JOSEPH GOEBBELS NEVER VISITED KERALA

 

“Veettil Oonu,” (വീട്ടിൽ ഊണ്), the board outside the roadside restaurant in the town screamed. The two Malayalam words literally mean 'home food’. Everyone knows that home food is prepared and served at home. The restaurant that screamed ‘home food’ was neither home nor homely. It kept the hearth going for its owners and workers. Such boards are common along the length and breadth of Kerala. How can anyone buy ‘home food’ in a wayside restaurant? Everyone knows it is a blatant lie.  If you walk into such a restaurant hoping to eat something homely, you could be disappointed. The food they serve is a ‘meal’ sold in all restaurants across Kerala. ‘Meals,’ for the uninitiated, means an unlimited supply of rice and curry, served on a banana leaf or plate. If you thought Veettil Oonu would be cheaper than normal meals in other restaurants, maybe if you are lucky, you could be right. Anyway, people still walk in knowing that the board screams untruth. The name sells.

Why are names important?

Names grant a unique identity and a sense of differentiation. It creates an association between the entity and its attributes, helping us to shape our perceptions about the entity. Name provides the most potent emotional connection between the entity and the environment. Once a name is ingrained in our memory, a recall triggers the release of associated emotions stored and, therefore, predictable behavioural responses.  Every time a Malayali hears the words ‘Veettil Oonu’, it immediately brings him close to the food that his mother prepared for him. 

The concept of Veettil Oonu, most likely, would have started when a Malayalee, most likely a poor but enterprising lady, decided to cook some extra food at home and serve it in her dining space for a price. Her business would have catered to the hunger needs of a few in the locality. These enterprises were initially confined to the premises of houses. She must have been a visionary. It did away with the need to subordinate oneself to food inspectors and law enforcers who visited merely to demand subservience, allegiance and conformance to the practice of graft both in cash and kind. It did not incur additional infrastructural and organisational costs and allowed her to keep the extra income outside the hungry tax net. Restaurants saw the opportunity and relabelled their noon meals as Veettil Oonu. It used the unbreakable bond between names and our memories. It also guaranteed business because there were enough hungry, homesick and gullible folks walking around.  All those who go in know that the board is a blatant lie, and they are not walking in for a homemade meal. Joseph Goebbels called it the big lie.

Joseph Goebbels, the chief architect of Nazi propaganda, showed the world the power of propaganda. He turned blatant lies into slogans and sent them out to the environment. He repeated it so much that the environment became saturated with his slogans. Short but lethal, his slogans like “Der Führer hat immer recht” (The Führer is always right), “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” (One people, one Empire, one leader), created a cult figure, wielding unmatched lethality, reigning over a people driven not to reason but to inflict untold cruelty on a section of people, once their own neighbours. He would have never imagined that two simple Malayalam words, coined as a benign tag, could lure people again and again, even when they know it is a blatant lie. Veettil Oonu is a powerful trigger, a brand name without a patent or trade disputes. 

Can slogans be so powerful that they can kill the sense of reasoning inherent in us?

Yes. We always reason out. We seldom reason against the intended purpose. We reason it out as the master wanted us to. Slogans are words brought together to create a predetermined emotion. Slogans can be benign or provocative. Benign slogans are like the ones that companies like Nike market their products. “Just do it” is what they say.  It motivates the person to do something. It does not have any underlying or embedded negative messaging. There are loaded slogans or taglines. “Make America Great Again (MAGA)” is one such. On the surface, it calls upon each American to shoulder their part in making the country great. The presence of the word ‘again’ gives the slogan a different tone. It implies that the country was great sometime back, slipped down to being not so great now, and therefore needs to be made great again. It also implies that someone had failed the country by bringing it down from the exalted position it once held. Surely, someone must be responsible for it! But more importantly, everyone who hears it will, without doubt, tend to believe that the person giving the MAGA call is leading the way to MAGA. It also means that anybody who opposes the person calling MAGA is anti-national. 

The trick is to use names and words to associate the base instincts of a people with their insecurities, make them aware of a potent threat, real or imaginary and promise a way out. Goebbels was a master of the art. He believed that if a lie is so big that no one would believe that anybody could distort the truth so much, then people will tend to believe it as the truth. Repeated enough, the lie will be cemented as truth amongst the masses. When Goebbels gave the slogan “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” (One people, one Empire, one leader), he, on the surface, sought unity amongst Germans as one people. Who would reject it? After all, anyone who supported it was the Volk. “Ein Reich” sold a dream to the people of making their country a great empire. Inherent to the slogan was the conquest to redraw boundaries. Anybody who believed in the Reich naturally agreed with the military campaigns. Anybody who spoke against the conquest was not part of the folk. “Ein Führer” was a call for a leader capable of doing it. Adolf Hitler was the Führer. Another slogan made popular by Goebbels at that time was “Der Führer hat immer recht” (The Führer is always right). It proclaimed the infallibility of the Führer. The economic crisis provided the perfect setting. People were angry. Now, their ire could easily be directed against anything or anyone. Someone. Goebbels decided to target the Jews. “Die Juden sind Schuld,” screamed his slogan. The slogan seeded frenzy. People turned against their neighbours. Anyone who saw any other rationale was against the Volk and was mercilessly dealt with. This phenomenon did not end with Hitler and Goebbels

When differences in opinion can be labelled treason, fear will triumph over reason, and people will become tormentors of others who were once their own. Politicians across the world would continue to manufacture lies so colossal that even the well-read would believe that a lie of such proportions is impossible and therefore must be the truth. These lies will be used to make slogans, and slogans will divide people into communities that turn one against the other. Fuelled by slogans, the public goes into a frenzy while politicians on the sides feed on the bleed. No amount of proof can quell the frenzy.

