Future of India’s Military Operations: Lessons from the Past - Part 2

 

PART 2: First War of Kashmir 1947

Change in Mind

When I first sat down to write the article, I believed I could finish it in three parts. After all, I had studied these military operations, and all it needed was putting things in an easily readable form. Once I started reading up on the material I collected, I realised, my knowledge had been confined purely to the military perspective. The canvas on which each of the military operations was conducted stretched far beyond matters of arms. Their beginnings rested in complex geopolitical vortices, and the battlefields stretched far back and far ahead. To my horror, I also realised that we find ourselves repeatedly in a state of déjà Vu, moving forward linearly but in circles. This aspect shall be discussed in the concluding part of the article, dealing with “what lies ahead for us.” 

Each operation India has undertaken demands deference. It is that deep respect and admiration for those involved in the operations that compelled me to discuss major operations one by one and share with my readers across the world the political events that led to the military interventions and outcomes.

Keeping in line with the enhanced scope and coverage, I took the liberty of changing the title of the article from “Operation Sindoor and Other Unparalleled Operations” to “Future of India’s Military Operations: Lessons from the Past.”

 

A Lingering Question

The spectrum of political issues behind the First Kashmir War is seldom discussed and therefore remains hidden. Whenever the First Kashmir War comes up for discussion nowadays, it is always served on politically coloured plates, to serve the needs of the election hour. The WhatsApp university does the rest, providing fertile grounds where half-truths, hearsay, assumptions, and lies thrive, infecting anyone in the proximity. Reluctance or inability to do serious reading, aided by the rampant presence of visuals ridden with political messaging, helps proliferate untruths, burying truth in fathomless depths.

The question that resonates most in highly charged contemporary political debates, in an ignorant, ill-informed, or misinformed environment, with outcomes on expected lines, is “Why was the military operation against the raiders in Kashmir not allowed to continue till the entire territory of Kashmir under Maharaja Hari Singh was retrieved?” The question is invariably followed up with the expression, “if only…”

To answer that all-important question, we must understand the complex political events leading up to the war and those that unfolded thereafter on both sides of the border. Armed with hindsight, seated accusingly in the knowledge of the present, and ignorant of the compulsions of the past, it is easy to judge. To be fair to the people who led the government then, I have relied on works published by authors whom I consider unbiased academics, unfettered by political compulsions, to bring to you the conditions under which the leaders of India, emerging into independence, took decisions. 

Consolidation of Territory

The years preceding or succeeding independence were unbelievably tough on the administration. According to information available in the public domain, India in 1947 had about 565 princely states within the current geographical limits of India. These states/regions were not part of British India but were semi-autonomous territories ruled by local leaders under British Suzerainty.  A sovereignty, where a state had absolute authority over all its affairs without any external interference, is different from a suzerainty, where the state and the ruler could only make local laws and were under the rule of another state or ruler for all major decisions.

The Indian Independence Act 1947, as interpreted then, gave these states the freedom to join India or Pakistan or even remain independent, once the British Suzerainty ceased. It was left to the leaders of the Indian freedom movement to motivate these rulers to join India. The process involved tough and long-drawn negotiations, assurances and promises of safety, status, income, and such other things. It is very important to understand that the process of integration was a cauldron of boiling contradictions, requiring deft handling. 

According to the information available in the public domain, states like Baroda, Bikaner, and others from Rajasthan were the first among princely states to join the Indian Union. Manipur and Jodhpur are said to have acceded to India on 11 August 1947, and Tripura on 13 August 1947. Piploda joined after March 1948, and Bilaspur on 12 October 1948. Interestingly, a few of the principalities that initially opted to join Pakistan were motivated and convinced to accede to India.  Some required a different motivation.

Sir, CP Ramaswamy Iyer, the Dewan of Travancore, the southernmost Kingdom within the boundaries of India, we now know, declared, on 11 June 1947, that Travancore would stay independent after the British left. The Indian National Congress launched the civil unrest protesting the ruler's decision. Travancore finally agreed to the accession on 30 July, but not before an assassination attempt on the Dewan. They finally ceded to India on 15 August 1947. 

