India's Unparalleled Military Operations: Part 1

 

The Many Roads to Rome 

Operation Sindoor continues to be a popular topic of discussion among military thinkers, policymakers, arms manufacturers, and the self-proclaimed vocal strategic affairs experts proliferating over the equally expanding audio-visual modes of communication. Every aspect of the operation continues to be flogged emotionally with  intentional or inherent bias, but with louder claims of being bias less. The common refrain in all these discussions and analyses is that Operation Sindoor was a multidomain operation combining military precision with diplomatic and strategic messaging, unparalleled in the history of independent India. 

Let us first be on even keel on ‘multi-domain’ that experts now endlessly talk about. According to me, ‘multi domain’ typically includes the well-known conflict domains of land, maritime, air, and the recently evolved realms of cyber, information, space, electromagnetic spectrum, intelligence, and now the all-pervasive narrative and optics management. The presence of so many individual domains matters, but their amalgam becomes a force to reckon with only when there is interoperability among them, ensuring synchronised application before and during the operation. Each expert adds his or her own set of arguments to arrive at the destination many others have already reached. Finally, everybody agrees that OP Sindoor was exceptional and unparalleled. All roads lead to Rome.

Could there be another road, one not leading to Rome?

The Comparison Matrix

How do we describe any event as unparalleled? We compare other events and find nothing similar, or when there are similar events, the unparalleled one stands far beyond comparison. How do we describe a specific military operation as unparalleled in the history of independent India? The verdict must come after a comparison with all the other military operations independent India has undertaken. How do we compare operations? What should be the comparison matrix? Should it be on the range of weaponry used or the modes of delivery? Should it be on the superiority of the means used? Should it be on the length of the operation or its geographical reach? Should it be based on a specific aspect like surprise? Should it be on the quantum of destruction caused to the enemy? Should it be based on what the political or strategic aim of the operation was?

A mission is successful if all the aims for which it was launched have been achieved. Everything else, plans, tactics, targets, weaponry, logistics, innovations, inventions, and technology available and employed are mere means to the end. Means do not matter in war, where anything but success is meaningless. It is the outcome and outcome alone that matters. Comparison should therefore be done on a common denominator of the outcomes of the operations weighed against the intentions with which they were launched. In other words, have the political and strategic aims set for the operation been achieved?  Everything else remains secondary. But there are problems associated with this approach. 

It would be easy if political and strategic aims were explicitly enunciated or declared before the commencement of an operation. It seldom happens. However, when an operation is in progress, political and military authorities make announcements for the consumption of both domestic and foreign audiences. Some announcements are meant specifically for the adversary. The academia or strategic affairs experts can deduce the political and military aims from the maze of these public utterances. Military aims can be deduced from the objectives or targets chosen. Experts can reverse-link military objectives to reasonably assume the political aim behind an operation. Luckily, in the case of some of the recent operations, political aims were enunciated.  

What about comparing military capabilities and technologies employed? Don't they matter?

If we have a capability, it is meant to be used. Otherwise, the presence of such capability, like nuclear warheads, must ensure deterrence. Capability in the stable with no impact is as good as not having it. Comparison of capabilities employed in operations separated by a long period may not be an objective evaluation. Exponential growth of technology measured over an incremental linear scale of time can be brutally biased against the past. To make the statement easy to visualise, imagine telling Gen Z about a time when people normally stood in lines at night to make an STD call. They may not call us primitive or laugh in our face out of respect. Likewise, given the evolution of technology, adaptation, aggregation, and weaponisation, the array of weapons deployed will remain incomparable. On the technology front, the next operation will be ages ahead of the last operation. Comparison, therefore, would be best served by analysing the political and strategic aims and checking if those have been achieved by diplomatic or military means. Knowing the context of the operation will aid in understanding the political and military aims of that operation.

Operations of Independent India

The military operations India has undertaken can be divided into two specific groups. The first one consists of all the wars starting with the First Kashmir War and ending with the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971. All these were full-fledged wars or those that led to full-fledged wars. The second group consists of military operations, starting with Operation Meghdoot and ending with Operation Sindoor, which were limited operations. Irony or coincidence, Operation Meghdoot has not been officially declared closed, but the military face off continues with ceasefire conditions in place, whereas Operation Sindoor has officially been declared, suspended, and NOT terminated, but without any military actions.

Each of the operations will be taken up to evaluate how well the political and military aims that drove the operation were achieved.  Let us start from the first operation of Independent India.  

First Kashmir War. 

When India gained independence in 1947, the British gave the rulers of the princely states the freedom of choice to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent. On 12 Aug 1947, the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir under Maharaja Hari Singh sent a telegram to the authorities of Pakistan and India seeking a ‘standstill agreement’, hoping to remain independent from India and Pakistan. Pakistan responded positively on 14 /15 August. India did not reply, as parleys were on to motivate him to join the Union of India. Legally and technically, Kashmir was still not a part of Independent India. Unknown to the ruler, in breach of the standstill agreement, Pakistan planned to invade and capture Kashmir. On 12 September 1947, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, permitted the launch of Operation Gulmarg. 