Are people so gullible and naive?

Like the hungry walking into the wayside restaurant, driven by hunger and blinded by greed for a cheap but familiar taste of home food, people at large, driven by their base instincts of insecurity, blinded by their greed for easy gains at the cost of someone else, go berserk. Insulated from consequences, individuals become groups, and groups become mobs, dispensing devastation on the hapless.

“What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” said a love-struck Juliet to her equally tormented lover Romeo. The Capulet family, to which Juliet belonged, were sworn enemies of the Montague family, to which Romeo belonged, and that became the biggest hurdle for the two lovers. It took the lives of a few before the two families agreed to bury their hatchet. By then, the lovers were long dead. Pardon Juliet for being blinded by love and desperate to be with her sweetheart. Shakespeare should have known better. After all, he lived through ‘The Felt Makers Riots of 1592' and ‘The Evil May Day Riot of 1593’ against the aliens. When he chose to ask, “What is in a name?” he required Juliet to do it for him.  

The innocuous-looking board luring people into the restaurant for home food should serve us as a powerful reminder of how easy it is for us to be led to untruths unquestioningly. But, didn’t someone say, history repeats itself?

 

 

 

 

Wrestling With Pigs

 

Wrestle with the pigs?  Yes.

What happens if you do? “You both get dirty, and the Pig likes it.” George Bernard Shaw. 

Would anyone do that? Most of us do.  

Why would anyone do that? Well, it is in our nature to do that. Despite my resolve not to, I almost got into the pit yesterday.  

My school had a piggery. The place had an offensive stink that reached far beyond its walls. It was there that I saw pigs for the first time. The piglets looked cute, ate a lot, and grew up into huge pink pigs. I knew they would end up on our plates sometime and felt bad for them. Nevertheless, I relished pork.  

One fine day, I came across George Orwell’s all-time classic, The Animal Farm, and read it. Unaware that the book was a political satire about the Russian Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union, it led me to consider pigs as ruthlessly manipulative, cunning, and wily. I visited the piggery once or twice after that and tried to identify Napoleon the antagonist, Snowball the idealist and Squealer the propaganda pig.  My initial understanding of the idiom, “wrestle with the pigs”, was built around the character they played in the book. Growing up, I lost interest in pigs, but my appetite for pork grew.  It took me a few more years to understand what the idiom meant and where it could be used.  

Travelling to my workplace from where I lived, I had to cross this area (since everybody is easily offended these days, let me keep the name of the place under wraps) where people, oblivious to others around, nonchalantly squatted, smoking and defecating. They, while defecating in the open, even talked to each other as if they were on some social platform. While the area was filled with people defecating in the morning, there was always someone in the act at any time of the day. The pigs were always there, working around people, openly defecating. I have seen pigs even sleeping there. The picture made the idiom, “wrestling with the pigs”, more than clear. I would never, even in my worst dreams, want to wrestle with a pig! Yet, I almost did it yesterday. 

I was driving home from Chenganoor. Since Gods and saints now need people to come out onto the roads and make their presence felt, there was a religious procession on the road. Filled with divine thoughts and assured of no consequences, some of these people can easily be provoked to become violent. I slowed down and stopped my car to the side, giving way for the procession to pass by. Behind me, there were a few vehicles patiently waiting and surprisingly not honking. The procession passed by without any incident. Behind the line of devotees were a few vehicles. One was a lady on a scooter. “If you are scared of getting your car grazed, travel by bus,” she commented, as my car inched slowly forward. She was obviously angry with me for having exercised age-driven caution. The temptation to wrestle with the pig (no physical comparison meant) was intense and immediate. I got angry and retorted.  

There is a thin line between sanity and insanity, and I quickly regained composure, at least externally and walked out of the pit into which I had jumped to wrestle. I could have easily ignored her, but I was easily provoked. Throughout the drive thereafter, I kept analysing my folly. On one side, I was angry with the lady and wished I had given her a suitable reply. I wish I had wrestled. On the other hand, I was happy that I saved myself from giving in to the urge to get dirty.  

There are a lot of people around with so much pent-up anger and dissatisfaction that they want to spill it at the first possible opportunity. They move around with their putrid garbage, ready to be dumped on anyone at the first possible instant. That lady might have had a bad day, but mine was beautiful till then. I had been enjoying some amazing times over the three days before it. Yet by impulse, I was drawn to the pit.  Most of us are tempted to respond immediately to the slightest provocation. Letting anyone go scot-free from what we think they have done wrong could be a difficult proposition for many of us. But then that is precisely what the pigs demand. The very fact that you engage with them is a victory for them, irrespective of the result of the engagement. They are in there not for a decision on the matter of right or wrong, but purely for getting someone to dump their muck and dirtying those willing to engage with them. I almost fell for it.

