 Falklands War, the government submitted to questioning in Parliament within days of the operation’s launch. One of the criticisms against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was that her government had failed to anticipate and prevent the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands in the first place. There was also concern that Thatcher used the war to boost her domestic political standing, especially as her popularity had been declining due to a struggling economy and rising unemployment. Thatcher addressed both criticism and praise.

In “The Soldier and the State” (1957), political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote about “objective civilian control,” a model in which the military remains professional and politically neutral, while firmly subordinate to a civilian government that exercises strategic oversight without politicising the armed forces. According to Huntington, the best way to ensure this control is not through constant interference in military affairs but by drawing a clear line between the military’s operational autonomy and the civilian government’s strategic and political authority.

In civil-military relations, the government is not the only party representing civilian authority. Parliament plays an indispensable role. It is the main institution through which the government is held accountable.

The government holds the authority to direct military action. It sets strategic objectives, mobilises resources, manages intelligence inputs, and communicates with military leadership. In situations of urgency, such as war or cross-border operations, it acts swiftly to safeguard national interests. It also has access to classified information and controls diplomatic and defence policy. But this authority comes with a duty: to report back to the legislature, explain decisions taken, and justify outcomes.

Parliament, on the other hand, is the institutional mechanism through which the people exercise oversight over the executive. It does not command military operations, but it authorises defence budgets, debates national security policy, and demands transparency. Its role becomes critical after a conflict: to evaluate whether the government acted lawfully, wisely, and proportionately. Parliamentary committees, opposition leaders, and debates provide structured ways to question and hold the government to account.

When a government conducts a military operation and withholds key information from elected representatives, it weakens the very institutions meant to exercise that oversight. This not only disturbs the civil-military balance but risks turning military actions into political tools, with no checks on how or why they are authorised, conducted, or presented to the public. In Huntington’s terms, such a breakdown invites politicisation, erodes professionalism, and damages the democratic chain of accountability.

Woodrow Wilson, who was a political scientist before becoming U.S. President, argued in 1885 that the key role of a legislature—like Congress in the U.S. or Parliament in India—was to keep the public informed, even more important than making laws. In his view, transparency and public accountability were at the heart of democratic governance, and it was Parliament’s duty to question, investigate and communicate what the government was doing, especially on matters of national importance.

If a government chooses to conceal key facts about a military conflict—such as combat losses or the influence of external powers in arranging a ceasefire—it erodes the foundation of that accountability.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Allowing a foreign power to claim credit for the outcome of a regional conflict, without adequate explanation or rebuttal, leaves India’s diplomatic position vulnerable. The government owes an explanation to Parliament.

If citizens and Parliament are excluded from the process of knowing and questioning, who is the government ultimately accountable to? The state cannot claim legitimacy through elections alone while bypassing the very institutions through which that legitimacy is exercised.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.