Serious military analysis rests on evidence, coherence, and restraint. The CHPM report “Operation Sindoor: The India-Pakistan Air War (7–10 May 2025)” abandons all three. It amplifies Indian official claims while dismissing or ignoring contradictory evidence in the public domain. The result is not interpretation but advocacy.
This pattern begins with Pulwama. The report presents Indian allegations against Jaish-e-Mohammed as settled fact. No independent forensic inquiry ever confirmed this claim. Indian journalists, analysts, and politicians themselves questioned the incident. Some raised the possibility of a false-flag operation. CHPM acknowledges none of this. Treating a contested allegation as historical fact undermines academic credibility at the outset.
Balakot and the Problem of Selective Evidence
The same selective logic defines the report’s account of Balakot. CHPM repeats Indian claims that missiles struck their targets. It ignores what followed days later. Pakistan facilitated visits by foreign diplomats and journalists. Independent reporting showed no damaged structures, no casualties, and no destroyed camps. Bombs fell in a forested gorge. These facts are widely documented. CHPM omits them entirely.
The report also contradicts itself on the 26 February air engagement. It claims Pakistan aborted its mission and jettisoned weapons. It simultaneously claims Pakistani munitions landed near Indian military targets. Both cannot be true. Jettisoned ordnance does not miraculously land near designated objectives.
What the report excludes is decisive. Pakistan openly stated it avoided military installations to signal capability without escalation. Controlled restraint was the intent. CHPM reframes this restraint as failure to preserve a narrative of Indian coercive success.
Internal Contradictions and Operational Absurdities
The May 2025 section descends from bias into incoherence. The report claims seven of nine targets were assigned to the Indian Army. It never explains how the Army struck them. It then narrates the operation as an Air Force campaign. This contradiction remains unresolved.
The air battle narrative fares no better. CHPM claims Pakistan failed to detect Indian strike aircraft. It also claims PAF fighters engaged them at weapon release. Indian aircraft launched long-range munitions from Indian airspace. Engagement requires detection. The report asserts both impossibility and occurrence in the same breath.
This confusion deepens when CHPM later claims PAF engaged only Indian patrols, not strike aircraft. It never clarifies which aircraft released munitions while being “engaged.” This is not analysis. It is narrative improvisation.
The claim that an Indian S-400 ambushed a PAF Erieye 300 kilometres inside Pakistan crosses into fantasy. Such an engagement would require deep radar penetration, uninterrupted tracking, and zero countermeasures. It would also leave evidence. None exists. No wreckage. No radar data. No corroboration. The report offers assertion without proof.
Timelines Distorted, Evidence Applied Selectively
CHPM further misrepresents escalation timelines. Pakistan conducted no missile or air strikes on 7–8 or 8–9 May. Retaliation occurred only on 10 May using PAF assets and Fateh-series missiles. Before that, Pakistan deployed limited drones for surveillance. These timelines are publicly verifiable. The report disregards them.
The ceasefire narrative is equally distorted. Pakistan did not “beg” for a ceasefire. By noon on 10 May, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister announced that a ceasefire had already been agreed, effective at 1700 hours. Indian officials had earlier stated readiness for de-escalation. CHPM reverses this sequence to fit a political storyline.
Taken together, these flaws expose a deeper problem. The CHPM report does not merely exhibit bias; it is built around it. Indian official claims appear as facts. Pakistani statements are dismissed as propaganda. Contradictory evidence is ignored. Logic becomes optional. This is not strategic analysis. It is advocacy presented as scholarship. Instead of clarifying a dangerous conflict between two nuclear-armed states, the report weakens its own credibility and stands as a cautionary example of how analysis collapses when narrative loyalty replaces intellectual discipline.
The CHPM Air War Report and the Collapse of Strategic Analysis
Serious military analysis rests on evidence, coherence, and restraint. The CHPM report “Operation Sindoor: The India-Pakistan Air War (7–10 May 2025)” abandons all three. It amplifies Indian official claims while dismissing or ignoring contradictory evidence in the public domain. The result is not interpretation but advocacy.
This pattern begins with Pulwama. The report presents Indian allegations against Jaish-e-Mohammed as settled fact. No independent forensic inquiry ever confirmed this claim. Indian journalists, analysts, and politicians themselves questioned the incident. Some raised the possibility of a false-flag operation. CHPM acknowledges none of this. Treating a contested allegation as historical fact undermines academic credibility at the outset.
Balakot and the Problem of Selective Evidence
The same selective logic defines the report’s account of Balakot. CHPM repeats Indian claims that missiles struck their targets. It ignores what followed days later. Pakistan facilitated visits by foreign diplomats and journalists. Independent reporting showed no damaged structures, no casualties, and no destroyed camps. Bombs fell in a forested gorge. These facts are widely documented. CHPM omits them entirely.
The report also contradicts itself on the 26 February air engagement. It claims Pakistan aborted its mission and jettisoned weapons. It simultaneously claims Pakistani munitions landed near Indian military targets. Both cannot be true. Jettisoned ordnance does not miraculously land near designated objectives.
What the report excludes is decisive. Pakistan openly stated it avoided military installations to signal capability without escalation. Controlled restraint was the intent. CHPM reframes this restraint as failure to preserve a narrative of Indian coercive success.
Internal Contradictions and Operational Absurdities
The May 2025 section descends from bias into incoherence. The report claims seven of nine targets were assigned to the Indian Army. It never explains how the Army struck them. It then narrates the operation as an Air Force campaign. This contradiction remains unresolved.
The air battle narrative fares no better. CHPM claims Pakistan failed to detect Indian strike aircraft. It also claims PAF fighters engaged them at weapon release. Indian aircraft launched long-range munitions from Indian airspace. Engagement requires detection. The report asserts both impossibility and occurrence in the same breath.
This confusion deepens when CHPM later claims PAF engaged only Indian patrols, not strike aircraft. It never clarifies which aircraft released munitions while being “engaged.” This is not analysis. It is narrative improvisation.
The claim that an Indian S-400 ambushed a PAF Erieye 300 kilometres inside Pakistan crosses into fantasy. Such an engagement would require deep radar penetration, uninterrupted tracking, and zero countermeasures. It would also leave evidence. None exists. No wreckage. No radar data. No corroboration. The report offers assertion without proof.
Timelines Distorted, Evidence Applied Selectively
CHPM further misrepresents escalation timelines. Pakistan conducted no missile or air strikes on 7–8 or 8–9 May. Retaliation occurred only on 10 May using PAF assets and Fateh-series missiles. Before that, Pakistan deployed limited drones for surveillance. These timelines are publicly verifiable. The report disregards them.
The ceasefire narrative is equally distorted. Pakistan did not “beg” for a ceasefire. By noon on 10 May, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister announced that a ceasefire had already been agreed, effective at 1700 hours. Indian officials had earlier stated readiness for de-escalation. CHPM reverses this sequence to fit a political storyline.
Taken together, these flaws expose a deeper problem. The CHPM report does not merely exhibit bias; it is built around it. Indian official claims appear as facts. Pakistani statements are dismissed as propaganda. Contradictory evidence is ignored. Logic becomes optional. This is not strategic analysis. It is advocacy presented as scholarship. Instead of clarifying a dangerous conflict between two nuclear-armed states, the report weakens its own credibility and stands as a cautionary example of how analysis collapses when narrative loyalty replaces intellectual discipline.
Latest Post