Chinese Expert Exposes Flaws in Indian Air Force Chief’s ‘Shot Down’ Claim

PTV

The Clash That Sparked an International Debate

In May 2025, a tense military face-off between India and Pakistan — known as Operation Sindoor — made global headlines. Recently, Indian Air Force Chief Amar Preet Singh claimed that India shot down five Pakistani fighter jets and one large aircraft during the operation.

However, these statements have now been strongly rejected by Prof. Cheng Xizhong, Senior Research Fellow at the Charhar Institute, China. Calling the claim “comical” and “self-amusement,” Prof. Cheng argued that India has failed to provide any real proof — not even wreckage photos or radar evidence — while Pakistan has presented detailed technical reports supporting its side of the story.

The Heart of the Dispute: Evidence vs. Words

Prof. Cheng’s Key Points:

• No Evidence from India: No wreckage photos, radar tracking data, or independent confirmations have been provided by India.
• Pakistan’s Immediate Response: Pakistan publicly released a detailed technical report right after the clash.
• International Support: Several foreign intelligence agencies and political leaders — including some from India — confirmed India’s heavy aircraft losses.
• Clear Contradictions: More than three months after the clash, India still has no proof, while Pakistan’s evidence is documented and verifiable.

Why Evidence Matters in Military Claims

In modern warfare, satellite imagery, radar logs, and wreckage analysis are essential to verify any aerial engagement. Without these, claims remain in the realm of politics and propaganda.

What Pakistan Claims Happened

According to Pakistan’s report:

Six Indian fighter jets were shot down.

S-400 air defense positions were destroyed.

No Pakistani aircraft were hit or destroyed.

These are not just words — Pakistan’s technical report included radar tracking data, recovered wreckage photos, and on-ground intelligence confirmations.

International Response  A Divided View

• Global Media: Many outlets questioned the Indian Air Force Chief’s claim due to the lack of presented proof.

• Foreign Intelligence Reports: Some assessments, including leaked Western military analyses, backed Pakistan’s version of events.

• Political Voices in India: A few opposition leaders in India have openly called for transparency in military reporting, warning that unverified claims hurt the country’s credibility.

Why Prof. Cheng’s Comments Matter

Prof. Cheng is not a random commentator — he’s a Senior Research Fellow specializing in South Asian affairs. His opinion reflects a growing sentiment among global observers: military credibility depends on verifiable facts.

Quote Highlight:
“We may call it ‘self-amusement,’” Prof. Cheng said, emphasizing the absence of credible, shareable proof from the Indian side.

The Larger Picture  Political Narratives and Public Perception

When two nuclear-armed neighbors like India and Pakistan clash, control of the narrative becomes almost as important as the battle itself.

• For Domestic Audiences: Governments often highlight “victories” to maintain public morale.
• For International Audiences: Winning global sympathy can influence trade deals, defense partnerships, and diplomatic leverage.

Relatable Example for U.S. Readers

Imagine if during a high-profile NFL game, one team claimed they scored three touchdowns, but there was no game footage, no referee record, and no player stats to back it up — while the other team immediately released a video replay showing they scored instead.

That’s essentially the situation here. The credibility gap becomes obvious when proof isn’t shared.

How to Spot Propaganda in News Stories (Actionable Guidance)

1. Look for Proof: Are there photos, videos, or data?
2. Check Independent Sources: Is the claim confirmed by neutral parties?
3. Watch the Timing: Was the evidence released immediately or months later?
4. Compare Both Sides: Read reports from all parties involved.
5. Beware of Emotional Language: Words like “glorious victory” often signal bias