ISLAMABAD – New Delhi had insisted that Pakistan’s use of F-16 againstIndia meant that Islamabad stood in violation of a sales agreement with theUS, which reportedly restricts the fighter jets to be used foranti-terrorism activities alone.

However, Abi-Habib, the *NYT’s* South Asia correspondent, in a series oftweets linkhow Pakistan may not have committed a violation of its sales agreement withthe US even if it did use F-16s to shoot down Indian jets (which the PAFnonetheless says never happened).

“The US says if Pakistan used an F-16 to shoot down an Indian MiG, it maynot have violated sale agreement,” she tweeted.

“They say if India entered Pakistani airspace for a second day, andPakistan used the jet defensively, the contract wasn’t violated. But, ifPakistan used an F-16 to attack India first, then deal was violated.

“Citing weapons experts and officials, Abi-Habib also put a question markon Indian Air Force’s claim that the AIM-120 missile’s remnant that wasdisplayed by New Delhi was ‘proof’ of Pakistan’s use of an F-16 in thecounter-strike to the Balakot incident.

She also said US officials still do not have sufficient reason to believethat an F-16 was shot down by India, as claimed by IAF.