Closer to ourselves, we can see this in action every day. One only has to look at various WhatsApp groups that we are part of.  You can see this phenomenon at work. Look at some heated discussions. One can find many in the pit trying to wrestle in futility, making it difficult to distinguish who controls the fight.  We can also see roles shift at random, and the conflict ends only with everyone involved getting soiled, and some sitting by the pit enjoying the fight.

On the drive back, or what was left of it, I promised myself not to fall for the bait pigs set up. I also vowed to myself never to become a pig for others, for unknowingly, we also could end up being the pigs.

PS: The Picture is Grok-generated

 

 

KUNDIL VEENA CHUNDELI - LESSONS IN LEADERSHIP (Corporate and others)

 

“Kundil Veena Chundeli” is in Malayalam and means “mouse that fell in a ditch.

“History repeats itself” is an idiom that finds frequent mention nowadays. Both sides, especially in animated television discussions that become no-holds-barred debates, use it at will. The events that unfold daily across the world somehow give me the impression that the contemporary is often a repetition of the past, and we, in our own little ways, are all part of this great drama. To make things clearer, let me share a Malayalam story I learned as a child in the second or third grade. The story seems to repeat endlessly, though the characters keep changing. Let me narrate the story, giving it a contemporary flavour.

The story

Once upon a time, a mouse landed up in a kitchen in search of food. Without much problem, he found two “neyyappams” (a Malayali sweet and my childhood favourite) wrapped in a newspaper. Without waiting to eat, he picked up the packet and walked. He wanted to reach home and share the food with his children. The package was bigger than him, and naturally, holding it in his mouth, it blocked his sight. Not the one to give up, he walked, though blinded. Soon enough, he fell and fell into a deep ditch. He tried to climb out of the ditch but could not. Oblivious to his plight, the world outside carried on. He could, however, hear other animals walking past the ditch far above him. Then an idea struck him. He pretended to read the newspaper and read it aloud. 

“The sky is about to fall, and those who fear for life run and hide in some deep ditch,” he read it at the top of his voice from the depths of the pit. He kept repeating the same thing again.

A tiger, with a keen sense of hearing and smell, walking by, heard the mouse. “What?” He looked up at the sky. It was still there. He looked into the ditch and saw the mouse reading the newspaper. 

“Is it true? Is the sky going to fall?” He asked the mouse. 

“It is true. You are in danger. It is written here in the paper. Save yourself.” 

“How?”

“Are you deaf? Are you dumb? I just read this paper for you. Jump into a deep ditch,” replied the mouse and continued to pretend to read the paper. 

Who does not fear for life? “Can I come in?” asked the tiger. 

“Yeah. You and I are in danger. Jump in,” replied the mouse.

The Tiger jumped into the ditch to save his life. Worse, he was unlettered and was ashamed that he could not read, but a mouse could. But he was very grateful to the mouse, for he had used his wisdom to save another fellow forester from death without seeking anything in return. The mouse kept reading the message aloud again and again.

“Why are you repeating the message?” asked the tiger.

“Why? I am not selfish. I know the threat and know how to get out of it. Don't you want to save our brothers and sisters in the forest? Humans will take care of themselves.”

The tiger was overcome with remorse. In repentance, he started repeating what the mouse said. Obviously, the tiger had a bigger roar. All the animals in the jungle heard it and started running helter-skelter. Soon, the ditch was filled with various animals from the forest. The elephant followed. Others, one by one, big and small, different species, all united in their anxiety and grief, and hoping to save their own lives, joined them. Slowly, the ditch started getting filled up, and everyone was announcing that the sky was about to fall. After all, the community was under threat. The mouse continued with his pretend he was reading as others looked at him in awe. He stopped reading aloud because others had started parroting it for him, much louder and more convincing than he could be.  

A monkey was passing by and heard the commotion. He also wanted to join, but the mouse would let nothing of that sort happen.  “This place is already full. You go and find some other place,” the mouse commanded. After all, he was in command! Everyone there had unquestioningly accepted his wisdom and saw him as their saviour and supreme leader. Moreover, he had access to the scripture, and others did not know how to read. “Must be a divine gift,” they thought when they saw the mouse silently reading. Nobody questioned how he came to possess that competency. Even if someone suspected that it was a pretension, he could not speak out because the mouse had saved their lives.

“Please,” said the monkey. Nobody spoke. They all looked admiringly at the mouse, like devout disciples.

“I know you sneeze a lot, and God despises people who sneeze. Letting you in here will kill us all. Go away,” decreed the mouse.

“No. I do not sneeze. Nobody in my family sneezes,” replied the monkey.

“Are you telling us that we are lying?”  asked the mouse. He made sure that the word “us” stood out clearly from everything else. All the other animals noticed it and felt happy that the mouse was talking for all of them and taking care of everybody.

“Please,” the monkey begged, almost on the verge of tears. He did not want to die.

“Okay, we will accept you on one condition. Whosoever sneezes first will be thrown out of this ditch,” said the mouse, and looked at his audience. The word “we” was louder than everything else. All the animals were happy because their kind, benevolent, respected leader of all time included them in the decision-making. They were getting a role in governance, too!  They loved their leader. 

“Yes,” that is a fair condition,” they said in unison.

“This rule applies to everybody, even me,” declared the leader. The crowd was already grateful to their leader for having saved their life. Now he was putting himself on par with everybody in the crowd.  They loved him even more. They felt like worshipping him and seeing God in him. “Is it okay with everybody?” asked the leader.

