Command & Conviction: The Relationship Between India’s Prime Ministers and Military Chiefs

When the Indo-Pak war clouds loomed in 1971, the relationship between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the charismatic Chief of Army Staff, General Sam Manekshaw (later Field Marshal) MC, became a defining chapter in India’s strategic history.

In April 1971, Indira Gandhi was ready to move militarily to support Bangladesh’s liberation struggle. But in a candid meeting, Manekshaw told her the army was not yet ready—citing monsoon logistics, troop deployment, and equipment shortages. Instead of reading this as insubordination, Gandhi respected his professional assessment and gave him time to prepare.

By December, with the forces in position and international diplomatic groundwork laid, Manekshaw’s army executed a swift, 13-day campaign that led to the creation of Bangladesh. The war remains a testament to how mutual trust—political will aligned with military expertise—can produce decisive results.

To enrich your understanding of this historic moment, consider reading Engineering the Victory March: Bangladesh Liberation War 1971, which offers detailed operational insights into the campaign that led to the formation of Bangladesh.

Also read: The Role of Indian Air Force in the 1971 War

In 1999, India faced an unexpected challenge: Pakistani intrusions across the Line of Control in Kargil. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was determined to reclaim the territory without escalating the conflict into a full-scale war.

Chief of Army Staff General VP Malik, PVSM, AVSM, stood by that political directive, ensuring the Indian Army operated strictly within Indian territory while evicting intruders. This was not just a military operation but also a tightrope walk in diplomacy—maintaining the moral high ground globally.

The mutual understanding between Vajpayee and Malik allowed the military to fight decisively while the political leadership leveraged international opinion to pressure Pakistan. By July 1999, Operation Vijay restored Indian control, cementing the success of a coordinated political–military strategy.

To deepen the narrative around the Kargil conflict, consider Kargil from Surprise to Victory by General VP Malik. Drawing on his front-row experience, Malik offers an incisive analysis of how Pakistani forces infiltrated the Indian side, the critical intelligence lapses that compounded the crisis, and the military strategies that helped turn the tide. The book effectively captures both strategic decision-making and the valour of the soldiers on the ground, reinforcing how General Malik’s leadership complemented Prime Minister Vajpayee’s political resolve, culminating in Operation Vijay and a hard-won victory.

Also read: 5 Must-Read Books on the 1999 Kargil War: India’s Operation Vijay Against Pakistan

When the 1965 Indo-Pak war broke out, Lal Bahadur Shastri had been Prime Minister for barely a year, still living in the shadow of Nehru’s towering legacy. His Chief of Army Staff, General JN Chaudhuri, OBE, was a veteran of World War II but had to navigate a war that began with Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar and escalated into full-scale conflict.

Shastri’s calm composure and Chaudhuri’s battlefield confidence became a reassuring combination for the nation. While Chaudhuri planned offensives like the capture of Hajipir Pass, Shastri delivered the now-famous slogan, ‘Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan’, rallying both soldiers and citizens.

The war ended in a stalemate with the Tashkent Agreement, but the PM-COAS relationship during this period strengthened public trust in the Armed Forces and political leadership working as one.

Also read: Role of the Indian Army in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

Jawaharlal Nehru and General KS Thimayya, DSO, shared a warm working relationship—one marked by mutual respect—but it was tested in 1959 when Thimayya resigned over differences with Defence Minister VK Krishna Menon.

Although Nehru persuaded him to withdraw the resignation, the episode highlighted the fine balance in civil–military dynamics. Despite the personal respect between PM and COAS, larger political considerations often shaped decisions.

Thimayya’s tenure saw the army modernising in the post-independence era, but the relationship also revealed that while military advice is critical, final decisions rest with elected leaders—a principle that has defined India’s democracy since.

Also read: Jawaharlal Nehru's Ceasefire Decision of 1948

In the late 2010s, the relationship between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and General Bipin Rawat, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, YSM, SM, VSM, ADC, the first Chief of Defence Staff (and then COAS), was marked by a series of decisive security actions.

After the Uri terror attack in 2016, Modi authorised surgical strikes across the LoC—a politically risky move that relied heavily on Rawat’s operational confidence. In 2017, during the Doklam standoff with China, the PM’s political firmness and Rawat’s ground-level military judgment helped India hold its position without a shooting war.

The rapport between the two leaders showed how, in modern hybrid threats, military and political leaders must be aligned not just on battlefield tactics but also on messaging to both domestic and global audiences.

Also read: India-China Relations: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective

Not all PM–chief collaborations happen in wartime. In the late 1970s, under Prime Minister Morarji Desai, Navy Chief Admiral Jal Cursetji, PVSM, initiated discussions that would eventually set India on the path to acquiring nuclear submarine capability.

Desai, known for his cautious approach, supported Cursetji’s long-term vision despite fiscal constraints. Though the actual project would take decades to materialise, this was a prime example of how a PM’s openness to professional military advice can lay the foundation for strategic capabilities far into the future.

Also read: Interesting facts about the Indian Navy

While these partnerships played out in very different contexts—from the liberation of Bangladesh to modern-day border standoffs—they share a core principle: the Prime Minister and the military chief operate independently in their spheres, but their effectiveness depends on alignment in strategy, timing, and trust.

Civilian leaders are accountable to the people, setting the nation’s political and diplomatic course. Military leaders are accountable for operational success and the welfare of the forces. When these two roles intersect with mutual respect, India’s security objectives are not just met, but strengthened.

History suggests that in moments of crisis, India’s greatest advantage has been not the firepower alone, but the ability of its leaders—civilian and military—to combine political will with professional military judgment. It is in this convergence of command and conviction that India finds its strength.