A now-deleted Samaa TV report has thrust Pakistan’s wartime transparency back into the spotlight, after it listed more than 150 military personnel as “shaheed” in honors tied to the May conflict triggered by India’s Operation Sindoor which was aimed at killing terrorists—contradicting far lower official tallies by Pakistan.
Screenshots of the report spread rapidly online, with Indian netizens highlighting the names and decorations before the item was scrubbed; Samaa later pushed back, calling social media claims “baseless.” The episode has revived accusations that Pakistan conceals battlefield losses, even as awards rolls and state ceremonies hint at a far heavier toll.
The Samaa TV leak that exposed Pakistan’s Operation Sindoor casualties
According to multiple accounts, the Samaa article listed approximately 155 names marked “shaheed,” including 146 recipients of the Imtiazi Sanad, alongside posthumous gallantry awards such as Tamgha‑e‑Basalat and Tamgha‑e‑Jurat, and framed the honors under “Operation Bunyanun Marsoos,” Pakistan’s codename for its response to Indian strikes. While the post was deleted, the numbers fueled widespread inferences that fatalities in Pakistan’s armed forces were substantially higher than previously admitted.
Independent coverage also noted Samaa’s removal of the piece and the embarrassment it caused in Islamabad, interpreting the awards roll as an inadvertent acknowledgment of large‑scale losses during India’s precision strikes. The platform’s “fact check” later insisted its report reflected an official ISPR release and dismissed viral claims as propaganda, underscoring the information fog around casualty figures.
What Pakistan officially acknowledges
Pakistan has formally confirmed far smaller numbers: 11 military personnel killed and 78 injured from India’s May 7 counterterrorism strikes, a figure carried by national media and aligned with the government’s restrained public posture on wartime losses. This acknowledgement sits uneasily beside the awards controversy, widening the gap between official statements and the implications of public honors.
Other reporting points to “heavy losses,” including the recognition—at a presidential ceremony—of Squadron Leader Usman Yousaf as killed during Indian strikes on the Bholari air base, as well as injuries at multiple Pakistani bases. These disclosures emerged in coverage of Independence Day honors and lent further credence to the view that the operation’s toll was significant, even if not fully detailed by authorities.
How India describes Operation Sindoor’s impact
New Delhi frames Operation Sindoor as targeted retaliation after the Pahalgam terror attack, with precision strikes on terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan‑administered areas, followed by hotline diplomacy that produced a ceasefire within days. India’s narrative stresses intent to avoid civilian or purely military targets while imposing costs on terror ecosystems, a line reiterated in official briefings and anniversary speeches.
Indian officials later showcased before‑and‑after imagery of Pakistani airfields and described a campaign that hit 11 military bases in under three hours. The Indian Air Force chief publicly presented the strike package’s effects, including damage assessments at sites such as Bholari, Jacobabad, and Nur Khan, aiming to document both reach and restraint. “Within 3 hours 11 bases were attacked, including Nur Khan, Rafiqui, Murid, Sukkur, Sialkot, Pasrur, Chunian, Sargodha, Skaru, Bholari and Jacobabad,” said Lt Gen Rajiv Ghai, India’s DGMO, in a contemporaneous briefing cited by national media.
At a subsequent lecture, Air Chief Marshal A. P. Singh went further on air combat claims: “We have at least five fighters’ confirmed kills and one large aircraft… the largest ever recorded surface‑to‑air kill that we can talk about,” he said, crediting advanced air defense systems. He added, “Our air defence systems have done a wonderful job. The S‑400 system… has been a game‑changer,” arguing Pakistani aircraft could not approach their preferred weapons release ranges.
A pattern of casualty opacity by Pakistan
For critics, the Samaa episode echoes an older pattern. Commentary around the deleted report explicitly invoked the Kargil War, alleging Pakistan had obscured casualties then and, in some cases, left soldiers’ bodies unclaimed—an allegation that remains deeply embedded in Indian memory and resurfaces whenever casualty figures are contested. Whether fair or not, the historical shadow of Kargil amplifies skepticism today when honors lists and official numbers diverge.
The Field Marshal optics and why it matters
On Pakistan’s Independence Day, the state conferred decorations on hundreds of military and civilian figures for roles in the four‑day conflict, including top brass across the army, air force, and navy. Army chief Gen. Asim Munir received the Hilal‑e‑Jurat as part of the honors that celebrated service “during conflict with India,” even as questions swirled about the true costs of the engagement.
One prominent analysis asserted that Munir had elevated himself to Field Marshal in the aftermath of the hostilities and portrayed the move—and the celebration of service chiefs—as reputational armor following a strategic setback. While this is a characterization advanced by independent media commentary rather than an official Pakistani position, its timing, juxtaposed with the Samaa leak, sharpened the perception of image‑management over transparency.
Bottom line on Operation Sindoor casualties
If the deleted Samaa TV roll is authentic, it points to a far higher Pakistani military death toll—north of 150—than the government has acknowledged, transforming a routine honors list into documentary evidence of wartime losses. Pakistan’s narrower official figures and Samaa’s subsequent denial keep the record contested, but the combination of state ceremonies, named awardees, and India’s detailed after‑action disclosures has intensified scrutiny of Islamabad’s casualty reporting—and of the broader habit of opacity that critics say dates back decades.