Nawab Hamidulllah Khan, the Muslim ruler of Bhopal, a Hindu-majority state, reluctantly agreed to join after public unrest.  He signed the Instrument of Accession on 30 August 1947. Hyderabad, also a Hindu-majority state with a Muslim Ruler, opted for independence, but was annexed through Operation Polo in September 1948. 

Junagadh, a Hindu-majority state under a Muslim ruler, Nawab Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III, opted to join Pakistan. The choice did not please Delhi. There were severe protests in Junagadh. India imposed economic sanctions and cut off access to the state. On 24 October 1947, the Nawab fled to Pakistan, leaving the administration to the Dewan, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, father of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. On 7 November 1947, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, considering the deteriorating law and order situation, invited India to take over the administration of Junagadh. The Indian forces annexed Junagadh on 9 November 1947. In February 1948, when a plebiscite was conducted, 99% people wanted to join India. Separate polls in other areas too, found most opting in favour of India. It took many more years for India to reach the present boundary configuration. There was a lot more to consolidate.

In 1954, Indian nationalist volunteers, supported by residents, through a non-violent movement, wrested control of Dadra and Nagar Haveli from the Portuguese. These territories were administered by a local body under India’s oversight from 1954 to 1961. The Portuguese also refused to cede Goa, Daman, and Diu, the colonial territories on the western coast of India. Intense diplomatic efforts throughout the 1950s failed. India launched Operation Vijay on 18 December 1961 and annexed Goa, Daman, and Diu on 19 December 1961. After the annexation of Goa in 1961, Portugal relinquished claims, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli were formally integrated as a Union Territory in 1961.

The French agreed to cede Chandernagore, also called Chandan Nagar, a French colony, situated on the west bank of the Hooghly River, 35 km north of Kolkata, after the referendum on 19 June 1949, with 114 voting to stay with the French and 7473 voting to join India. The process was completed in 1950. In 1954, the French handed over de facto control of Pondicherry (now Puducherry), Karaikal, Mahe, and Yanam to India following negotiations and local referendums. The “de jure” (legal) transfer was formalised through the Treaty of Cession signed on May 28, 1956, and ratified by France in 1962 after parliamentary approval.

Sikkim remained an autonomous monarchy under the Chogyal, with special protectorate status under India as per the Indo-Sikkim Treaty of 1950, with external affairs, defence, and communication controlled by India. Dissatisfied with the monarchy, political unrest, led by the Sikkim National Congress and other democratic parties, erupted in Sikkim in 1973, demanding democratic governance. In 1974, elections were held after a new constitution was drafted. The Sikkim Assembly, now pro-India, passed a resolution seeking full integration with India.  This led to serious turmoil in the area. In April 1975, the Indian Army entered Sikkim, disarmed the palace guard, and placed the Chogyal (King) under house arrest. A referendum was held in Sikkim on 14 April 1975, in which over 97% of the population voted in favour of joining India. The Indian Parliament, on 16 May 1975, amended the Constitution (36th Amendment), making Sikkim a full-fledged state of India.

Territorial consolidation of India started earnestly in 1947 and, in the form we know now, was completed only in 1975. The process went far beyond the lives of many who initially led the freedom movement or the territorial consolidation immediately after independence. Irrespective of when it happened, it required a lot of negotiation, mediation, motivation, manoeuvring and even the military. Kashmir presented a different matrix altogether.

Kashmir

Kashmir, the territory between India and Pakistan, consisted of three distinct areas. The Jammu region was predominantly Hindu, the valley predominantly Muslim and Ladakh mostly Buddhist. The kingdom was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu. He wanted independence from both India and Pakistan. He signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan, but India did not sign the agreement. Pakistan sensed that Maharaja Hari Singh could deliver Kashmir to India and went on the offensive on 22 October 1947. A careful reading of the history books of that time would give a clear picture of the complex and peculiar political situation Kashmir presented to Delhi. Some leaders who are now projected as having strongly wanted Kashmir in India are said to have initially told Lord Mountbatten otherwise. 

