Army veteran Brigadier Anil Gupta has strongly dismissed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi failed to issue “clear orders” during the India–China standoff along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), saying the allegation stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the armed forces operate.
The controversy erupted after Rahul Gandhi cited references from an unreleased book by former Army chief Gen MM Naravane to suggest that political leadership did not provide explicit direction during the tense military face-off with China. Responding sharply, Brigadier Anil Gupta (retd), a senior Army veteran and BJP spokesperson, said such assertions unfairly politicise national security and misrepresent established military doctrine.
According to Brig Gupta, the Prime Minister’s guidance to the armed forces was unequivocal in its intent. He said that a direction such as “do what needs to be done” is neither vague nor inadequate, but instead reflects trust in professional military leadership. He questioned the assumption behind the criticism, asking whether soldiers deployed on the LAC genuinely require micromanaged, step-by-step political instructions during rapidly evolving combat situations.
Brig Gupta argued that Rahul Gandhi’s remarks distorted the chain of command and the autonomy given to commanders on the ground. He accused the Congress leader of dragging the armed forces into partisan debate to stay politically relevant, describing the commentary as misguided and damaging to institutional credibility.
To support his argument, Brig Gupta cited several operational precedents from India’s military history. Drawing from his own service experience, he recalled a September 1992 operation in the Kaksar Battalion Defended Area in Kargil, where Indian forces destroyed enemy bunkers and silenced hostile positions using air defence guns, infantry mortars and artillery. He noted that the action was taken with the knowledge of the Corps Headquarters, without any need for direct political clearance.
He also referred to a 1995 incident in which Indian forces shot down a Pakistani helicopter carrying a brigadier using an Igla shoulder-fired missile on the orders of the Siachen Brigade Commander. The episode, he said, underscored the authority and responsibility vested in field commanders to respond decisively to threats as they emerge.
Looking further back, Brig Gupta invoked historical examples involving Lt Gen Sagat Singh. He recalled how Singh stood his ground at Nathu La in 1967 despite withdrawal orders, and later crossed the Meghna River during the 1971 war even against political and higher military directions—moves that proved critical to India’s victory and the creation of Bangladesh. These examples, he said, demonstrated that initiative and conviction at the command level are often decisive in warfare.
“As a commissioned officer, one has immense authority to deal with challenging situations,” Brig Gupta said, adding that hesitation usually arises from lack of conviction rather than absence of orders. He remarked that if a superior tells him, “Jo uchit samjho woh kijiye” (do what you think is right), it reflects confidence in professional training and judgment, not abdication of responsibility.
The retired officer dismissed post-retirement interpretations of operational decisions as futile when used for political point-scoring. He was particularly critical of Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of making provocative claims to remain in the political spotlight.
Brig Gupta also turned attention to the Congress party’s historical record on national security. He recalled former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s 1961 statement in Parliament questioning the value of Aksai Chin, and argued that if any party had compromised India’s territorial interests in the past, it was the Congress.
The exchange comes amid an already charged political environment, with the government and the opposition sparring over India’s approach to China, even as the Army continues to maintain heightened operational readiness along the Line of Actual Control.
