When Deterrence Meets Debate: The COAS Controversy

Paromita Das

New Delhi, 11th October: On 8 October 2025, a seemingly routine YouTube video by a retired Indian Army officer and defence commentator ignited an unexpected firestorm. His analysis of the Chief of Army Staff’s (COAS) recent remarks—particularly the warning that “Pakistan should think about its geography and history before misadventures”—was branded as “dangerous for Pakistan.” Yet, it wasn’t the statement’s surface interpretation that stirred debate; it was the deeper suggestion that Bharat’s military deterrence, in his view, had eroded since the 1990s due to a vanishing “will to fight.”

The episode quickly went viral, especially on Pakistani social media, where selective quotes were amplified to question Bharat’s military confidence. What followed was a rare intersection of military theory, political symbolism, and national perception—raising questions about who defines deterrence in a democracy and how rhetoric shapes its credibility.

The Context: Rhetoric and Reality on the Border

The retired officer’s video came soon after the COAS’s forward-area visit—a practice that blends leadership visibility with morale assessment. The commentator’s claim that the media presence during such visits signals political theatre rather than operational intent reflects a dated understanding of military–media relations.

In today’s era of transparency and public communication, forward visits serve dual purposes: reassuring citizens and deterring adversaries. To suggest that televised statements dilute military professionalism overlooks how contemporary strategic communication works. Operational briefings, closed-door reviews, and unpublicized interactions remain part of every such visit—elements the critic had no firsthand knowledge of.

His commentary, thus, leaned on conjecture rather than insight, presenting a skewed reading of institutional practice.

Redefining Deterrence: Between Will and Capability

A key theme of the video revolved around deterrence theory. The speaker insisted that deterrence depends not on what a nation says, but how its adversary perceives its willingness to fight. He argued that Bharat’s “deterrence posture” toward Pakistan has weakened—not due to equipment or manpower—but because of an “absence of will.”

While intellectually engaging, this thesis is conceptually selective. Deterrence in the 21st century is not an emotional function of courage; it is a calibrated balance of capability, communication, and consequence management. Modern deterrence integrates air, cyber, space, and informational dimensions, not merely psychological readiness.

The officer’s dismissal of Bharat’s Cumulative Deterrence Theory, proposed by Lt Gen Rajesh Pant, betrays a limited grasp of strategic evolution. Post-Uri and Balakot operations were never meant to annihilate the adversary; they were designed to shift deterrence thresholds, reinforcing credibility through controlled escalation. To call them failures misunderstands their purpose.

Historical Simplifications and Misplaced Parallels

The video’s historical analogies—from 1965, 1971, to Kargil—sought to portray Bharat’s wars as incomplete victories. He alleged that Bharat lacked residual combat power to destroy Pakistan’s forces outright. However, such assertions overlook the complex interplay of political restraint, coalition dynamics, and global diplomacy that defined those wars.

Claiming that 1971’s success was merely due to Pakistan’s internal collapse dismisses the strategic brilliance of Bharat’s integrated tri-service operations and diplomatic foresight. Moreover, the argument that “statements of dominance hide structural weakness” ignores the comprehensive modernization and doctrinal reforms that have unfolded since the 2000s.

The “Will to Fight” Debate: Between Psychology and Policy

The critic’s fixation on the “will to fight” reflects a romanticised view of warfare—rooted in individual bravery rather than institutional resolve. Operations such as the 2016 Surgical Strikes, 2019 Balakot Airstrike, and Operation Sindoor were not acts of political showmanship, as he implied, but calibrated responses designed to control escalation and preserve strategic stability.

True deterrence lies in deterring war, not winning one. The argument that Bharat’s restraint signals weakness misses the essence of modern statecraft—where victory often lies in preventing escalation, not indulging it.

Political Control and Military Autonomy

Perhaps the most contentious claim in the video was that political centralisation undercuts military credibility. The commentator argued that direct operational oversight by the Prime Minister “reduces the Chiefs’ autonomy,” thereby politicising deterrence.

This notion reflects a misreading of democratic civil–military relations. Civilian control is a constitutional principle, not a weakness. Strategic decisions—especially those involving escalation or cross-border actions—require national integration of diplomacy, intelligence, and public messaging. Far from undermining deterrence, such unity strengthens it by ensuring coherent national signaling.

The idea that deterrence should be left to military institutions alone is not just flawed—it’s undemocratic.

The Peril of Oversimplified Analysis

The retired officer’s analysis, while couched in professional jargon, oversimplifies a complex strategic ecosystem. His portrayal of Bharat’s deterrence as eroded by “political optics” and “lack of will” reduces statecraft to machismo. It dismisses the enormous progress Bharat has made in doctrinal modernization, cyber defense, joint operations, and precision deterrence.

In doing so, his rhetoric inadvertently feeds adversarial narratives. When professional veterans echo enemy propaganda—however unintentionally—they blur the line between critique and compromise.

The Strength of Silent Resolve

The controversy around the “will to fight” ultimately reveals a deeper anxiety about how nations project power. Bharat’s military deterrence today rests not on bluster, but on integrated capability, disciplined restraint, and credible readiness.

The retired officer’s video, in its attempt to question resolve, actually underscores the vitality of Bharat’s strategic debate—open, self-critical, and democratic. True strength lies not in loud declarations but in quiet confidence—the assurance that when required, Bharat will act, not react.