With the raiders almost at his doorstep, Maharaja Hari Singh fled Srinagar on the night of 25 October 1947 and reached his palace in Jammu. Aware of the territorial losses suffered, he signed the instrument of accession in the afternoon of 26 October 1947. A decision was immediately taken to airlift troops to Srinagar. The civil and military authorities were busy the entire night of 26 October, getting together the required number of planes, pilots, and supplies to be lifted. By the morning of 27 October, they managed to get about 100 planes. These were used for airlifting 329 soldiers of the 1 Sikh led by Lieutenant Colonel Ranjit Rai from Willingdon Airfield, Delhi. The authorities were not sure if the airfield at Srinagar had already fallen to the enemy.  The Colonel was therefore under instructions to circle the airfield and, in case of doubt, not land but return to Jammu. By 10:30 in the morning, Delhi received the much-awaited message that the planes had landed safely.

Meanwhile, Mohammed Ali Jinnah had already moved from Karachi to Lahore, waiting for a triumphant entry into Srinagar on 26 or 27 October, only to learn that Srinagar had been taken by the Indian forces. Jinnah immediately instructed Sir Francis Mudie, Governor of West Punjab, to telephone General Gracey, Acting Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistani army, ordering him to move the Army towards Kashmir. Sir Francis Mudie obeyed Jinnah, but Gracy did not obey Mudie, telling him that he required the permission of General Auchinleck, the Supreme Commander, in Delhi, who remained in charge of all the British officers on both sides. On 28 October, General Auchinleck flew to Lahore and met Jinnah and told him that while India was entitled to send troops to Kashmir, a part of India, Pakistan could not. He also told Jinnah that if he sent troops, British nationals in the Pakistan Army would not participate. Meanwhile, Indian troops were bloodying the encroachers.  

The Elusive Answer

It is said that the military wanted permission to go ahead and capture the entire area of Kashmir that belonged to Maharaja Hari Singh before signing the instrument that accession. There are reasons to believe it, too. The battalion that landed at the airport after securing the airport advanced towards Baramulla to stop the raiders there. When they contacted the enemy, they realised that the raiders “had expert commanders, modern weapons and were in great numerical superiority.” He decided to withdraw to Pattan. Unfortunately, he was killed in action during the withdrawal.

Three more battalions of the Indian Army landed in Srinagar to defend the state's capital. About 700 raiders made a sneak attack on Srinagar on 3 November 1947. The Attack was repulsed, but not without losses. The locals also turned against the raiders because of the cruel loot, plunder, and rape they had inflicted on them. By December 1947, Indian forces were gaining ground against the tribals and Pakistani forces in Jammu and Kashmir. This led to serious discussion in Delhi about pushing the offensive further into Muzaffarabad, Mirpur and other areas held by the Pakistan forces. There were problems.

Both India and Pakistan had retained British officers in the top military positions when they gained independence. General Auchinleck was the Supreme Commander of both Indian and Pakistani forces. The supreme command was dissolved on 30 November 1947, and both countries had their own separate National commands from 1 December 1947. General Sir Francis Robert Roy Bucher, who was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief under General Auchinleck, became the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army on 1 January 1948 and served till 15 January 1949 to hand over the reins to General KM Cariappa, the First Indian Army Chief of free India.

Meanwhile, there were differences of opinion between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Deputy Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on how the state should be ruled. The issue became so intense that both Patel and Nehru offered to resign. The interaction between the two by way of letters was, however, dignified and with immense respect for each other. In the end, Vallabhbhai, as Minister of States, gave the reins of shaping India's Kashmir policy to Nehru. Nehru continued to take Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's advice and consent on most issues regarding Kashmir. 

General Sir Francis Robert Roy Bucher advised Nehru against pursuing the offensive because he felt that the Indian Army was not yet logistically or organisationally ready for a full-scale war with Pakistan. He also cautioned the Prime Minister about the harsh winter in the Kashmir region and its impact on already-strained supply lines, which could prolong the operations and increase casualties. He advised the Prime Minister to stop the offensive and refer the case to the United Nations. It is possible that the advice was also to avoid the British officers from the unpleasant situation of being on both sides of the conflict.

Most of the negotiation with the ruler of Kashmir was based on the advice of Lord Mountbatten. The decision to approach the United Nations on the issue of Kashmir was also based on the Governor General’s prescriptions. Sardar Patel was against the reference of Kashmir to the UN and preferred timely action on the ground. While he held that idea, he did not insist because Kashmir was being handled by Nehru, who had the consent from Gandhi.