Given a voice and the chance to be heard, everybody shouted in unison, “Yes, lord, let the rule be applied, and let us get the monkey in if he agrees to our condition.” The word “our” was distinct and had a taste of unity and brotherhood. The monkey gladly jumped into the ditch, touched the feet of the mouse, and stood on one side. Meanwhile, the other animals, out of reverence, gave the mouse a little space of his own. They also spoke amongst themselves about how they should now control entry. 

The mouse retrieved the two neyyappams he had come with, wrapped them back inside the newspaper and held them tight and close to his chest. He moved to the space allotted and declared that he had left most of the space for others. The other animals agreed, acknowledged his generosity, though they were adjusting themselves so as not to stamp on each other. They all looked at the mouse with even more admiration. One even said, “See our leader. He is simple and humble. He is carrying his own bags. He is humility personified.” 

Then what?

Finale

After some time, the mouse looked around and sneezed. The animals were shocked. They did not know what to do. They looked at each other, and then the mouse sneezed again. He was their saviour, and now what were they supposed to do? They looked up to the mouse.

The mouse stood up, looked at the others and said, “I know you all love me, but rules are rules, and for your sake, please throw me out.”

All the other animals got into a hurdle and nominated one of them to do the difficult job. The elephant was nominated because he had a trunk. He, with a heavy heart, took the mouse and flung him out of the ditch with his long trunk. The ditch was overcome with sorrow. They sat down in sorrow to discuss how magnanimous the mouse was towards all of them. Someone even started blaming the elephant for what he had done. 

“How could you do that?” The pig asked. 

“But you all told me to,” the elephant protested. Other animals started avoiding the elephant. 

The mouse hurried home happily and shared the delicacy with his children.

What happened to the others?

Your guess. 

Relevance 

How is the story relevant now? “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” (George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1903)

The story continues to be repeated right in front of us, every day in different forms. We make leaders out of mice, who peddle untruth that we accept without question. What is worse? We peddle the same untruth, believing it to be the sole truth, louder and more vigorously than its original peddler.  

Social media platforms are the deep ditches that humanity finds itself stuck in.  The platform by itself may not be harmful, but when we populate it with our version of truth, which is falsehoods, fake news, untruths, and half-truths, it becomes an all-consuming ditch. Fuelled by the desire to become the messiah, we use our fast fingers to reach out for those we know, with the messages we just received, without bothering to check the veracity of what we propagate. (My friend Colonel Reji Koduvath calls them Centre forwards) In almost every interactive social media platform, one can find virulent violence of ignorance. But people do not realise that behind all the churn is a mouse with his two neyyappams held close to his chest, waiting to sneeze and scoot. The sad truth is that we would be left to fight it amongst ourselves against each other. Sadder still, we would vehemently refuse to accept that the “mouse” got the better of us, exploiting our inherent inadequacies that incapacitate our rationality.

Caveat

The story also brings out lessons on easy steps to rewarding leadership, albeit disruptive and, in the long run, destructive. I am consciously restricting my examples to corporate leadership because nowadays, people tend to be easily offended and are actively on the lookout for reasons to be offended. Parts of a conversation or text can be consciously weaned, taken out of context and weaponised. 

Let me restate the caveat here. The examples given here are strictly about the corporate environment. Bringing similarity to any leader, dead or alive, any organisation thriving or decaying, any ideology benevolent or discriminatory, is entirely your imagination. I declare myself free of your sins!

Tips for Disruptive Leadership 

1.    Find a cause, preferably one that can be dressed up as existential. It does not need to be real. Unsubstantiated ones or hearsay will just be fine. (Threat of a competitor killing our product or company.) It must, however, give the feel that the like-minded ones are together in the “depths of the pit,” and can survive only if we stand together.

2.    That also needs an enemy, a competitor. It will be best if we can find a person or a group of persons who can be blamed. Does not matter if they did anything wrong. But blame someone anyway. It helps give a face to be aware of.

3.    Give historical references, even if there are none, or what is being given is made up. (Who cares about the truth. Make up statistics.) It will give a sense of credibility, just like the mouse reading the newspaper. Faithful followers blinded by fear of extinction will stand in support with no questions asked. 

4.    Repeat it as many times as possible, till it assumes critical mass. Otherwise, such followers may lose the sense of purpose. 

5.    Define the group to be protected and announce it till it reaches a stage where people start claiming that they are in that group and identify others as outsiders. This will give a sense of identity. Only when there are competitors can there be competition. Divisions make adversaries out of friends, and then the differences will start showing as existential threats. Within an organisation, the competition can be between production and marketing. Who cares if our aim is achieved?

6.    Pretend willingness to die for the cause. Announce that, “I will not be taking a raise,” or offer to give up some part of the pay, perks, or allowance. Nobody expects you to, and even if you take a hike or add more perks and allowances, nobody will ask if the existential cause is in place. After some time, the followers would have come so far behind you, they cannot go back. 

7.    Declare that you are willing to be crucified (Pretend. Nobody will crucify the leader) 

You think I am being sarcastic? Look around and look within your organisations and even in the households. You will be able to find it playing out.

I do not know if the story is still taught in schools. 

It is time to teach this story in all management schools.

Learning management from a mouse? 

Yeah. Let me list out a few!

Crisis Management. 

Crowd Management.

Resource Management. 

Narrative Management. 

Perception Management. 

