Former IAF Officer Criticises Theaterisation Plan, Proposes Functional Integration Model for Armed Forces
Military theaterisation—long touted as the future of India’s defence strategy—may not be the ideal path forward, says retired Indian Air Force Group Captain Ajay Ahlawat. Writing in The Print, Ahlawat described the current push for Integrated Theatre Commands (ITCs) as based on outdated strategic concepts that ignore the evolving nature of warfare in the 21st century.
In 2020, the Indian government established the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) and the post of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to spearhead reforms, including the creation of theatre commands. But five years on, the plan remains largely stalled. Ahlawat attributes the deadlock to both bureaucratic friction and a fundamental flaw in the theaterisation model itself.
“Theatre commands attempt to unify the Army, Navy, and Air Force under single, geographically defined commands. But this structure doesn’t match the operational needs of modern warfare, where speed, precision, and domain-specific expertise are paramount,” Ahlawat argued.
He pointed out that air, land, and sea forces operate in fundamentally distinct environments with differing objectives, cultures, and requirements. Trying to physically integrate them, he said, is a “solution in search of a problem.”
Modern Warfare Demands Functional, Not Geographic, Integration
Citing recent conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel’s Gaza operations, and India’s own Operation Sindoor, Ahlawat emphasized that war today is shaped by technologies such as satellite surveillance, drones, long-range precision weapons, and cyber capabilities. These developments make geographic command proximity less relevant.
“Modern conflicts demand agility in decision-making, not simply joint command structures. Integration should be functional — based on purpose — not geography,” he said.
He also referenced CDS General Anil Chauhan’s remark that future wars are likely to be fought in cyberspace and outer space, not traditional frontlines, further reinforcing the argument against rigid theaterisation.
Ahlawat’s Alternative Proposal
Instead of reorganising forces into regional commands, Ahlawat proposes a hybrid model with three geographical commands and multiple functional commands:
- Geographic Commands:
- Western Command (Pakistan)
- Northern Command (China)
- Maritime Command (Indian Ocean Region)
- Indian Air Force:
- Should remain a single, unified national force, due to its strategic mobility and airspace control.
- Internally split into:
- Air Defence Command
- Strike Command
- All other service’s air defence assets should be integrated under the IAF’s AD command.
- Tri-Service Functional Commands:
- Training
- Logistics
- Space Operations
- Unmanned Systems
- Cyberspace
- Strategic Forces
- Design & Development
“Functional commands will foster inter-service synergy, reduce duplication, and allow for efficient resource allocation,” Ahlawat added.
He also suggested limiting the Navy to one Maritime Command with Eastern and Western fleets and assigning island security responsibilities to the Maritime Command.
🧭 Final Thought:
Ahlawat’s vision reorients military reform around functionality rather than territory, echoing a broader debate within defence circles: Should the future of India’s military be about physical integration—or domain mastery and technological readiness?
