India’s military top brass are locked in a heated debate that could reshape how our armed forces fight future wars. At the centre of this controversy is a simple question: Should we copy America and China’s military structure, or stick to what works for India?
The Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, is pushing hard for “theatre commands” – a fancy term for putting Army, Navy and Air Force units under single commanders for different regions. He calls it the “next orbit” of making our forces work together better.
But the Air Force Chief, Air Marshal A.P. Singh, is pumping the brakes. His message is clear: “Hold on, let’s think this through.”
Why the Air Force is Worried
The Air Force’s concerns aren’t about protecting turf – they’re about protecting India’s ability to win wars.
Here’s the problem: Unlike soldiers who march at 20 km per hour or ships that sail slowly across oceans, fighter jets can cover thousands of kilometres in an hour. This incredible speed is the Air Force’s superpower. It means our jets can rush to any hotspot – whether it’s the China border or the Pakistan front – and strike hard before the enemy knows what hit them.
But if we split our already small air fleet into different theatre commands, we’d be like breaking a sharp sword into three pieces and expecting it to cut just as well. It won’t.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
India has only 29 fighter squadrons, and many of these are ageing. We need at least 42 squadrons to properly defend our borders. Now imagine dividing these limited aircraft among different theatre commands. Each command would get even fewer planes, making all of them weaker.
It’s like having only three security guards for a big building and then posting one guard permanently on each floor. What happens when trouble breaks out on the second floor but the guard there is outnumbered? The guards from other floors can’t help because they’re stuck at their posts.
Recent Success Stories
Operation Sindoor against Pakistan proved why keeping air power united works. With centralised planning and lightning-fast strikes, the Indian Air Force crippled key Pakistani targets and forced a ceasefire in under four days – something never achieved before in military history.
This happened because our air power worked as one unified force, not split up or tied down by rigid boundaries.
Similar lessons come from recent conflicts worldwide. In Ukraine, air and missile power forced Russia’s mighty Black Sea Fleet to hide, even though Ukraine barely has a navy. In the Israel-Iran conflict, rapid air strikes decided the outcome within hours.
The message is clear: in modern warfare, whoever controls the skies often wins the war.
Why Copying Others Won’t Work
The theatre command idea comes from America and China, where it makes sense given their massive military budgets and huge fleets of aircraft. But India isn’t America or China.
We have equipment shortages, ageing fleets, and a defence industry still finding its feet. What works for a superpower with unlimited resources might break a country that’s still building its military strength.
It’s like a small business trying to copy the management structure of a giant corporation – the same system that makes the big company efficient could paralyse the smaller one.
A Better Way Forward
The Air Force isn’t saying no to working together – it’s suggesting a smarter approach. Instead of breaking up commands, they propose a “joint planning and coordination centre” in New Delhi.
Think of it like this: keep the brain (central planning) in one place, but let the hands and feet (local units) work together on the ground. This way, we get the benefits of joint operations without losing air power’s natural advantages.
For the Navy, theatre commands make perfect sense because ships, submarines and naval aircraft naturally belong together in maritime operations. For the Army, dividing forces by borders (China front, Pakistan front) also makes sense because soldiers defend specific territories.
But air power is different – it’s meant to be flexible, fast and able to concentrate maximum force wherever needed most urgently.
The Stakes Are High
This isn’t just an academic debate between generals. It’s about whether India can actually win future wars.
If we get this wrong, we could end up with a broken command system that weakens our strongest military asset. As Air Marshal R. Nambiar (Retd.) warns in his analysis for Alphadefense.in: “It would be like building a big bridge on weak foundations – it may look impressive, but it will collapse when we need it most.”
The Bottom Line
India needs military reforms, but they must be designed for Indian conditions, not copied from foreign playbooks. Theatre commands could work, but only if we’re smart about it.
Maybe instead of multiple theatre commands, India needs one unified “India Theatre” that brings all forces together under a single plan. This would avoid confusion and make our military both simpler and stronger.
The Air Force’s resistance isn’t about being stubborn – it’s a serious warning that hasty reforms could make India weaker, not stronger, when it comes to defending our nation.
In a neighbourhood where China flexes its muscles and Pakistan remains unpredictable, India cannot afford to get military reforms wrong. Our future security depends on making wise choices today, not fashionable ones.
The sword that protects India must remain sharp and unified. Breaking it into pieces, no matter how well-intentioned, could leave us defenceless when we need protection most.