Outcome Management. 

Effective Communication.

Team Management. 

If you are resourceful enough, you can list many more.

PS: 

Gratitude to Colonel Reji Koduvath for sharing the original story immediately after our discussion on why people want to become forwarding agents.

Picture courtesy AI

 

This Cancer is Preventable

 

It was a beautiful morning that day, way back in 2008. Then, I received that call from my friend in Mumbai. A Malayalee born and bred in Hyderabad, married to a Malayalee settled in Mumbai, she speaks a unique tongue. Our friendship had gone past the necessity of starting conversations with a good morning or good evening. The telephone calls between us were not very regular, but when we spoke, we picked up from where we left off last. We talked about small things in life. Most of the conversation was reserved for pulling each other's legs and laughing. There was happiness in our conversation, always. It has been like that since we met for the first time in 2005. But that call in 2008 was different. 

 “Arey, do you know something?” she asked. She sounded dead serious. 

In the normal course of conversation, I would have said something funny or pulled her leg. “What happened?’ I asked, sensing something wrong in her voice. “I have breast cancer,” she said.

I was stunned and did not know what to say. I kept quiet, all the while thinking what to say and how to console her. I did not have to. She told me the details of the diagnosis and what she planned to do next.  This was one time when I was tongue-tied, and she led the conversation, and I was just making some incoherent sounds to tell her that I was alive at the other end. There was nothing much I could have done to help her in any manner. 

In the 17 years since then, I have met a few people afflicted with cancer. Many of them survived. Some of them with whom I spent time did not make it. There was nothing that I could have done for anyone to change their medical condition. In a few cases, I helped them prepare themselves and their families for the days ahead. In the others, I was only a witness to the unravelling events. That is when I noticed a pattern.

The initial response to the discovery of the disease is shock, pain, and disbelief. The uncertainty of the future immediately steps into take whatever mind space is left. Almost concurrently, the question, “Why me?” begins to gnaw at the person. During this time, the afflicted individuals and those around them undergo a visible change in their behaviour. They close ranks and behave as if they are guarding a state secret. Extra efforts are made to keep the secret away from other friends, relatives, and neighbours. As the situation worsens, most people withdraw into the shells of their own making and inevitably suffer in loneliness, the intense pain and anxiety. Only a very few choose to share their problem beyond their immediate support system. This reaction is not limited to cancer. When we come face-to-face with serious adversities or life-threatening challenges, most of us react likewise; the way our responses manifest might differ.

Why should anyone share their problem with everyone? 

Why should they publicise their sufferings?

How does sharing our problems with others help us?

Valid questions. The rights and privileges of privacy are paramount to an individual. The decision to share an individual's problem with somebody else is a personal choice. It must unequivocally remain so. 

I am interested in the study of human behaviour and often look at people's behaviour more as manifestations of something beyond what the eye can see. Life, over the last 66 years, has convinced me that the weaknesses and inadequacies inherent in each one of us drive our responses to various stimuli. This holds even for groups. Fake news and propaganda fan our vulnerabilities. That is the reason why it spreads faster than the truth. That is why religious teachers and politicians thrive on fear and hate. When afflictions are personal, individual traits drive the response. Therefore, people from similar socio-economic and cultural backgrounds and even from the same family respond very differently when they are afflicted with similar grave personal challenges or adversities. 

Why do we behave the way we do? 

Some experts point to fear of social stigma as the cause. Diseases like AIDS, lunacy, and leprosy are associated with social stigma. In a deeply conservative society like ours, there are serious consequences and repercussions associated with personal afflictions. The stigma could continue to socially impact the near and dear ones well beyond the life of the afflicted person. In such circumstances, withholding information, hiding the ailment, or denying the adversity can be understood. When COVID-19 was raging, and people at large attired in protective suits were chasing down anyone suspected of being infected, keeping the infection a secret was understandable. Heart-related conditions, diabetes or blood pressure issues are not communicable diseases and cannot be attributed to immoral living. Many people take pains to hide lifestyle diseases and even take offence at being asked. 

Some people tend to hide their problems due to fear of losing their position in society or the image of wealth and well-being they think they have in society. Not long ago, when most of us knew we needed each other, we accepted dependence on others as normal. We were open to sharing and caring materially and emotionally. It was expected and easily accepted. The growth of affluence in society has brought along a sense of omnipotence amongst us individuals. Sharing an adversity or a problem with others is nowadays perceived as an erosion of that self-assumed potency. Anyone sympathising risks being seen as a threat to that notion of adequacy. Deeply suspicious individuals, who take care to remain aloof, have nothing to do with others. They moat themselves into emotional isolation. It could even be due to the fear of loss of opportunities.  Despite easily discernible and obvious signs, people still deny loss of jobs, financial setbacks and many such adversities, hoping to recover and regain the position they think they occupy. Reasons could be any. My search narrowed down to two possible reasons, equally strong and interconnected but less discussed.