About 20,000 tribal fighters, organised into lashkars or militias of 1000 men each, trained and armed by the Pakistani army, crossed the border into Kashmir. They attacked, looted areas on the way and on 22 October 1947, captured Muzaffarabad. Meanwhile, one group of raiders had already occupied the commanding heights of Zojila. The only access to Leh-Ladakh was also threatened. On 26 October, they attacked Baramulla. Srinagar was their intended destination. It is very important to understand this context of the operation. Maharaja Hari Singh was still the ruler of the sovereign Princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, consisting of regions of Jammu, Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, Gilgit Baltistan and many parts of the currently Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. With the enemy fast approaching the gates of his capital and fearing his capture and a certain end at the hands of the marauders, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947, officially making Jammu and Kashmir and all parts of his Kingdom, including those under the control of the raiders, an integral part of India. 

The moment Maharaja Hari Singh signed the instrument, the entire geographical area that was once the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir became part of India. The Government of India now had to do everything possible to safeguard the integrity and sovereignty of the country. The army airlifted two companies of the 1st Battalion, The Sikh Regiment and landed them at the Srinagar airport on 27 October 1947. They immediately went about the counteroffensive. In a historic first in the history of warfare, the 13-tonne Stuart tanks from the 7th Light Cavalry were most audaciously deployed to engage the enemy entrenched in Zojila heights. The tanks moved to their operational location through equally audacious innovation in transportation. A series of operations were launched across Kashmir by the Indian Army, and the enemy was beaten back. The war ended with a ceasefire brokered by the United Nations. The concept of the “Line of Control” came into being.

What would have been India’s political aim?  

There are no documents in the public domain that can give an official version of the strategic or political aims. At best, we can deduce from the events that took place.

Was it about saving Maharaja Hari Singh? He, having chosen to remain away from India, had asked for a standstill agreement.

Defending India’s territorial integrity? Purely in legal terms, India’s sovereignty had not been threatened directly since that area technically became India only on 26 October 1947. We took over what was available after what the ruler lost to Pakistan. 

Prevent the expansion of the Pakistani estate? Certainly. 

Expand the Indian borders beyond what was handed over and consolidate geographically? Likely, though still undeclared.

Saving Kashmiris from the plunderers? Yes, maybe.

There can be differing versions of defining success or failure, especially in connection with this operation. Expecting the political masters of those times, having won freedom through nonviolence, to militarily annexe the princely state immediately after gaining independence goes against logic. It will be fair to the people then to grant them the credit for adding real estate, redrawing the geographical boundary of the country, and enhancing our strategic depth, through negotiation and diplomacy. They did it at the first possible moment, even when the embers of the biggest human migration in history were still alive. It will be illogical to blame them for the loss of territory that Maharaja Hari Singh brought upon himself. This is one narrative that filled its sails with the contemporary political winds. Why did the army not capture the entire geographical territory that was under Maharaja Hari Singh? The geographical boundary in the above question can be shifted West or North, depending on the convenience. The answer, on the strength of hindsight, lies in the fact that the further West or North we added, that much more chaos, lawlessness, and poverty would have been added to the country. 

To be just and fair, the planners must be credited for their foresight and quick response. They gathered adequate intelligence and prepared the troops and tanks to be moved. Imagine airlifting two companies from Delhi hours after signing the Instrument of Accession. Imagine moving a column of tanks by road, over rickety bridges from Jammu to Zojila without losing surprise. Looking at the operation dispassionately, it is evident that the operation was guided by clear political and strategic aims of territorial gains and holding on to them. To that extent, the military aims were achieved too. That operation remains unparalleled in Indian History, not because it was the first one in independent India, but for the foresight, well-prepared contingencies, audacious aims, quick planning, courageous execution, and for achieving the political and operational aims.

Locked with inimical neighbours ever willing to needle, India was destined for more.

To be Continued in Part 2

Master of the Moat

Palaces, Castles, and Moats

 

In the days of yore, there were kings, queens, and kingdoms. Many of them lived in grand palaces, mighty castles, or formidable forts, spoiled by loyal servants, and surrounded by ruthless soldiers. These grand structures were normally surrounded by moats. Moats were usually deep and wide canals, often embedded with sharp stakes at the slushy bottom, and at times purposely populated with crocodiles or water snakes and served as formidable military obstacles. In his efforts to make the defence impregnable, the ruler spent considerable resources to ensure that the moat around his palace remained unbreachable. It was the most visible element of the defence. The moat was wide enough to beat the stand-off distance of the weapons of the potential adversaries he knew of. However, the ruler had weapons that could cross the moat and inflict injuries on the enemy. 

The ruler considered himself secure only in the heavily guarded palace behind the moat, but lived off the land outside the moat. A lone retractable bridge served as the only physical connection between the island behind the moat and the world beyond. The bridge was either lowered or stretched to touch the far bank and the world beyond. The master of the moat, the ruler himself or his most trusted general, decided when that happened. The mighty ruler lived, isolated from the world around but surrounded and protected by those he chose, in the man-made island dwelling, which he believed was unbreachable by foes and unbridgeable unless expected or accepted.  

The opulence inside these grand buildings, the dangers lurking within the moat, and the ruthlessness of the ruler and his guards notwithstanding, it was still the true reflection of the insecurity the ruler suffered from. It meant, the more insecure and threatened the ruler felt, the more formidable and elaborate the defence. The irony of the situation was that it was a case of a powerful man, often cruel to no end, living in mortal fear, his insecurity addressed by ever-increasing physical means. Despite the invincibility these impregnable mighty defences offered, most moats, history teaches us, were breached and the mighty within felled. In many cases, the reign collapsed, and the structures behind the moats abandoned. 

