Strategic restraint or reckless expansion? A tale of two generals

As India’s Gen Anil Chauhan admits to air force losses in May’s clash with Pakistan, contrasting messages from Islamabad and New Delhi raise concerns about South Asia’s stability

NEWS ANALYSIS

June 1, 2025

ON the last day of May, India’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Anil Chauhan, made a striking admission that confirmed what Pakistan has maintained since the intense air and artillery exchanges of 7–10 May. In interviews with international news organisations Reuters and Bloomberg, Gen Chauhan conceded that Pakistani fighter pilots had indeed succeeded in shooting down at least one Indian jet during the skirmishes.

While he dismissed Pakistan’s claim of downing six Indian aircraft as “absolutely incorrect”, his acknowledgment was still a significant moment — particularly for an Indian military and media ecosystem that is often reluctant to concede losses.

In a conversation with Bloomberg on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Gen Chauhan reflected on the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) response to the setbacks inflicted by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). He revealed that following the initial blows, the IAF aircraft remained grounded for two days. During this pause, the Indian military recalibrated its approach, returned to the drawing board, and then launched retaliatory strikes on several Pakistani airbases, including one near Islamabad.

Yet the most consequential part of Gen Chauhan’s remarks had less to do with aerial tactics and more with strategic doctrine. He stated that both countries had acted with “rationality and maturity” and assured that there had been “no threat of a nuclear war at all”. However, he went on to suggest that there remains substantial space for conventional warfare beneath the nuclear threshold — a claim that risks undermining the very notion of strategic restraint he had earlier praised.

This assertion becomes particularly problematic when contrasted with the more nuanced and cautionary approach adopted by Pakistan’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC), Gen Sahir Shamshad Mirza, who also spoke at the Singapore forum. At a panel discussion titled “Regional Crisis Management Mechanisms”, Gen Mirza made a compelling case for moving beyond the mere management of conflicts toward their resolution.

“It has become imperative to move beyond conflict management towards conflict resolution,” he asserted. “This will ensure sustainable peace and assured crisis management.” He went further to underscore that a durable peace in South Asia hinges on the early resolution of the Kashmir dispute in line with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

Gen Mirza also warned of a significant blind spot in the region’s crisis architecture. “Given the Indian polity’s extremist mindset,” he cautioned, “the absence of a crisis management mechanism may not give enough time to global powers to intervene and effect cessation of hostilities. They will probably be too late to avoid damage and destruction.”

Most media organisations covering Gen Chauhan’s remarks have focused on his rare acknowledgment of Indian losses. It was a shocking admission for a domestic audience accustomed to narratives of military superiority. Yet the more dangerous element in his comments lies in his apparent willingness to expand the space for conventional military engagement beneath the nuclear threshold — a strategic shift with potentially catastrophic consequences.

When comparing the two military leaders’ approaches in Singapore, the difference in tone and substance is stark. Gen Mirza came across as a composed, pragmatic professional advocating long-term peace through dialogue and institutional mechanisms. In contrast, Gen Chauhan appeared more rigid — a figure determined to press the limits of strategic restraint, even if that means treading dangerously close to escalation.

In a region where the stakes are as high as they are in South Asia — with two nuclear-armed neighbours sharing a history of unresolved disputes, mistrust, and limited crisis management tools — leadership matters immensely. Strategic clarity, not ambiguity; diplomacy, not adventurism; and conflict resolution, not managed hostility, must be the order of the day.