We are a deeply conservative society driven by faith, beliefs, and customs. Irrespective of how we treat religion or faith in our personal lives now, most of us have been brought up deeply religious and with the conviction that our present is the result of our past; our deeds, in this life or the ones before. Life seen through the prism of a cause-and-effect continuum in perpetuity, with an infinite repayment term to cope with, comes with the burden of servicing presumed debts of the unknown past with sufferings of the present. Effectively, we tend to believe we are suffering because we did something wrong and are now the subject of divine displeasure.  Destiny, or God's will, is what most people would call it. It may not be the case with all of us universally, but most people around us certainly subscribe to that thought. Subconsciously, we do not like to be seen as servicing debts of the past!  Imprinted deep within our DNA, the belief system that we have inherited or developed has a significant role in dictating how we respond to stimuli. The strong belief that we are reaping the fruits of our own doing drives us immediately to invoke God. We even approach crafty godmen to augment our efforts in seeking divine intervention. They immediately set about using the godsent opportunity to their best.

Most of us, if not all, grew up with the phrase, “What will others think?” It has been used by our parents and elders to effectively rein us in. Our life has evolved around the concept of external validation of right and wrong. 

What will people think when we are in the deep? The guy must have done something bad to be suffering this! Who wants to be seen as having sinned in this life or in the earlier ones? Nobody, especially the afflicted, would. There is another side to this line of thought, equally bad. People tend to think that others will be happy seeing them in a state of suffering. So, they deliberately get into denial mode to prevent others from saying, “This wasn't good enough for him!”

When I reached this stage of the article, I decided to call my friend in Mumbai and check with her my deductions. She agreed with me on what I had concluded. She, a firm believer, told me that she did not ask, “Why me?” I concede, but she would be an exception rather than a rule. 

Did she share her problem with others? 

Yes. She shared her predicament with a very few. The reason she gave me was revealing. When people come to know of an issue, the first response is normally sympathy, genuine or make-believe. The discussion has only one natural course of progression. Usually, it is about people they know and have faced similar situations, and the terrible times they went through. In the garb of providing moral support, the sympathy-talk normally puts the fear of the devil in the person who is already suffering. “I shared the news with a very few, and you were one among those few. I had not disclosed it even to my mother that time,” she replied.

“Why did you share the news with me?” I asked.

“I knew you would not put on a show of sympathy. I trusted you,” she said.

That answered it all. In times of need, there are just a few whom we can trust. Yet, we need to find someone, however helpless they may be, to share our fears and worries. Do not let our thoughts become crabs.

My friend from Mumbai and I talk whenever we feel like. We still laugh a lot. There is happiness in our conversation, even when the chips are down. 

 

PS: Gratitude to Dr Abraham Kuruvilla, a renowned counsellor, for helping me refine my thoughts on the subject.

 

Part 3: Fight About The McMahon Line

Defining India-China Relationship 

India’s War with China started on 20 October 1962, when China launched simultaneous attacks in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, then called NEFA. The war ended on 21 November 1962, when China unilaterally declared a ceasefire. China withdrew from all areas it had captured, but not from the Aksai Chin area. Official details of the month-long conflict remain largely opaque to this day in India, locked away in classified documents. However, we often come across bits and pieces, carefully curated for political returns. 

The shroud over bilateral relations between India and China notwithstanding, the two most populous neighbours remain locked in distrust and domestic denials, despite growing trade between them. The occasional glimmers of hope in the relationship often end up being extinguished by disappointments, and every photo opportunity, from the “Hindi-Chini, bhai-bhai” days to the contemporary “riverside spectacle,” eventually turned out to be harbingers of sinister outcomes. The common man in India, now by experience, firmly associates betrayal as the principal characteristic of the India-China relationship.

Source and Discourse

There are several books on the 1962 War, and all authors converge on the same set of causes. The History Division of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, published the official history of the 1962 war, titled “History of the Conflict with China, 1962”, in 1992. Sufficient information is available in the public domain, claiming to be from this report. One can also browse and read about the stormy debates in Parliament regarding the war, where opposition members voiced their concerns, and the government responded. The intense debate in the parliament took place during the war without fear of being labelled anti-national. On 31 October 1962, 11 days into the war, Mr VK Krishna Menon, then the defence minister, resigned. On 14 November 1962, one week before the war ended, the House unanimously resolved as follows: -

 “This House records its firm opinion that the Chinese forces must evacuate the areas of India which they have illegally occupied, and declares its united determination to see that India's territorial integrity and frontier are respected and upheld.”

"The House places on record its deep appreciation of the gallantry of the officers and men of our Defence Forces who are engaged in defending our country, and assures them of its complete support."

"The House is confident that our people will face the grave emergency confronting the country with unity, determination and courage and are prepared to make any sacrifice to preserve India’s freedom and honour."

"The House solemnly declares that it stands united behind the Government in its determination to drive out the aggressor from the sacred soil of India, and to ensure that the territory of India is held and maintained inviolate.”

The Weaponised Report

The Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report, published in 1963, evokes more political interest than all the others put together. The report, authored by Lieutenant General TB Henderson Brooks and Brigadier PS Bhagat, was the result of an inquiry ordered by General J N Chaudhuri, the Chief of Army Staff, to conduct an internal operational review of the Indian Army’s performance. The report remains a classified document under the Official Secrets Act. Mr Nevile Maxwell, a British-Australian journalist, however, quoted the Henderson Brooks–Bhagat report in his book, “India’s China War,” first published in 1970. In the book, he painted India as the aggressor. Mr Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier, is said to have acknowledged Maxwell's contributions in revealing the truth and benefiting China. He complimented Mr Maxwell, who was in China covering the visit of the President of Pakistan, Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, in 1972.