Ever Wondered Why? 

All these structures, surrounded by moats, had some common characteristics. Steeped in insecurity, it was a cloistered island blanketed by fear of failure. Success was related to the removal of potential threats and the fear of failure but success in each conquest added more to the fear of failure. They lived off the land outside but were deeply suspicious of their subjects. Threat was omnipresent. Bathed in victory, masters of the moats held themselves in high esteem. They believed it was the duty of everyone else to meet their expectations, but never thought of their obligations. They decided when to communicate. The lone bridge, which remained retracted all the time, reached out only at their convenience. It was mostly done to accept obeisance and subservience. Detached from reality and revelling in make-believe self-serving cocoons, they failed to realise the changing seasons. They did not recognise the winds of change.  

All these islands of insecurity met similar fates. Most of them fell to adversaries because they eroded from within. In some cases, when the master ordered the bridge to be launched, he realised that the far bank had moved away so much that the gap had become unbridgeable. Shunned by the world around, they lost relevance. Now they serve as tourist destinations for sale. 

Contemporary Relevance?   

This scene from the yore is contemporary too. If we look around, we can see many such moats and their masters amongst us. Gloating on achievements and floating on inflated egos, people assume eternal invincibility. They demand admiration, allegiance, and subservience in relationships. Most oblige out of goodwill and a few out of compulsion, but esteem soon drives the wedge deep. They distance themselves from others, creating the moat. Their success feels exclusive, but they also feel threatened by the possibility of people exploiting their success. They define the two banks and put a distance between them and the people around. Fear of adversities and failures adds to insecurity. They fill their moats with poisonous ‘suspicion’ snakes and ‘arrogance’ crocodiles. They withdraw the bridge from unprofitable and insignificant interpersonal relationships. Committed to cutting flab for the flight forward, they find more and more people and relationships to be insignificant. They make and break relationships to serve their purpose. Over time, they cocoon themselves into their castles, spending time widening and strengthening the moat around their safe havens. They exult in the exclusivity they build around themselves. Preoccupied with their success story, they do not sense the winds change and the blooms outside their moats. 

Yet, sometimes they feel like landing their bridge on the other bank. When they attempt, they realise the banks have slipped, the gap is difficult to bridge, and there is no one waiting to cross over. The isolation is complete. The story is not about others. It is about us. It is about me and you. We all are behind some moats of our own making. 

Survival - Not entitled? 

The moat is a very effective defence and survival mechanism. Suspicion, anxiety, fear and such other emotions are also essential for survival and growth. Optimum levels of such triggers serve the purpose where whereas excesses prove counterproductive. Considering everything around as adversarial and being over sensitive works like self-inflicted autoimmune affliction. Keeping parasites and negative people away is important, but considering anything and everything around as parasitic is detrimental to happiness. Managing minor infringements and perceived threats works like immunisation. No one is an embodiment of only virtues, and therefore, connecting with the ultimate virtuous person would never happen. We all come as a mix of good, bad, and evil depending on the situation. Creating comfort zones by withdrawing into one's shell or excluding oneself from society or a part of society is easy, but reconnecting at one’s convenience may not work all the time.  

Optimising Moats 

How do I secure myself and yet connect with an unfriendly world? Difficult but not impossible. There are wolves in sheep's clothing and sheep in wolves' clothing.  Yet, it is very important to keep the bridge in place and keep communications going. Wolves and sheep emerge in true colours sooner rather than later. Hoping to start interaction with someone only after identifying them as sheep or wolves is like waiting for the train at a railway station that does not exist. Open communications between individuals bring out the best in both if the intended destinations are the same. If elements do not match, one has the choice to peel off to safety.  

Most interpersonal communication commences on assumptions and presumptions. Divergences, unresolved at the origin of the journey, tend to lead us away from convergence. In most cases, conflicts are resolved, though it may not be an ever- happily after situation.  It is better to reach out and communicate. It is more likely that we find many people with whom we can establish bridges. We may also find people who need to be kept away using the moat. Retract the bridge and keep them out.   

However, if we find that most of the people we interact with need to be kept away, then it is time to look at ourselves more critically. It could help us strengthen good relationships, reset frayed ones and without guilt, discard the toxic ones.

 

The School in Kumaranalloor and a Few Lessons

 

 

Kumaranalloor is famous for its Temple. But not many people, barring locals, would know of the Government Upper Primary school in Kumaranalloor. I went there first time in 2018. I was there once again, invited to speak, on 02 Jun, 2025, as part of the “praveshanolsavam.” “Praveshanam” in Malayalam means admission, and “Ulsavam” means festival or celebration.  

Praveshanolsavam 

The function was organised to give the children, starting their education journey in government-run schools, a sense of festivity. It was done to initiate children into the schooling system and coincided with the commencement of the current academic year. The authorities could have used the event to take stock of the infrastructural adequacy of government-run schools. “Sarkar karyam mura pole”, is what Malayalees say. It only means that things that the government does will take their course when it does. The strategic aim of the event seemed to be optics and eyeballs. Public memory may be short-lived, but well-publicised events can eventually be milked for political returns. The irony of having to market free education against an alternative that robs parents of hefty sums as fees through fancy names was not lost on me. 

