Chandigarh: After more than a decade of debate, deliberation and inter-service wrangling, India’s ambitious plan to reorganise its armed forces into Integrated Theatre Commands (ITCs) may finally be moving towards fruition, following the appointment this weekend of Air Chief Marshal Ashutosh Dixit as the new Chief of the Indian Air Force (IAF).Several of Dixit’s predecessors had pushed back strongly against the proposed ITC structure. They had argued that air power simply could not be neatly split up by geographic regions and that aerial assets – especially combat aircraft – needed the ‘flexibility’ to operate between different fronts, rather than being locked down to satisfy the demands of individual ITC heads.Their worries seemed justified, as grappling with a severe shortage of fighter squadrons, and with no quick fix in sight, thinly spreading its limited assets across multiple theatre commands could severely restrict the IAFs operational flexibility. Widespread platform dispersal would also pose the IAF a significant logistical challenge, severely circumscribing its ability to rapidly project airpower in critical sectors during a conflict.Dixit, however, is the first to head the IAF after serving as Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee, or simply CISC, for 14 months, until July 2026, before becoming Vice Chief of Air Staff, and thereafter assuming his present office on Sunday.Military veterans and analysts believe the new ACM’s experience at the helm of this tri-service organisation could stand him in good stead in tackling one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the ITCs: long-standing differences between the IAF on one side and the Army and Indian Navy on the other over how the proposed commands should function. These differences need to be resolved in what would be the most radical overhaul of India’s armed forces since Independence, fundamentally changing how the country prepares for and fights its wars.“As CISC for 14 months, Dixit would, no doubt, have become familiar with the competing arguments and institutional sensitivities surrounding the creation of ITCs,” said a three-star IAF veteran. That experience puts him in a better position than his predecessors to bridge the differences that have held up this major military reorganisation for years,” he added, requesting anonymity.Also read: A Host of Complex Issues Threaten the Formation of the Military’s Integrated Theatre CommandsEstablished in 2001 in the wake of the Kargil conflict, during which serious operational disagreements had surfaced between the Army and the IAF, the Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS) was intended to promote joint planning and coordination among the three services. It was also the institutional precursor to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), a post created some 18 years later, in late 2019, with the principal task of creating ITCs.Subsequently, HQ IDS became the principal staff organisation supporting the CDS, effectively serving as his secretariat and providing the institutional machinery to turn the theatreisation plan into reality.Furthermore, in his inaugural address, after taking charge as the IAF chief, Dixit spelt out his wider vision for the Force by elaborating on the acronym VAYU. ‘V ’, the new ACM said, was for Vigilance, Victory and Readiness; ‘A’ for Aatmanirbharta, or self-reliance; ‘Y’ for Yukti, meaning ingenuity and innovation; and, more pertinently ‘, U’ for Unity of Effort.“In step with the vision of JAI – Jointness, Aatmanirbharta and Innovation – we will plan and fight as one alongside the Army, Navy and national agencies,” Dixit said on Sunday.Significantly, JAI is also Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s mantra for transforming India’s armed forces through greater jointness, self-reliance and innovation, and this very same mantra was invoked by the new Army Chief, General Dhiraj Seth, after he assumed charge on June 30.A cross-section of serving and retired military officers observed that both these newly appointed service chiefs publicly embracing the same JAI formula was a “telling indication” of the renewed emphasis being placed on ITCs. These officers were also of the view that for Dixit it suggested an intent to break with the IAFs long-standing deadlock over the creation of ITCs.A blueprint awaits political clearanceWhen the proposed ITCs will secure approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as it eventually must, and be formally established remains anyone’s guess. After years of deliberations, the armed forces are believed to have submitted their ITC blueprint to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) through the newly created Department of Military Affairs (DMA) headed by the CDS.The proposal must first be endorsed by the MoD before being forwarded to the CCS for final approval. Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh confirmed as much on October 23 declaring that it had yet to reach this final CCS stage. Earlier, in its action-taken report to Parliament in August 2026, the Standing Committee on Defence had noted that the MoD had provided only an interim response on the operationalisation of the ITCs, stating that the matter remained under ‘consideration’.Also read: What’s Holding Back the Military’s Plan to Institute Integrated Theatre Commands?But such delays are only one aspect of the ITC issue, as the question of who will have overarching battlefield authority over them is at the very core of theatreisation and still deeply debated. According to a three-star Army veteran, associated with the ITC project whilst in service, the government runs the risk of creating ITCs first and deciding how they are to be commanded subsequently.Requesting anonymity, this veteran said that the entire ITC exercise still hinged on one crucial question: who will command the commanders in conflict, quite possibly across more than one front?He further noted that while the organisational framework outlining the powers and responsibilities of individual theatre commanders and the three service chiefs, as well as their respective relationships with the CDS, had more or less been settled, crucial questions still remained unanswered: who would have the final say over the ITC commanders, and who would resolve competing demands for scarce military assets during hostilities?The ITC structure envisages three geographical commands – Northern, Western and Maritime – based respectively in Lucknow, Jaipur and Thiruvananthapuram/Karwar, responsible for operations against China, Pakistan and across the Indian Ocean