Mr Nevile Maxwell had no love lost for India. Stationed in Delhi from 1959 to 1967 as a correspondent for The Times, he authored a series of articles ahead of the fourth Lok Sabha elections in 1967. He is believed to have written, “the great experiment of developing India within the democratic framework has failed”, and he even went on to predict that the general election to the fourth Lok Sabha would be the last.  Not easily offended and provoked as we are now, there were no protests or violent activity in India against the author, his book, or his reports. Mr Maxwell shot to fame suddenly, this time before the 2014 elections. On 17 March 2014, for reasons not difficult to fathom, he made public selected portions of the report on his website. 

The Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Report immediately kicked up a political storm with the principal opposition party asking the government to declassify the report for transparency and accountability. After all, the Nation had the right to know the truth. The Government, citing National security and operational implications, refused to oblige. In April 2014, Mr Maxwell removed the references from his website. With the elections done, the storm died. The party that demanded disclosure rode to power and has been in power ever since. Call it compulsions, the report remains classified. A classified, vaulted and buried report has political relevance. 

It has been six decades since the war. Everything about the two countries, their geopolitical positioning and strength, their military structure, hardware, armament, war fighting strategy, interdependent economy, demography, and virtually everything one can imagine has changed. We now live in an environment where satellites continuously scan every inch of land, thousands of electronic eyes are on the lookout for anything that moves or does not move, every conversation is listened to and scrutinised, and every digital footprint is critically examined. There is a saying in Malayalam, “nee manssil kanumpol, njan maanthu kanum.” It roughly means, “when you think of something, I see it in the sky.” Nothing remains hidden. None of those things from the sixties exist today as it was then. In such an environment, the report is nothing more than an archaic document, meaningless to modern warfare. 

Declassifying the age old official reports would open a debate, derive lessons, if at all, there are any relevant ones, and if someone wants to learn from those. It would also bring closure to something that we have already forgotten, but are periodically reminded of during elections. Keeping it classified only serves to capitalise electoral returns at will, through the easily infuriated.

Causes

Study of the war leads us to two causes: India’s “Flawed Forward Policy” and China’s Territorial compulsions. All the other causes attributed to the Indian side, like poor intelligence, an ill-equipped and ill-prepared Army, and political interference overriding military inputs, are all subsumed by “Forward Policy.” That brings us to three fundamental questions. These are: -

1.         What is the forward policy?

2.         Why is it considered flawed?

3.         What else should have been done?

Roots of The Forward Policy

To understand the Forward Policy, we need to first understand how it came about. 

When the Indian subcontinent was under the administrative control of the British Empire, much of the territory that lay between British India, China, and Tibet was the subject of territorial dispute. In 1913, the British decided to settle the dispute. A series of tripartite meetings took place in Shimla (then called Simla). The first meeting was on 6 October 1913, and the ninth and last was on 3 July 1914. The discussions led by Sir Henry McMahon, the foreign secretary of British India, agreed to delineate the boundary. This is now called the McMahon line. Mr Ivan Chen, the Chinese representative to the meeting, did not object to the proposed boundary. He also initialled the draft proposal. However, on 3 July 1914, at the final meeting, when Britain and Tibet signed to seal the convention confirming the McMahon line as the boundary between British India, Tibet and China, Mr Ivan Chen refused to sign. 

 

When the British handed over the reins of power to India, the land in possession of British India was automatically passed on to independent India. There was a problem. There were two claimants for the same piece of land. India had the convention documents initialled by China.  However, China refused to accept the boundaries, claiming that it had not agreed to the delineation. In our perception, the land legally belonged (and still belongs) to India, and China claimed it as a historical possession. The seeds of territorial disputes were thus sown.

Immediately after the partition, India had to handle the first Kashmir War. It also had to grapple with managing the accession of the princely states and the serious issues of internal administration. With the defeat and eventual retreat of Chiang Kai-Shek to the island of Taiwan, China became the People's Republic of China on 1 October 1949. India recognised the new rule in China on 30 December 1949. The PLA, on 7 October 1950, launched an offensive against Tibet in the Chamdo region of Eastern Tibet and captured Chamdo on 19 October 1950.  The military annexation of Tibet was an indicator of China’s territorial ambitions. This became an irritant between the two countries.

After the series of negotiations referred to as the “Sino-India conference on Tibetan trade and intercourse,” the two countries signed the “Agreement on trade and intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India” on 29 April 1954. Famous as the Panchsheel agreement, enshrining the five principles of peaceful coexistence, it became the cornerstone of the bilateral relationship, giving birth to the slogan "Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai."

Meanwhile, China started construction of a road through Aksai Chin connecting Xinjiang to Tibet. India discovered this only in 1957–58. In November 1958, India lodged a diplomatic protest, but China denied that there was any infringement, claiming that the area historically belonged to China. This led to the border dispute, slowly turning into clashes between the two countries. The political situation worsened in Tibet, drawing India into direct confrontation with China. The massive Lhasa uprising was dealt with an iron hand by China, killing thousands of Tibetans, and destroying their monasteries. The Dalai Lama fled Tibet on 17 Mar 1959 and reached the safety of India on 31 March 1959. He was granted political asylum. Bilateral relations took a turn for the worse.