My primary audience was a bunch of kids, full of life and refusing to be geographically contained, whom the teachers worked hard to keep in place. I was focused on their parents and teachers. The audience occupied most of the small hall, a shed with no partitions that otherwise served as classrooms. I had no political compulsions. I had agreed to be there because I wanted to contribute my bit to the society that I live in. I had a stage and I had an audience. I commenced with a few words about the importance of the function and then went on to what I wanted to say. A few minutes into the speech, I realised the hall had fallen silent. I had the full attention of the audience.  

Later, I realised what I spoke at the event applies to all communities in the world irrespective of class, caste, colour, country, culture, cult, or creed. Let me share that with you also. 

Questioning Literacy 

All Keralites are literate. We boast about 100% literacy. 

Why is the menace of drug abuse in Kerala growing? 

Why is road rage increasing in Kerala? 

Why do youngsters leave Kerala or even the country to find jobs when others from across the country move into Kerala for the very jobs our youth vacated? Why are our social standards falling? 

Why do ‘educated’ well-to-do people stoop down in their behaviour in public?

Why is integrity as a virtue disappearing?

Why is breaking the law becoming fashionable?

Why do we fall easy prey to propaganda?

Are we, as literate people, failing to make considered decisions on our own? 

Are we celebrating literacy under the mistaken notion that it is education? 

If one or more questions above have occurred to us, as individuals who can read and write, there is something amiss in literacy. Literacy only means we can read and write. It does not mean we are educated.  

Education 

Education has three important aspects. It deals with acquisition, possession, and application. Individuals first acquire information through prescribed or self-devised media of instruction, process it and transform the acquisition into knowledge and skills. Knowledge is a possession inseparable from the individual. Knowledge acquisition can occur in formal settings, such as educational or training institutions, or informal environments, like the home or society. Conscientious application of acquired knowledge in a framework of commonly accepted right or wrong depends on the individual’s character. 

Education must improve the scientific temper, challenge the status quo, and enhance inquisitiveness. It should improve the power of reasoning, promote objective understanding of the cause and effect of individual or collective decisions and actions. Knowledge must eventually be applied for the good of mankind and result in collective upliftment and progress of society. Unfortunately, a system that promotes rote recall to decide on merit and success, with disregard to the means adopted, discards internalisation and useful application, eventually bringing little good to society. 

When deviant behaviour is a norm or when different yardsticks become the norm for dispensing laws for different people, it is a clear sign not of poor standards but the absence of education. Literacy does not guarantee rationale-driven decision-making; education does. 

Do we believe education comes from books? 

Wisdom and Books 

Books are a source of summarised information or codified norms of practice. It is the summary of someone’s experience, thoughts, etc. They merely provide a doorway through which one can access collated information. It is barely the means to give all that is required. Everything in a book is purely information. Only when the information given by a book is understood, accepted after adequate questioning, internalised enough to be adapted by an individual for application when and where required, would it become knowledge. Knowledge fosters personal development and sharpens the skill of rational, logical, and critical thinking. Otherwise, it remains just information. Knowledge is the result of educated experiences. Wisdom is unbiased knowledge. 

Educating Children 

A child is like a sponge.  If we put a piece of white sponge in a bowl of coloured liquid, two things happen. First, it absorbs the liquid. We may not be able to see the liquid because it has been internalised. Second, it absorbs the colour, and that is very visible. Similarly, education has two inputs. The first is the intrinsic, invisible part. The second is the behavioural manifestation. We can feel and experience a wet and heavy sponge. Squeeze it, and the liquid comes out. Likewise, education can be of use only if internalised. Similarly, appearances may not divulge how well-educated a person is, but their actions would speak aloud about the quality of their education. Adhering to the law even when not supervised is a very simple example of being educated. When a society accepts literacy as education, it is easy for the shallow to discriminate and justify any act. 

Teachers and Parents 

Children learn by observing and copying. A child born to a Malayali settled in Germany or a child of Chinese descent would speak German just like any other person of German descent in the neighbourhood. Interestingly, such children can effortlessly converse in both languages and switch from one to the other as if the two languages are one. When it comes to behaviour and character, children copy the most from their parents, siblings, elders, and teachers.  Have you noticed that children pick up bad things faster than good things? Our role, therefore, is to become the best possible material to be copied by our children, easy to copy due to prolonged association. Telling a child that something is wrong while doing it ourselves not only sends confusing signals to the child but also promotes accepting the difference between preaching and practice as normal.  

How do we become the role models that we should be? 

I am a storyteller. I have authored three books. The characters in my works are all inspired by life. They emerge from the script as individuals through their actions and inactions in the given context, not from their physical description. I realise that the longevity of characters in my books comes from their behavioural traits.  

The first and foremost task before us is to draw the template that we want our children to replicate. Then we must abide by the template in full view of our children. If we obey traffic rules all the time, even when unsupervised, obeying traffic rules will come naturally to our children. If we are generous, kind, and considerate to people around our children will imbibe those qualities naturally. We can expect them to be considerate and kind to us, also. If we are crooks, hold double standards, speak with forked tongue, and demonstrate selfishness, expect a fiercer version staring at us soon. What we should aim at passing on is the ability to see everything objectively, analyse and evaluate it independently and then come to unbiased conclusions.  Creativity can also be passed on. That can be done by passing on the habit of reading fiction. 

