rahul.singh@​hindustantimes.com

New Delhi : Former Army chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane on Thursday said that framing a national security strategy was a prerequisite for taking theaterisation forward to optimally utilise the military’s resources for future wars and operations, and without such a well-defined strategy, pursing the long-awaited reform would be akin to “putting the cart before the horse”.

Reigniting the debate on theaterisation, Naravane, who was delivering a talk on theaterisation at the 4th General KV Krishna Rao Memorial Lecture, said: “Theaterisation is not an end, it is only a means to an end. That end has to be specified first in the form of a national defence strategy. That defence strategy, in turn, has to flow out of a national security strategy. Unless there is a national security strategy in place, to just keep talking about theaterisation is actually putting the cart before the horse.”

Army chief General Manoj Pande, who spoke earlier at the same event, said the army was fully committed to theaterisation.

Naravane’s comments assume significance as he was the army chief till April 30, 2022. A national security strategy essentially outlines the path that a country should take to realise its national objectives and interests. The lack of such a strategy has been a subject of discussion within the strategic community for years.

Naravane spoke of theaterisation in the context of the Japanese campaign against British forces in Malaya, and the fall of Singapore, during World War II — the Japanese victory centered around its joint warfare doctrine.

In his keynote address before Naravane’s talk, General Pande touched upon jointness and integration, saying the army was fully committed to and supportive of any efforts towards evolving theatre commands. “We are convinced that that’s the future…We are also looking at how best we can aggregate the capabilities of the three services…and achieve the integrated theatre command model,” Pande said.

Efforts to push theaterisation are on after the appointment of General Anil Chauhan as chief of defence staff (CDS) in September-end even though the momentum was hit after his predecessor, General Bipin Rawat, died in a helicopter crash last December.

“Once we have a national security strategy in place, we will also need interface between the government who has made this strategy and the commanders on the ground, which is what is the higher defence organisation (HDO),” Naravane said. HDO refers to a platform that would serve as an interface between the government and the military leadership.

“HDO has to reflect the whole-of-government, the-whole-of-nation approach because it is nations that fight wars. It is not HDO only of the defence ministry, it has to have the representatives of all ministries. Once decisions are arrived at, the armed forces are free to do their job, and all the other coordination must be carried out by this organisation,” the former army chief said.

To be sure, Naravane said in October 2020 that the creation of theatre commands to increase synergy among the three services would be a “deliberate and thoughtful” process, its fruition would take a “number of years,” and “mid-course corrections” might be required along the way.

Only when these two pillars are in place — a national defence and security strategy and HDO — can we start thinking about theatre commands, Naravane said on Thursday.

The theaterisation model being pursued under General Rawat sought to set up four integrated commands – two land-centric theatres, an air defence command and a maritime theatre command. The armed forces currently have 17 single-service commands spread across the country.

The army and air force have seven commands each, while the navy has three.

Naravane raised questions about the charter of the proposed theatre commands.

“HDO is required because within the national security strategy that is laid down, there will be other political or diplomatic considerations…which would limit the freedom of action which is given to the theatre commanders. The charter of theatre commands, their role…that has to come from the top. We cannot on our own say we will fight a two-front war. What is the charter, what is the depth… Is the charter only defence of the borders and territorial waters? Or do we have to go deeper into our area of interest? It has to come from the top, and once that is laid down, that will dictate the force structuring of the theatres, their composition and which service will be the lead service,” he said.

One of the issues confronting the theaterisation drive is the Indian Air Force’s resistance to the model that was earlier under consideration. IAF’s concerns raised questions about the viability of the model, and indicated that interservice differences are still to be reconciled.

“Whatever is decided at the end of the day must be integrated and implemented whole-heartedly. There will always be differences of opinion. The theater strategy must take precedence over single-service philosophy. That is the only way we can do it. If we try to satisfy everyone, we will end up satisfying no one,” Naravane added.

Experts, however, said that while a national security strategy is important, it should not hold up theaterisation.

“Many of us have pointed out the need for a national security strategy that would provide the basis for a national defence strategy. This would help in formulating a long-term capability development plan for the military,” said former Northern Army commander Lieutenant General DS Hooda (retd).

But it may not be entirely right to state that major structural reforms in the military can only come about after the national security strategy is brought out, Hooda said. “The need for jointness and integration is quite obvious.”

A lot of work is going on the behind the scenes to speed up the theatersisation drive, officials aware of the matter said. “Crucial time was lost after General Rawat’s death. We are trying to make up lost ground,” said one of them, asking not to be named.