The age-old debate of whether leaders are born or made continues to rage, with no definitive answer in sight.

Equally perplexing is the question of whether all commanders are leaders, and vice versa.

To shed light on this intricate relationship, we turn to the history of command and leadership, drawing upon the experiences of countless leaders across diverse contexts.

My own military journey of 34 years offers a unique perspective. While seemingly a small fraction, the four years I spent in pure command positions were profoundly impactful and fulfilling.

Although my career encompassed various roles – staff officer, instructor, trainer, and troop leader – it is the command experiences that loom largest in retrospect.

This raises intriguing questions: Were those command years defined solely by authority, or did leadership play an equal part? Can command and leadership truly be separated? Is leadership more critical in times of conflict?

And ultimately, how do these concepts manifest in the military and beyond, particularly in the wake of the 2024 revolution?

This exploration seeks to delve into these questions, examining the theoretical underpinnings of command and leadership and contrasting them with the realities on the ground, both within the military context and in the wider world, shaped by the transformative events of 2024.

But before addressing the complex interplay between command and leadership, it's crucial to establish a clear understanding of each concept.

Command, as defined in established literature, represents the formal authority vested in an individual by virtue of their rank or assignment.

It grants the legal right to issue orders and direct subordinates in the execution of tasks, prioritizing mission accomplishment above all else.

Command inherently carries with it an air of dignity, honor, and responsibility. However, possessing command authority doesn't necessarily guarantee effective leadership.

Leadership, on the other hand, is a dynamic process of influence. It involves inspiring and motivating individuals to willingly contribute to a shared goal, with an emphasis on ethical conduct.

Leaders earn authority through their integrity and actions, not just their position. Leadership can exist without formal command, and in fact, it often enhances and amplifies the effectiveness of command, rather than the other way around.

While all leaders may possess the qualities of a commander, not all commanders necessarily demonstrate true leadership.

The relationship between command and leadership

This inherent tension between command and leadership necessitates a nuanced exploration of their relationship.

Rather than challenging established definitions, we must examine the diverse perspectives on command and how they play out in practice. This will enable a deeper understanding of how these concepts intertwine and influence one another in various contexts.

To assess the true nature of command in peacetime, we must examine it against the backdrop of our established definitions of command and leadership.

Does authority, or influence, hold greater sway in this context?

Peacetime command can often be characterized by a sudden realization of authority and the privileges associated with a powerful position.

Hierarchical structures dominate, with limited opportunities for collegial partnerships or navigating opposition.

The focus shifts towards executing instructions, issuing orders, organizing events, and managing resources. Routine tasks prevail in the absence of significant challenges, leaving minimal room for leadership to flourish.

Instead, management takes center stage, while command remains a constant by default.

Leadership opportunities in peacetime may arise during collective training periods or within the military justice system, where relying solely on authority proves insufficient.

However, these instances are limited. Consequently, the balance between command and leadership becomes skewed, with command occupying a disproportionately larger share compared to leadership in peaceful environments.

This imbalance highlights the distinct dynamics of command in peacetime, where the emphasis on maintaining order and managing routines can overshadow the need for inspirational leadership.

My experience with command in a conflict environment unfolded during counter-insurgency operations in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

First as a battalion commander, and later leading a brigade, I faced a vastly different landscape. Beyond the expansion of power, authority, and privilege, the complexities multiplied.

I grappled with a larger and more diverse force, a wider geographical area of operations, and the inclusion of numerous socio-political stakeholders. This intricate web of factors significantly magnified the challenges of command.

Suddenly, the role of "command" in its traditional sense seemed to shrink. The hostile environment, coupled with the dynamics of collaborating with civilian partners, presented immense challenges.

Despite the military's long-standing contributions to conflict resolution and socio-economic development in the region, a lingering negative perception persisted among some stakeholders.

Adopting with changing landscape and mindset

Navigating this complex terrain required a paradigm shift in military mindset. The focus was not on winning a war, but on achieving peace.

Victory became synonymous with establishing lasting peace, a concept that proved difficult to define and measure. Setting clear goals, establishing benchmarks, and outlining tasks were far more intricate than in a non-conflict setting.