Why fiction? Why not textbooks?  

Textbooks and manuals are prescriptions for a structured programme. That is a mandated reading. Reading textbooks or manuals provides information about a subject or an object. It rarely activates the imaginative part of our brains. Reading fiction improves the art of visualisation. 

But don't movies and television series give you instant visual inputs? Yes, but these inadvertently limit the recipient's scope of imagination. They coerce you into converging with the director’s vision. When it comes to visualising a text, in a work of fiction, the possibilities are enormous and endless. Creating visuals within one’s brain based on a textual input helps condition the brain to break pre-established moulds and promotes thinking beyond what is seen, thereby ‘redefining horizons’ of the reader. When people get used to the idea of pushing the envelope of their thoughts and continuously redefining their horizons, then it becomes second nature for them to dream limitlessly. Dreams lead to designing their future, developing the means to it, dedicating their efforts, and then reaping rich dividends. 

Read, and let your children see you reading. Over time, they will copy you and read on their own.

Operands and Operators in Our Life

 

Can mathematics help us understand Life? Yes.

Let me tell you how it works. 

Assumptions and Facts

“Why should I learn all these formulae if I can make do with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division?  What is the use of algebraic equations?” I asked myself after a challenging quadratic equation class in school. It was a natural response from a student not so bright in mathematics. 

Learning mathematics was like walking into a minefield without knowing where one was headed and why. With every passing day, the lessons got more brutal. I think we started linear equations in the 9^th or 10^th standard, and with it, my association with the omnipresent yet ever-elusive ‘x’. Initially, we got equations with a single ‘x.’ We graduated to creating equations with one or more ‘x’ from a given problem statement. Interestingly, all the statements of problems revolved around silly situations in life. At times, we were determining someone’s age, height, weight, or the number of toffees Ram, Shyam or Geeta got. ‘X’ was universally the unknown! The only weapon that could handle any equation was ‘BODMAS.’ BODMAS demanded ruthless application. 

A few days after we first met ‘x’ and got used to handling uncertainties around it, our teacher introduced ‘y’ to us. “You need two equations to solve a problem with two variables,” he declared, suppressing his smile. Soon, we faithfully formulated equations from long narratives only to determine the values of the ‘x’ and ‘y’ we created.  A few days later, he declared that solving equations with three or more variables was complex and therefore beyond the scope of the class. It was a huge relief. It did not last long. He came up with “ax²+bx+c = 0”, an equation whose answers he called “roots.”  

“Roots can be real or imaginary,” he said.

“Imaginary solutions?” I asked myself.

I passed my certificate examinations with a lot of hard work and luck. Emboldened, I took chemistry, physics, and mathematics for graduation. There was no day without mathematics. While learning the art of solving problems, I internalised the phrase “roots of the problem” and realised even imaginary solutions worked. I also found that principles of mathematics apply to life equally well. Here are some for you.

Problems Always Come with Solutions. All issues, including complex ones, come with solutions. They will remain problems unless we solve them. Postponing is not solving. Unsolved issues worsen with time. Problems may look daunting, but they can be solved if our attempts are earnest. If solutions are not forthcoming, it only means we are not approaching the problem correctly.

More  Variables or Higher Degrees Make the Equation More Complex. When the issue involves more than two individuals, proposed solutions must satisfy all. The more people involved, the more complex and intertwined the problem would be, and the more difficult finding a solution acceptable to all. With time everyone hardens their stand and makes solutions that much harder to find. Therefore, as soon as the problem is felt, attempt to address it.

There is At Least One Root for A Problem. Problems stem from their roots, real or imaginary. The real ones are easy to identify and implement. It takes patience and commitment to identify imagined or perceived causes and find their solutions. Unless one gets to the roots of the problem, the solution cannot be final. Festering problems make life hell-like.

Solutions, Both Real and Imaginary, Work. Life does not provide options without costs. Solutions to the problems in life translate less to material things and more to the realm of emotions (feel good). Material demands are symptoms of something else underlying. Emotions are intangible but real and will manifest in real actions and reactions. So, it is ‘real’ to feel good or bad in situations. It is also good to know that the feeling is fleeting and depends on how well we have conditioned our minds to it. Like us, others also have emotions.

Formulation Is the Key. How fast we reach solutions depends on how well we formulate the problem.  To do so, we need to consider all the operands and operators involved in the problem. Some of them might be hidden from our view. It is important to remember that the correct formulation of a problem depends a lot on flawlessly identifying the constituent operands and operators from life’s narrative, often overwhelmed with chaff. 

Operands Are Not as Formidable as They Seem.  

In mathematical equations, they come in the form of ‘ax² or ‘ax²bycx³,’ etc. In real life, they are individuals: parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, neighbours and even the strangers we come across anywhere. It could even be animals or natural phenomena like breeze, storm, rain etc.  

 

Irrespective of its absolute value, operands mean nothing individually. They matter only when placed in context. Operands need operators to be relevant or be counted in context. 

 

People are like operands, in absolute terms, non-entities, irrespective of their past or present. Put into context, they could be of consequence.  

 

Let me illustrate it. Someone, say a great, rich man, living on a distant continent, is an operand of no consequence to you. If he messages you that he got your account number, he could be of great relevance to you. A storm in the Arctic Sea means nothing to you until you know that your dear one is out in the very same area catching crabs!