China’s incursions across the border became more frequent. On 7 August 1959, a Chinese patrol crossed the McMahon line, pushing back the border post at Khinzemane in NEFA. India claimed that China attacked, but China responded, saying it was the Indians who attacked. On 25 August 1959, Chinese troops crossed the McMahon line and attacked the Indian post at Longju, in NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh.  Taken by surprise, the post withdrew, and the Chinese occupied the post. However, they vacated it later. The post was, thereafter, taken over by the Indian Army. On 28 Aug 1959, the Prime Minister, Mr Jawaharlal Nehru, reported multiple border incidents to the parliament. On 21 October 1959, an Indian patrol was ambushed by the People's Liberation Army in Kongka pass, killing nine soldiers and capturing ten, who were returned later. There was widespread protest in the country, and the Prime Minister assured the country that India’s sovereignty would not be compromised.

The diplomatic negotiations between the two countries were heading nowhere. Something had to be done to prevent China from establishing military posts in Indian territory and claiming it. The concept of the “Forward Policy" was born thus. This policy required the Indian Army to establish small forward military posts along the disputed border along the McMahon line to reassert control over the territory India claimed as its own. By the middle of 1962, about 60 such posts were said to have been created, 43 of which were to the north of the McMahon line. China responded by creating its network of posts opposite the Indian deployment and many more, leading to multiple standoffs and skirmishes.

Flaws

Critics point out that despite infrastructural deficiencies, inadequate supplies, and a lack of strategic depth, rendering Indian positions untenable, it was decided to deploy troops forward. Most posts were said to have been isolated, thinly held, and with barely any logistical backup. The Army is said to have asked for more troops but did not receive any. It is also said that the troops were given orders to fight “Last Man - Last Round.” The political decision makers are also condemned for overruling the military advice about the Army’s unpreparedness for such a war. The Forward Policy, therefore, is labelled naive and impractical.

The 1962 War was a comprehensive military defeat for India. If the outcome of the policy and its execution are the only criteria, then the policy was utterly flawed and its execution suicidal. Even after condemning the political leadership, there is scope to study the wherewithal the political leadership at that time had in their hands to decide on evaluating the efficacy of the plan/policy. 

Flaws?

Assured by the Intelligence Bureau that China will not respond militarily, the political leadership would have been led to underestimate the threat perception, if not negated it completely. Intelligence failures have been repeated. Fortunately, situations have been retrieved, albeit at huge human costs, mostly by the uniformed.

Army men who served in the mountains would be familiar with the saying that “the mountain eats up men.” Manpower will always be inadequate when it comes to high-altitude and mountain deployments. Recent military history operations would vouch for this old saying. An unstable border with Pakistan might have made it difficult for the political brass to allow thinning out the defence on the northern and western borders. The faulty intelligence assessment would certainly have aided that decision.

Inadequacy of the military hardware was another issue. If we look at the allocations by both countries towards defence, China spent a far lot more on its defence than India. It has not changed even once in the history of both countries, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP. That the Indian Army would not have got what they asked for was a natural consequence. About the Army being ill-equipped, when it is a matter of differential resource allocations, dictated by the political hierarchy, the Army has no option but to be deployed with what they have been provided with. Even today, the Armed Forces would want many things, but the purse remains with the political masters. We had a chief in the recent past who announced that “we would go to war with what we have and not with what we want.” If the higher commanders fail to voice dissent and prevent deployment, it is only because they either fail to carry out a realistic appraisal of the situation or remain silent in subservience.

If the Government, in power then, went ahead despite the advice, there would have been compulsions. What would those compulsions be? Did they have an alternative?

An Alternative?

Let us recreate the decision scenario. 

What were the options available to the leadership? They had two options. First, let things be as it is, give up our claim and let China take possession of the land they claimed was theirs. This option, if adopted, would have been an uncontested surrender of the land that we claimed was legally ours and continue to claim as ours. In that case, a war could have been avoided. The adversary would then have continued to increasingly claim and creep forward as years progressed. Surrender would have become the norm. The current generation would have never forgiven the past for not putting up a fight, irrespective of the outcome.

In that case, there was only one option available to the leadership, and that was to fight, last man last round, irrespective of what the morrow brought along. So, we fought with whatever resources we could muster and with all the ferocity that we could command. Could there be any other option available? 

Unparalleled?

In 1962, the Government of India was faced with the dilemma of deciding either to give up meekly or to put up resistance, however weak it would have been. In a situation of “damned if you do and damned if you don't,” the Government of India decided to go on the offensive. The only political and military objective of the 1962 war was to hold on to each inch of land, whatever the cost. We, armed with all the wherewithal that hindsight can provide, devoid of the burden of decision, and insulated from consequences, can sit to critique the decisions taken then. Could there have been any other decision? Everything about the war was unparalleled, then and is unparalleled, even now.

Judgement

In war, meek surrender not only brings defeat and dishonour, it pawns the dignity and honour of future generations. The only option for an honourable country was to put up a fight with whatever means it had at its disposal, even if martyrdom and defeat were the only guaranteed outcome then and scorn later. The unmatched courage and valour of our troops are worthy of eternal remembrance.  But for leaders, “uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.” It takes broad shoulders and a huge heart to take the responsibility for a defeat. Lesser mortals are incapable of doing it. Some make history winning, and some are remembered for having led in tough times.

 Let the future judge the past as always, but empowered with knowledge, kinder. 

It will be a nice gesture of gratitude to the author if you subscribe to the blog and click the "Follow" button.