Region. These would replace the existing 17 single-service commands — seven each in the Army and IAF, and three in the IN.These would each be headed by a four-star commander exercising operational control over formations and assets drawn from all three services. The three service chiefs, in turn, would be relegated to raising, training and equipping their respective forces, while the theatre commanders would decide where and how these forces were deployed.But, as a cross-section of officers associated with the formation of the ITCs pointed out, the real test would come when the requirements of different theatres clashed. Who would have the last word if two or more commanders sought the same aircraft, warships, intelligence assets or other scarce resources? And what mechanism would resolve such competing operational priorities, particularly during a real-time, multi-front conflict?Who commands the commanders?On the face of it, the CDS appears the obvious candidate for the task. Yet the post, created in 2019, was not conceived as that of an operational commander, but as the principal military adviser to the government, permanent chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee and head of the DMA. Vesting the CDS with operational control over the ITC commanders would, therefore, require a substantial restructuring of the existing arrangement, with a clear redefinition of the office’s powers and its relationship with the individual service chiefs, as well as possibly elevating him to five-star rank.One reported proposal seeks to address this command dilemma by creating a Vice CDS, who would serve as the principal authority for military operations, with the theatre commanders reporting to him. Under this arrangement, the Vice CDS would be a four-star officer positioned between the CDS and the theatre commanders, ensuring that decisions across the three theatres were suitably coordinated.But this seemingly straightforward arrangement could create as many problems as it seeks to resolve. With the Vice CDS and the three theatre commanders all holding identical four-star rank, the chain of command cannot be left to assumption in a strictly hierarchical organisation like the military. Unless their respective powers and responsibilities are clearly delineated within a well-defined command structure, the arrangement risks adding another layer to the military pyramid but without settling the fundamental question of who ultimately calls the shots.Also read: The Long-Delayed Proposal For Integrated Theatre Commands and Its Many PitfallsThere have also been suggestions that the proposed four-star theatre commanders could report directly to the defence minister, placing the political leadership at the apex of the operational chain. This would bring the Indian arrangement closer to the US model, on which much of the proposed ITC structure and the office of the CDS are modelled.In the US system, operational military authority runs from the President to the Secretary of Defence/War and then onwards to the commanders of the unified combat commands. Formalised under the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, despite being the country’s senior-most military officer and principal military adviser to the President, does not exercise operational command over them.Iindividual US service chiefs, much like their counterparts under the proposed Indian ITC structure, are responsible for raising, training and equipping their respective forces, while the combatant commanders exercise operational control and decide how and where to employ them. This establishes a clear division between force preparation and operational command, while separating political direction from the conduct of military operations.Transplanting the US system, under which theatre commanders report directly to the civilian Defence Secretary, to India raises an awkward question: how equipped would an Indian Defence Minister be to exercise overall direction of military operations during war? Successive Indian Defence Ministers over nearly eight decades have demonstrated little, if any, understanding of military affairs, let alone the operational complexities of conducting campaigns across multiple fronts.Hence, the prospect of their exercising direct operational authority over theatre commanders is simply out of the question, but leaves the central question over ITCs unanswered: who is ultimately in charge?Meanwhile, the IAF’s abiding reservations over ITCs that need resolution have so far been rooted in genuine operational concerns and not merely institutional prestige. Unlike the Army, deployed in defined geographical sectors, or the IN, operating in maritime areas, aircraft can be shifted rapidly between fronts and concentrated wherever a wider campaign demands. Consequently, the IAF wants its combat assets to remain under centralised control, rather than be divided amongst separate ITCs.Its concerns are further compounded by its severely depreciated fighter strength, down to 28-29 squadrons against an authorised 42.5, and one that is imminently expected to shrink further with legacy platforms like Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguars retiring. Hypothetically, if both the Northern Theatre Commander facing China and a Western Theatre Commander confronting Pakistan concurrently demand fighters, surveillance aircraft, tankers and other support assets, who determines which ITC gets priority?“The IAF genuinely fears that resource fragmentation could undermine its ability to concentrate air power where it is most needed,” said a retired one-star fighter pilot. “Aircraft cannot be divided into neat little packets and permanently assigned to individual theatres”, he added, requesting anonymity, “ and this is one fundamental dilemma that the entire ITC structure has yet to convincingly resolve”.Dixit’s outgoing predecessor, ACM A P Singh, had repeatedly cautioned against rushing integration or compromising individual service competencies. While advocating greater joint planning and coordination, including through a tri-service operations centre, as evidenced during last year’s Operation Sindoor, he had cautioned against ‘mechanically copying’ foreign models, insisting that any new formation needed to suit India’s peculiar operational requirements.Dixit’s arrival at Vayu Bhawan, however, offers an opportunity to fast-track the ITC plan. But even then, initiative risks remaining stillborn until the government decisively settles the vexed and contentious question that has bedevilled the entire military jointness project for years: who will command the theatre commanders?