Deadly Operators. 

 

Operators, {‘+,’ ‘-,’ ‘x,’ ‘/,’ or ‘()’} look harmless. Not all operators are visible. They remain invisible, holding operands together. Therefore, “abc” is the product of “a, b, and c” and not its sum (a+b+c). Ignoring invisible operators invites peril. 

Individual attributes like attitude, apprehension, anxiety, self-confidence, empathy, selflessness, selfishness, expectations associated with the specific transaction, earlier experiences, trust, jealousy, competitive spirit, motivation, and many other individual traits, as these are the operators that dictate how individuals come across as operands. 

 

Operators are deadly if not treated according to protocol. Mishandled, they can create havoc. Similarly, personal traits of the self and those we deal with play a significant role in interpersonal throughput and takeaways. Operands, despite their looks, exist at the mercy of operators. Operators without operands are dead entities. 

The Beauty of Brackets. 

 

‘Brackets’ in equations are like baskets, innocuous looking but carrying a lot of stuff inside. To finally solve an equation, dealing with each of its contents individually is inevitable. An error anywhere dooms all the efforts before and after.

 

In life, collectives like family, spouses, organisations driven by political or religious ideology, etc, are like brackets. Some elements within may appear to be welcoming, supportive or even benevolent, but the true nature of the collective may or may not be so.

 

Within groups, we can also find ‘tag-alongs.’ It is easy to identify them. They lack intellectual and emotional autonomy. They turn antagonistic because someone in the group has an axe to grind with you, and they like you because the group does. They add weight and number to a group. Positively, they add little, but on the negative side, they count cumulatively. 

 

It is important to find the controlling operator for each operand within the bracket and then deal with it accordingly. This must be at the back of our minds when we deal with collectives. The success of dealing with brackets in life depends on our ability to correctly identify or determine whether the person is truly positive or negative.  

Treatment Protocol.  

 

While a ‘+’ sign is often limited to being incremental, the ‘-’ sign is dangerous and can be disastrous if not correctly managed.  Similarly, dealing with people driven by negativity needs care and diligence. “Without mens rea there can be no actus reus; guilty mind first and guilty act later.” (Chacko, Jacob Tharakan. The Second Bullet). 

 

Adversaries and critics are not necessarily negative but the selfish, untrustworthy, scheming, elusive, habitual liars and such like people are. Beware of those whose words and deeds do not match.

 

There is another class even more dangerous. They may come across as suave, nice, polished and seemingly helpful, but could be bleeding you dry on the sly, knowing well that you have been taken in by their facade. They are like cloaked daggers behind the back. Their education, wealth, job, and social standing cloak the venom hidden within. Befriending them is akin to placing a leech on our inner thigh.

 

Those who feed on us as a right are also dangerous. They are operands with embedded ‘-’ or ‘/’ signs. They deplete our efforts and, through their sheer presence, make us feel inadequate. 

 

Dealing with ‘negatives’ incrementally does not help. Bringing in positives, however large or huge, to offset them may help marginally, providing only degraded or depleted returns, much like adding a positive number to a negative number.  Multiplication of a negative number with anything positive, however big it may be, will yield only negativity.

 

Multiplying a negative entity, big or small, even with (-)1, makes it positive. In life situations that can be achieved by confronting, or isolating them, effectively insulating ourselves from them and their devious ways, making them insignificant to our desired outcomes. Ignore them at our peril. 

 

It is important to understand that most of our daily interactions with people go by understanding rather than a covenant. Relationships like spouses, parents, children, friends, etc, fall into this category. Inherent to all such equations are expectations often undeclared. Expectations become demands, and beneficiaries take benefactors for granted. The emotional wear and tear would continue until the benefactor revolts.

 

At the workplace, though we may function under hierarchical prescription, most interpersonal transactions fall in the realm of ‘unsaid’ understanding. 

 

All human relationships at the base level are interpersonal though transactions may be physical, emotional, or even subliminal. One will end up being the perpetual giver and the other the perpetual recipient, though the recipient also might lay claim to be the giver. 

 

If anyone feels aggrieved in an interpersonal transaction in any manner the effective operator linking the two operands is negative. If there is a case of exploitation and the person exploited does not realise it, the negative sign remains embedded but will reveal itself sometime, depending on how soon the exploited realises it.

 

The best way to handle relationships is to be frank, open, and truthful to the extend one should. In the long run, people will naturally associate us with positive operator.

 

14.         The Second but The Most Important Part of Life’s Equation. 

 

All equations have two equal sides. Only then it is called an equation. A mathematical equation could be equated to zero (5x+7x-12= 0, a zero-sum process), or have a positive outcome (5x+7x-12=24) or negative outcome (5x+7x -12= - 24.)  Life is also like that. Most of us forget that a life led ordinary ends up a zero-sum process. Many, after all that they do, end up with a negative return. Positive outcomes? We have to strive hard. 

 

If you noticed, we talked more about others being operands and operators! We took it for granted that we are constantly positive. Unfortunately, that is not true. To many around us we may not come across as positive as we think we are. They may be wrong but not always and not in all cases. It pays dividends to take a deep look at the operator we carry with us.

