WHY SHOULDN'T INDIAN PILOTS SEEK GREENER PASTURES?

 How Dare You Demand Market Wages?

A Rebuttal to India’s Plea at ICAO to Cage Indian Aviation Professionals

Oh, how the tables have turned! India, with its booming aviation market — poetic in ambitions and tragic in execution — has now taken its grievances to the august chambers of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The grievance? That skilled Indian aviation professionals — pilots, engineers, and technicians — have had the audacity, the gall, the unspeakable nerve to seek better pay and working conditions in foreign skies.

The very idea!

In a working paper drenched in bureaucratic self-pity and cloaked in righteous outrage, the Indian delegation paints a picture where global aviation is apparently being ruined by countries that dare offer Indian talent salaries competitive on the international stage. How dare Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, Lufthansa, or any other airline lure away Indian pilots who have undergone years of rigorous training (often self-funded) and are now drawn by dramatically better pay, working hours, and respect?

Let’s Translate This, Shall We?

What India is really saying is: “We want to run one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation sectors — at global scale — but please let us do so by paying 2005-level wages, keeping pilots chained in endless notice periods stretching up to 6 months, and protecting our homegrown airlines from the consequences of their defective labor policies.”

It is amply evident that the problem isn’t that Indian airlines pay significantly less, run chaotic rosters, or burn out their staff. No. The problem is that those pesky, freedom-loving “Contracting States” are maliciously offering better working conditions to Indian professionals who’ve had enough.

How criminal.

The Tragicomedy of the ‘Orderly Conduct of International Civil Aviation’

One must applaud the sheer creativity of invoking the ‘orderly conduct’ clause from the Chicago Convention — an agreement meant to foster global cooperation — and twisting it to argue that Indian professionals should be held hostage in a market where their labor is undervalued and their wings clipped.

Apparently, pilots choosing where to live and work is now a threat to international civil aviation. Freedom of labour? Pfft. That’s only for IT engineers maybe, not for hard-working men and women who fly jets at 35,000 feet.

Where is this international code of conduct really headed?

Shall we also propose to ICAO that Canada, the USA, or Australia stop luring away Indian doctors, scientists, and tech geniuses, too? Maybe countries stealing Bangalore-based coders should face sanctions?

Of Course They’re Leaving — Why Wouldn’t They?

Consider the reality for an Indian pilot: You slog through flying school (on personal loans), claw your way up to a first officer position, and then wait years — in many airlines — to be upgraded to Captain. Pay? Often a fraction of what your colleagues earn abroad. Contract stability? Shaky, especially after COVID. Work hours? Let’s just say ‘hectic’ is an understatement.

Now cue foreign carriers who offer not only triple the salary but also:

        •       Predictable rosters

        •       Respectful HR policies

        •       Better insurance, benefits, and job security

        •       No bureaucratic fog or DGCA red tape

And suddenly, these professionals choosing to leave becomes a crime worthy of an ICAO investigation?

Airlines Want Labour Mobility — But Only in One Direction

The irony is so thick you could land a Boeing with engine failed on it. Indian carriers, many of whom benefit from global Open Skies agreements, happily fly abroad, recruit expat executives, and demand deregulation when it suits their expansionist narratives. Yet when it comes to their own employees exercising the same rights across borders?

“Not fair!”

They call it “poaching.” No, it’s called a market — one in which individuals sell their skills at the best price they can legally obtain.

Perhaps the real lesson here for Indian airlines is this: If you want to retain talent, pay them what they’re worth. You can’t grow an aviation superpower on the wages of a regional bus driver and then complain when your staff leaves you mid-takeoff.

DGCA’s Role — The Watchdog That Also Keeps the Workers in the Kennel

Instead of protecting the safety of aviation and ensuring airlines treat staff fairly, DGCA has often been a silent accessory to exploitative practices — from inordinate notice periods (up to 12 months, for some!) to opaque medical disqualifications and license renewals.

And now, it wants ICAO to bless a framework that could essentially restrict free movement of trained personnel, camouflaged as “orderly development.” What’s next? Aviation exit visas?

Final Descent — Into Absurdity

What India’s ICAO pitch reveals is less about foreign airlines “poaching” staff and more about a broken HR ecosystem unable to retain its own. It’s a cry for help disguised as a policy proposal — one that seeks to export a domestic inefficiency to the international level, and legitimize it through multilateral diplomacy.

Here’s a radical counterproposal: Maybe, just maybe, Indian airlines should treat their employees like professionals and not indentured labour. Pay them competitively, respect their time, and offer career growth — and they won’t need to look abroad.

Until then, no international code can plug the brain drain — because as long as aircraft can fly, so will the people who fly them.

