The theatre of military command

Longstanding biases continue to hinder the creation of theatre commands-essential for battlefield synergy among all three services

- AJAI SHUKLA

India has one of the world's largest militaries, numbering about 1.4 million soldiers, sailors and airmen. It is among the most disciplined armed forces and has won accolades and acclaim across the globe for its bravery and tactical acumen. For almost two centuries, British imperial power across Asia was backstopped by the British Indian Army. In some of the most stirring moments in the history of war, such as the Battle of Ypres in World War I and the Burma Campaign in World War II, Indian troops snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

Yet, to this day, India does not have a well-considered, apex-level, management structure that synergizes the military's combat power during war and nurtures civil-military relations during peacetime. Instead, relations between the generals, admirals and air marshals are rivalrous and competitive, while hostility and suspicion mark relations between the military and its civilian masters.

While this was acceptable, even convenient, during the British colonial divide-and-rule era, independent India's interests demanded more assertive management structures. These began emerging during the country's first major security challenge: The Pakistan-backed tribal invasion of Kashmir in 1947. With Srinagar about to fall, the Cabinet decided boldly to commandeer all of India's civilian aircraft to fly troops into Kashmir. The very next day, close to 100 Dakota aircraft landed troops in Srinagar, pushing back the tribal raiders. India's fledgling government proved capable of snapping out of its pre-independence, pacifist mindset and sanctioning the use of the military in a warlike situation.