 

15.         Incubation Does not Always Breed Well. Looking at a problem for long does not solve it. It is procrastination. In mathematics, the equation does not change. But in life, procrastination worsens the problem, festering even simple linear equations into polynomials of higher degrees. With each passing day, the equation tends to add more variables and complexity. It is better to address problems as soon as we notice them. “A stitch in time saves nine,” may be our life too. 

 

 

 

THE OTHER SIDE OF LOOKING THE OTHER WAY

 

Look the other way, is an idiom unlike any other. It does not catch much attention but easily hurts. Looking the other way allows immoral or illegal acts but its benign version, which could mean many more things like, avoid, ignore, desert, abandon, let down etc, could be immensely painful to those looked away from. The literal meaning of looking the other way is straightforward as the words suggest; looking in the opposite direction. Our roads play host to both literal and literary versions of it. 

Pedestrians across the world have the right of way. In many countries, pedestrians can cross the road, only at the zebra lines. If the light is not in their favour they wait or push the pedestrian button to allow them to cross. If pedestrians push the pedestrian button, they get the green to cross and the light goes red for motorists. People crossing like that wave at the motorists signalling gratitude.

Pedestrians at home are more empowered. They cross roads and motorways at will. They do not have to signal gratitude because they can remotely apply the brakes in our cars with their palms. Some jump over the railing erected to prevent random crossings. The more steel-willed and philanthropic ones go a few steps beyond. They alter or manipulate the railings or barriers to allow unhindered rights for everyone to cross. If you notice pedestrians crossing the roads here, you will find many crossing the road looking the other way. Having outsourced their safety to the goodness of the unknown motorists, they deliberately do not make eye contact. They just look the other way. Risks of tail bang notwithstanding, a few drivers screech to stop while most continue because they are skilled enough to evade the moving two-legged obstacle or too lazy to apply the brakes. The unmindful hero gets to live another day to look the other way because the drivers chose not to look the other way. 

Looking the other way is rarely that detached and removed. There is a painful side to it, especially if it happens in relationships. All of us would have experienced it sometime in life. Irrespective of the pain inflicted, the incident often leaves us baffled with the question, “How could he?” or “How could she?” One only needs to recall the incident to realise how it felt then. At times even time cannot lessen the trauma and its aftermath. There would be nobody in this world who would not have experienced this feeling. 

There is a flip side too. If you feel, you have been at the receiving end of this traumatic experience from someone else, there would be people around you who would have received similar treatment from you. It is so common and sometimes so subtle we may not even realise we have inflicted injuries worse than the worst we suffered.

There is good news. The damage in such cases is self-inflicted and therefore treatable. Cannot believe it? That is because you are not looking at the other side of their looking the other way.  Such experiences arise when people do not react or perform the way we expect them to. The more one expects, the higher the chance of shortfall and the more bitter our experience. This discussion of expectation and response is not related to setting work-related targets and their delivery but to human behaviour in social and interpersonal transactions.

It may do us good if we truthfully ponder over the latest heartbreak we experienced. In most cases, we likely assumed that the person would deliver what we expected, without telling the person what we expected. What about those instances when we tell people what we expect from them? We often expect without consideration of their competencies, compulsions, or circumstances. The converse is also equally true.   

We may be at a loss to explain why someone suddenly felt offended by us. Check!  We would not have known what they expected from us and in the absence of such knowledge, we might not have lived up to their expectations. In most cases, they would not have even demanded something from us but merely expected us to respond as they desired. The intensity of the let-down is immense when the relationship is intimate because we take it for granted the other person knows us well enough to rise and respond.

Sometimes, poor, inadequate and even adverse response is deliberate and malafide. Such numbers, unfortunately, are on the rise. One should be wise enough to differentiate between the intentional and the inadvertent. When people take our goodness in relationships for granted, we should sever and cut losses. A heartache for a short while is far better than feeling used and abused in toxic relationships. It may be kindness, to ask them for reasons. The heinous of the lot will deny even the existence of such an act. It is better to keep them at the farthest possible distance. Sometimes, we need to keep them around regardless of their response. After all, roses don't come without thorns.  

Now that we know, there is another side to someone looking the other way, it could open new avenues to renewing our relationships. 

Let me add a caveat. Tread with caution!

 

A Table Full of Dishes ; Sanu Ki?

 Ubiquitous Affliction

“Sanu ki,” a usage in Punjabi, is both a phrase and an idiom. “Sanu” translates to “us” and “ki” means “what.” Together, it merely means “to us, what” or in other words “why bother?” Simply put it means “I don't care.” That is where it stops being a phrase. Depending upon the context, “sanu ki?” assumes many a meaning. Commencing from being a plain expression indicating disassociation, it can mean anything like irrelevance, irreverence, scorn, and at times the sublime state of acceptance of the inevitable. One needs to spend time with people who speak Punjabi to capture the essence of the “sanu ki” served. It can mean anything depending on how, when, and where it has been said and to whom it has been delivered.  The difference in tone can change the associated meaning. The versatility of this phrase or idiom is what caught my attention.

In Malayalam, my mother tongue, there are different versions of ‘sanu ki?” Starting from “namukku enthiru de? to “nammaku entho venam?” words, tones, etc continue to change as we travel up north, from the southern tip of Kerala.  I am sure there would be something equivalent in all languages and different versions, within the same language, depending on the local dialect. Irrespective of the language, or its local dialect they all essentially mean the same, “sanu ki?”