The Connected Question

Another question connected to the decision to stop the military offensive against Pakistan in 1947 is, “Why did Nehru take the Kashmir issue to the United Nations?”

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, following the end of the Second World War, with the noble aim of preventing future global conflicts. India, still under British colonial rule, was among the 51 founding members of the United Nations, which ratified the charter that came into force on 24 October 1945. It was those heady days when peace was romanticised and everyone thought that the UN would deliver peace from situations of conflict. There was a strong precedent suggesting effective conflict resolution by the UNSC. 

The first complaint to the United Nations Security Council came from Iran on 19 January 1946. Iran complained that the Soviet Union, which was supposed to withdraw its troops, had not done so and was interfering in its internal matters by supporting separatists. The dispute was resolved through discussion, and the Soviet Union withdrew troops in May 1946. In September 1946, Greece accused Bulgaria of a border attack and military aggression. This matter was also discussed and defused. In October 1946, the UK brought the case to the Security Council, the Corfu Channel incident, where British naval ships hit mines in Albanian waters. The UK accused Albania of laying the mines or failing to warn. It also took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Incidentally, this became the first case ever heard at the ICJ.  ICJ ruled in favour of the UK in 1949, awarding compensation. In July 1947, the Netherlands launched a military action against Indonesian independence forces. When India and Australia raised the issue in the Security Council, the UN called for ceasefires and negotiations, eventually leading to Indonesia’s independence in 1949. With such strong precedence and India being a responsible nation, going to the UN seemed to be the right thing then. After all, the UN had not become the lifeless entity that it has become now.

On 1 January 1948, India submitted its complaint to the president of the Security Council, and it read,

“Under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any Member may bring any situation whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to the attention of the Security Council. Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the north‑west, are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which has acceded to the Dominion of India and is part of India. The circumstances of accession, the activities of the invaders that led the Government of India to take military action against them, and the assistance which the attackers have received and are still receiving from Pakistan are explained later in this memorandum. The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance, which is an act of aggression against India. If Pakistan does not do so, the Government of India may be compelled, in self‑defence, to enter Pakistan territory to take military action against the invaders. The matter is, therefore, one of extreme urgency and calls for immediate action by the Security Council for avoiding a breach of international peace”

Ours to Judge

The crown of authority comes with the pain of accountability. Weighed down by fear of consequences and unimaginable imponderables, placed in an endless sea of ambiguity, and the possibility of having to eternally bear the cross for the outcome, decision-making is not easy. The hallmark of strong leaders is their ability to take bold decisions with the hope of success, knowingly pushing aside the fear of failure.  The agony of decision-making does not guarantee them kindness in judgment by future generations, especially when it is about political dividends. The toast of the town today could be burnt at the stake tomorrow, even in absentia. It is far easier to evaluate, criticise, and suggest a better way out, without having to bear the cross at all, many decades after a decision was taken. In hindsight, stopping the military advance or going to the UN did no good to us. But did they have the luxury of hindsight?

If the success of an operation is measured by outcomes, given the ambiguity and complexity of the prevailing situation, the First Kashmir War was a resounding success. If peace between India and Pakistan is still a mirage, there are other reasons. The decision to go to the UN is insignificant. In the process of understanding the evolution of modern India’s territorial boundaries, I also realised that knowledge humbles arrogance empowered by ignorance.

(Coming up in the next part -1962 Operations)

PS: The Picture  is representative of soldiers in 1947 and AI-generated

 

 

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

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!

 

Qualifications or “Callification,” Selection and Retention Criterion

 

Endless Efforts

 

“Callification?” Your efforts to find out what it means in the dictionary shall go in vain. I just made it up.  Patiently read through it; you will know what it means.   

The three submersible pumps working continuously and in tandem could not fill the colony’s overhead tank. The employees kept the pump running. One pump ran dry far too long and burned itself out. The open well also ran dry. They told no one. Why should they? They had nothing to lose. I noticed the unusual activity and enquired. This had been going on for a few days. It should not have. 

I did a quick calculation of the flow rates of the pumps, the capacity of the community tank, and the tanks over the individual houses. Considering the endless efforts of the pumps, all the overhead tanks should have been filled and overflowing. It did not happen. I concluded that there must be a leak somewhere in the pipeline. The large amount of water that leaked out must have gone under the foundation of somebody's house. People seemed to be oblivious to the potential losses and damage. 