Air Marshal R Nambiar PVSM AVSM VM & BAR VSM (Ret'd)

INDIA COMPLAINS ABOUT PILOTS LEAVING FOR BETTER JOBS

 

IS DISSECTING SHORT DECISIVE WARS IN PUBLIC WISE?

 WHY WAR LESSONS MUST STAY CLASSIFIED

Air Marshal R Nambiar PVSM AVSM VM & BAR VSM

Admiral Arun Prakash’s recent article, “After Operation Sindoor, Don’t Delay the Stocktaking,” has sparked widespread interest and lively debate. A decorated war hero and recipient of the Vir Chakra for gallantry during the 1971 Indo-Pak War, Admiral Prakash commands respect across military and civilian circles alike. His dual-service career in both the Indian Navy and Air Force lends weight to his strategic insights. However, his critique of the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) performance in the ongoing Operation Sindoor raises a fundamental concern: should lessons from an active military operation be publicly dissected?

While his observations stem from distinguished service and strategic depth, the public dissemination of such analysis—particularly mid-conflict—carries serious risks. As an IAF veteran, I find this deeply unsettling. Revealing operational insights, even with the best intentions, can inadvertently benefit adversaries. Worse still, it risks undermining the morale and operational freedom of our serving forces at a critical juncture.

The Danger of Public Debriefs

Admiral Prakash’s article essentially performs a debrief in public—an approach more suited to secure military settings than open forums. In classified environments, post-operation reviews are indispensable tools. They help commanders refine tactics and strategy through rigorous internal scrutiny. But when operational critiques are published in the public domain, they become treasure troves of information for hostile intelligence.

Modern warfare is not confined to battlefields; it plays out in psychological, informational, and cyber domains. Every detail—sortie rates, weapon choices, target patterns, or even apparent gaps—can be exploited to construct a revealing picture of our operational thinking. In an active campaign like Operation Sindoor, such disclosures risk shifting the psychological advantage to the enemy.

Seemingly minor details, when collated by hostile analysts, can become key intelligence. Past operations like Kargil (1999) and Balakot (2019) underscore the value of disciplined silence. Their success was rooted not just in combat prowess but in operational secrecy that kept adversaries guessing. The same ethos must govern Operation Sindoor.

Moreover, fixating on losses—whether aircraft, tanks, or personnel—harkens back to outdated metrics such as “body counts” or kill ratios, often irrelevant in modern strategic contexts. Victory today is measured in capability degradation, strategic leverage, and deterrence—not simply in numerical attrition.

Secrecy as Strategy

Operational security is not an impediment to transparency—it is a strategic imperative. Kargil and Balakot demonstrated the importance of need-to-know compartmentalisation. In both cases, critical lessons were internalised and applied effectively without media fanfare. The IAF’s ability to maintain the element of surprise was crucial to operational success.

Operation Sindoor demands similar restraint. The IAF has not officially acknowledged any losses—standard protocol during ongoing missions. Once operations conclude, the force has consistently shown transparency in reviewing and reporting lessons learned. Premature speculation or disclosure, however well-intentioned, serves no strategic purpose and risks giving adversaries a cognitive edge.

Instead of dissecting our own performance mid-conflict, public attention should focus on the gains: the rapid degradation of the adversary’s air force and military infrastructure within the first 90 hours of Operation Sindoor. That outcome, rather than our own attrition, should define public perception.

The “Need-to-Know” Principle: Military Security’s Bedrock

The IAF follows time-tested systems of internal review through secure briefings, war colleges, and classified reports. These forums transform operational experience into doctrinal evolution—away from prying eyes. The “need-to-know” principle is not designed to suppress discourse but to channel it constructively and securely.

Veterans like Admiral Prakash hold deep reservoirs of experience. Their wisdom is invaluable—within appropriate forums. Behind closed doors, they mentor the next generation and enrich our strategic institutions. But open analysis of current operations can inadvertently expose tactical or technological gaps, and sometimes reflect an understanding outpaced by new domains of warfare, such as network-centric operations or AI-enabled targeting.

Veterans must also respect that accountability and authority reside with serving personnel and elected leadership. The baton has been passed. Our successors carry the operational burden and must be empowered to do so without being second-guessed in the public eye.

A Call for Discretion

This is not a dismissal of Admiral Prakash’s right to express his views. His service is legendary, and his intention undoubtedly patriotic. But discretion is vital during active operations. Lessons drawn in the crucible of conflict must be protected—not broadcast. The strategic value of such insights lies in their application, not in their publication.

The legacy of Kargil and Balakot is not only one of bravery in battle, but also of operational discretion. Let Operation Sindoor follow in that tradition. Let us trust in the processes that have long guided the IAF and the government to assess, absorb, and act—at the right time, and in the right way.

Veterans have served with honour. Now, let us honour those who serve today—by giving them the space, confidence, and security they need to carry forward our proud military tradition.