Harmless as it may sound, it can pack a deadly punch when it becomes an attitude. Some, having got away with it for some time, become “cordycyeped[i]” by this attitude. Irrespective of the size of the organisation or its field of operations, if even one member of the team becomes infected, then it is likely to spread to other members sooner than later, spelling disaster for the organisation.

Disaster Everyone Shut Their Eyes To

Established in 1985, Enron became a multi-billion-dollar behemoth. Everybody was sure about its future, or everybody thought so till it declared bankruptcy. The company was packed with talents. They were masters of the ruthless pursuit of profits. There was nothing stopping them anywhere and in whatever they attempted to do. Yet, Enron fell and when it fell, it fell like a pack of cards because something that talents could not prevent pulled it down from the inside.

Postmortem dissection revealed that a few at the top had lied deliberately and some around them colluded while the many other equally talented kept quiet about it. They all individually were afflicted with “sanu ki.” More than the greed of a powerful few at the top, the fall was ensured by the silence of many who could stop it but chose to abdicate. It is said that it is not the violence of the few that kills a society but the silence of the many. 

Cost of Collusion

Most of us find it difficult to speak up even when we know that the path or the decision being taken by the organisation, we are part of, is wrong. We could be worried that by speaking up we could be seen as anti-establishment, end up damaging hierarchical relationships, and spoil our chances within the organisation. Under such circumstances “sanu ki” is the path most of us normally choose. “Sanu ki” killed Enron. Dissection of organisational failures across the world would reveal that “sannu ki” was the ailment that finally killed all of them. If we look around, we can see many people within our families, organisations, and societies remorselessly abdicating their responsibility, to tell the truth. If we muster the courage to look within, we can see many instances where we too have abdicated. We can go to any extent to be seen to be nice without realising that if “sanu ki” can decimate organisations and societies it can destroy us too. The sad part of it, we actively collude with others either for favour or out of fear.

It is easy to compliment someone successful. It is easier to ignore a flaw and let it pass by when it does not impact us adversely. There are many who even at the cost of discomfort keep quiet when they see things go wrong. Most of us desist from giving the correct picture or feedback to those whom we know for fear of offending or spoiling the existing relationships. Anyone who musters the courage and gives suggestions that are contrary to what we believe in is considered offensive and even inimical. Most of us avoid such people.

On the receiving side when things have gone irredeemably beyond, the very same people who chose to be nice through silence would be the first ones to come forward with an “I told you so,” or an “I knew it.” We are conditioned to be nice to the extent of allowing our near and dear ones to fail. Luckily for this world, not everybody believes in sannu ki. Some do bite the bullet.

Bite The Bullet

Recently, on my social media page, I posted a picture of a few dishes laid out on a dining table. Many of my friends liked it and some even posted comments.

One message bucked the trend. "What do I make out of this Picture? What is it all about?" came the private message from my friend in Canada. What is so difficult in understanding a picture?" I thought. many had already seen, put their likes, and even commented. That was my instant response. I did not feel good at all. I tried to justify my act and refrained from giving any weight to his argument.

I had been blunt all my life. I had fallen foul with many for rightfully telling them what I thought was wrong with them or in what they did. Few well-wishers advised diplomacy. I tried but like all half-hearted attempts, it failed. I knew that many in the hierarchy avoided me because of my reputation. Interestingly, I was handpicked by two Director Generals only because of this reputation. I also rose in the hierarchy. I continued to be what I was. If I had chosen to be blunt then, I must give that right to others, now and always too.

After the initial discomfiture, I looked at the picture. He was correct.  Without context, the picture looked meaningless. If you want to understand how awful it was, just try switching on any Indian movie song sequence, preferably one that you have never seen before, switch off the audio, and try watching. I felt the same about the picture I shared without annotation. Most people who liked and commented on the picture must have given it their own context. Were they being kind or were they merely exercising their option of “sanu ki?” Either way, I was happy with all of them.

The Chinese Dinner My Daughter's
Mother-in-law so painstakingly
prepared for us 

On the other hand, here was a man who took time out very early in the morning, risking the friendly relationship we had forged over time, to tell me that I had fallen short. I knew it was straight from the heart and with the sole intent of correcting me regardless of what I felt. I immediately sent him a message of gratitude and made corrections to what I had done. I checked my previous posts. Most of them were without any reference to context, just like the movie song sequence that had no audio to accompany. They all had many likes and comments too. All my incomplete posts seem to have met with people who exercised their choice of  “sanu ki?” 

Today, people find it difficult to point out mistakes. Parents find it difficult to advise or correct even their own children for fear of repercussions. Imagine the damage we are inflicting on ourselves. We forget that “sanu ki” returns to bite.

Human Beings and Human Doings

Recently, a friend gave a talk about “human beings and human doings.” The content of the lecture is her intellectual property. The title set me thinking. I am convinced that it was ‘human doings’ that helped us evolve into human beings and it is in these very ‘doings’ that we, as a society or species, will either flourish or flounder. ‘Sanu ki’ goes against the grain of collective survival.

“To err is human,” didn't someone say? 

"To correct is even more human," I feel.

---

[i] ‘Cordycyeped’ is a concept that I had discussed in my previous blog published on Jun 15, 2022. The link to it is given here.   

https://jacobshorizon.blogspot.com/2022/06/beware-you-could-be-cordyceped.html