Engaging with diverse stakeholders, including influential elites, local communities, political representatives, and youth groups, demanded nuanced approaches.

Building trust and fostering collaboration were paramount.

Each group presented unique challenges: the older generation needed encouragement to embrace the perspectives of the youth; public representatives required guidance and alignment; political figures needed to be treated as partners rather than superiors; and the younger generation, along with women, responded most positively to charismatic leadership.

Within this intricate environment, my direct command authority extended only to the combat troops, who, unlike in peacetime, were not my sole focus.

Moreover, these troops included personnel from different services, each requiring tailored leadership approaches despite their shared operational role.

This experience underscored the dynamic nature of command in a conflict zone. It became less about issuing orders and more about building consensus, fostering collaboration, and adapting to a constantly evolving situation.

Leadership, rather than pure authority, proved crucial in navigating the complexities and achieving the ultimate goal of peace.

Even commanding the combat troops in this conflict environment was far more complex than in peacetime. While authority was essential, it was leadership that truly allowed me to navigate the intricate network of stakeholders.

The constant dilemma was balancing the need for military action with the imperative of minimizing harm to civilian populations and preventing collateral damage.

Unlike in peaceful settings, my direct involvement was crucial even for seemingly minor issues that had the potential to escalate.

Conversely, larger routine matters could be delegated if they didn't directly impact combat operations. While the tasks I assigned were tactical in nature, the approach often demanded an operational or even strategic perspective.

This meant constantly engaging with diverse stakeholders. While directing combat operations, I also became a social activist, embedding myself within the local communities.

I lectured in colleges, exploring the historical roots of the conflict, delivered public speeches, and even participated in religious ceremonies of different faiths.

This approach allowed me to build trust and rapport with the local population, often surpassing the influence of political and public representatives.

Rewards of embracing dynamic approach

This "political" approach to operational challenges yielded remarkable results. For instance, during a communal clash, my standing within the community was such that all parties accepted my intervention to restore peace and normalcy.

Reflecting on this experience, it becomes clear that leadership played a far more significant role than formal command.

Navigating the complexities of the conflict, building consensus, and fostering collaboration were all crucial to achieving success.

The "pie" of command, in this context, was heavily weighted towards leadership, highlighting its paramount importance in achieving peace and stability in a conflict zone.

The dilemma persists: can the brief period described above, stretched across a long timeline, be considered a true test of command or leadership worthy of executing a mission?

The traditional military understanding of command and leadership finds itself at a crossroads when juxtaposed against the leadership that emerged during the recent 2024 revolution, led by a dynamic and youthful generation.

This new wave of leaders shattered conventional notions of command and centralized leadership as essential tools for accomplishing a mission.

The orthodox belief that leadership cannot be shared was decisively proven wrong. The 2024 revolution was not steered by a singular figurehead but by dozens of leaders operating at various levels, all sharing the same zeal, courage, and determination to carry the mission to completion.

Thousands of brave individuals, aged sixteen to thirty, male and female alike, donned jeans and hijabs and, armed with nothing but sticks and stones, faced off against well-trained forces.

They fought not with the benefit of formal training, large budgets, or organized infrastructure, but with sheer willpower and a clear vision of their rights.

This unprecedented uprising generated countless leaders, leaving traditionalists like us—seasoned in conventional professional leadership—deeply confounded.

The revolution raises fundamental questions: Should we continue to seek leadership in the form of battlefield commanders, forged in the crucible of traditional conflict, or should we embrace the decentralized and collective leadership exemplified by the revolutionaries?

Leaders such as Asif Mahmud, Abu Baker Majumder, Nahid Islam, Hasnat Abdullah, Sarjis Alam, Nusrat Tabassum, and Umama Fatima embodied this new paradigm of leadership during the 2024 revolution.

Their courage, ingenuity, and ability to inspire others challenge the very foundations of what we once believed leadership to be.

—---

Brigadier General (Retd) AF Jaglul Ahmed, ndc, psc, Phd a regular contributor in national daily’s