AIR DOMINANCE TO THE FORE

 90 Hours of Dominance: The Decisive Role of the Indian Air Force in Shaping Modern Warfare

Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar PVSM AVSM VM & BAR (Ret’d)

As an Indian Air Force Veteran, one reflects with immense pride on the unprecedented and decisive role played by the Indian Air Force (IAF) in compelling the Pakistani forces to seek a ceasefire a mere 90 hours after the initiation of full-scale offensive air operations by India. This swift outcome stands as a unique testament to the efficacy of Air Power in modern warfare and marks a significant milestone in Military History.

The catalyst for this telling robust response was the reprehensible murder of 26 innocent tourists in Kashmir on 22 April 2025, a heinous act targeting the Hindu community and demanding a firm, unequivocal and unforgettable answer.   

The Indian Air Force immediately brought its formidable capabilities to bear, deploying a potent combination of advanced aerial assets. This included the agile Rafale fighters, the versatile Mirage 2000s, the powerful Su-30 MKIs, the reliable MiG-29s and the trustworthy Jaguars. Each of these platforms played its predefined crucial role in the ensuing operations, showcasing the IAF's multi-faceted strike capabilities.

The sequence of these historic events unfolded with precision and intensity a fortnight later. Offensive air operations commenced on the night of May 6th/early morning of May 7th at 0115 hours, with pre-planned coordinated long-range strikes against nine identified terrorist camps located within Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. These initial strikes were aimed exclusively at terrorist infrastructure used to perpetrate violence against India and employed vectors such as the Hammer, Rampage, and Spice 1000/2000. The stated intent of India was to differentiate between the State of Pakistan and the state-sponsored terrorist entities funded and controlled by the Government of Pakistan.

Pakistan's retaliatory actions definitely resulted in attrition on the Indian side and caused the conflict to escalate. The IAF reacted with a technologically superior and strategically astute riposte. On the morning of May 8th, the IAF effectively utilised Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) such as the Harpy and Harrop loitering munitions. These assets proved instrumental in neutralising a significant number of Pakistan's Air Defence (AD) assets. Furthermore, the strategic employment of the S-400 Air Defence System against Pakistani aircraft at long ranges demonstrated the IAF's capacity to dominate the airspace and protect Indian assets while projecting power.

The pressure on the adversary was relentlessly escalated. On May 9th and 10th, the IAF executed strikes with long-range vectors. The Rafale aircraft, armed with SCALP cruise missiles, and the Su-30 MKIs, equipped with the BrahMos-A air-launched cruise missiles, conducted deep strikes at multiple enemy air bases with precision. These aerial attacks were complemented by strikes from land-based BrahMos missile systems, creating a multi-pronged assault that overwhelmed Pakistan's defensive capabilities.

The cumulative impact of these relentless and precise offensive operations by the Indian Air Force was undeniable. By 1535 hours on May 10th, the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) of Pakistan was compelled to request a ceasefire. The ceasefire subsequently came into effect at 1700 hours on the same evening. It is pertinent to note that the Indian Air Force, confident in its operational momentum and ability to further degrade the enemy's war-waging potential, was willing to continue offensive action.

The events of those 90 hours underscore the pivotal and decisive role of the Indian Air Force. It was the sustained and impactful application of air power, targeting critical enemy infrastructure and capabilities that directly led to the Pakistani establishment suing for peace in such a remarkably short timeframe. While broader geopolitical considerations and actions by other arms of the military played their part, the offensive air campaign was undoubtedly the principal factor that broke the enemy's will to continue the conflict. The IAF's ability to project power, achieve air dominance, and deliver precision strikes proved to be the linchpin of India's response, compelling a swift cessation of hostilities on terms favourable to India.

This operation will be studied for generations as an exemplary clinical demonstration of how strategic Air Power can shape the outcome of a conflict with unparalleled speed and decisiveness.

AIR MARSHAL RAGHUNATH NAMBIAR
PVSM, AVSM, VM & BAR (Ret’d) 

Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar is an Experimental Test Pilot who has flown 52 types of aircraft, logging more than 5,200 flying hours. He has held numerous prestigious Service appointments in his distinguished 40-year career, ultimately retiring in 2019 as the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Western Air Command. He commanded No. 1 Squadron AF, flying the Mirage 2000 aircraft; was Defence Attaché of India in Israel; Air Officer Commanding of Air Force Station Jamnagar and Commandant of the Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE) in Bangalore, the IAF’s premier flight test organisation. He was awarded the Vayu Sena Medal (Gallantry) for his legendary exploits during the 1999 Kargil Conflict, a Bar to his Vayu Sena Medal for his pioneering work on the Tejas as well as the Ati Vishisht Seva Medal (AVSM) and the Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM) for distinguished service of an exceptional order.