Jo uchit samjho, woh karo…
This is a powerful line for a politician to say to a military commander. It grants autonomy, freedom of action, and a genuine carte blanche, precisely what any army commander expects from elected civilian leadership when selecting a course of action grounded in military realities.
So what, then, is the problem if a defence minister says this to the Chief of Army Staff when calling to ask how an enemy advancing over the horizon should be handled?
The issue lies in timing and intent.
These words are music to a commander’s ears if they are spoken upfront, immediately, on the very first call, after the situation has been clearly understood, options openly discussed, impacts assessed, and explicit clearance given to act at will, with military logic alone guiding decisions, with express and complete political backing for all and every eventuality that will result from them. In that moment, the phrase signals courage, even audacity, and reflects strong, decisive leadership.
However, when the very same words are uttered after hours of dithering, delaying, hedging, and “let us get back to you” evasions, while the enemy is virtually at the defenders’ throats and troops on the ground are waiting for permission to act to defend their land and their honour, the meaning inverts entirely. Then it is not courage. It is cowardice.
It becomes a calculated attempt at plausible deniability, designed to leave the military commander, from the Chief down to the CO of the unit facing the enemy on a dark night on icy ledges, exposed and doomed if the manoeuvre fails, while keeping the door conveniently open to claim credit if events break the right way. That is not leadership. It is opportunism and cowardice masquerading as a “free hand”.
Know the difference.