Stimulus 

“Let us check the pipeline to identify and plug the leak,” I suggested. “You have no qualifications to decide what is wrong with the water distribution system,” came the only response in the group. I was not surprised. I did not expect anything different from that individual. Did the crass response stem from deep-rooted prejudice germinated in ignorance? 

Ignorance? The individual had never bothered to ask me about my qualifications or experience. He could not have known about my academic or professional qualifications.  I did not have to revisit the lessons in fluid mechanics or applied engineering or fall back on my experiences in managing the civic amenities of one of the biggest cantonments to understand the elementary science problem. I also did not have to rack my brain to remember my lessons in missile technology. After all, determining why an overhead tank refuses to fill up is no rocket science.  

Prejudice? Prejudice is a platform internally constructed by an individual using preconceived notions about individuals, groups, or even things. The result of a “taught” or “thought” concept, it invariably becomes a subconscious driver. It influences, often negatively, everything an individual thinks, says, or does. We all carry prejudices of some sort and tend to use broad-brushed templates in our thoughts, and actions. Some amongst us make it obvious and take it to obnoxious levels. Prejudice is the result of our inability or unwillingness to reason out within ourselves. If we sit down and dispassionately analyse our conversations and the decisions we have taken over time, we should be able to spot the prejudices underpinning them. 

Many believe that the job of the Army is to only guard the country’s borders. They think that everybody in the army stands in rows along the borders preventing people from crossing over. Some feel the Army is all about marching and doing physical exercises in the morning to prepare themselves for a duel at the border and doing sentry duty. They ask, “What does the army do when there is no war?” They cannot fathom the extent to which officers of the Indian Army toil on various contemporary academic and professional subjects. Their mobility up the hierarchy ladder is largely linked to their performance in these tests. Unfortunately, such injurious ignorance is prevalent even amongst the “supposed to be” well-read.  

Response 

I was angry and instinctively wanted to respond in the same coin.  The wisdom that age, exposure, experiences, and knowledge bestowed on me forbade me from stooping down. I decided to deny traction to the foul mouth. His response, however, triggered a much deeper thought. I am, by nature, given to analyse the ‘why and how’ behind every ‘what’ I see or experience. Why did he say that? Nobody does anything once. There is always a pattern and they leave a trail. He did. 

Besides his prejudice, which I was aware of, there must be an underlying belief that prompted the response. In possession of a professional degree, he had given himself to the belief that formal qualifications define an individual’s competence and his place in society. It showed in his generally loud and contemptuous behaviour. Unfortunately, there are many like him, enslaved by similar beliefs. This misplaced belief has forced people to obtain fancy qualifications by whatever possible means. It is common knowledge that people adopt illegal means to secure academic degrees. Some go to the extent of even buying doctorate degrees. Esteem somehow seems tagged to the few letters that find a place after an individual’s name. Do formal qualifications denote competence?   

Understanding “Callification” 

The discussion does not in any manner advocate the thought that an educational degree is a waste of time. One needs to have the basic requisite educational qualification. Mere possession of the qualification, however, is no guarantee of the presence of expected skills or the aptitude to apply the acquired knowledge. If an educational degree defines comparable competence, two equally qualified professionals like chefs, doctors, economists, fashion designers, lawyers, or musicians, should all demonstrate comparable performance. This is not the case. 

Everyone gets the initial foothold into a profession using the few letters representing a mandated educational degree. It may also be the inescapable requisite for career progression. Degrees merely indicate that the person has cleared a qualifying examination, by whatever means. The marks obtained by the person do not in any manner indicate his proficiency. It merely shows how well he fared in recalling answers to the questions, which in turn was anyway a matter of probability. This gives the individual the required ‘qualification’ to secure entry to an organisation or a job. Once an entry has been obtained, they need to perform in the role assigned. In performance, the difference between grain and chaff lies in “callification.” Without callification, however, smart one may be, one cannot make lasting Impressions in the field one has chosen. 

“Callification,” is the calling from within. If a person has a calling from within to be in a profession, then the quality of the work, he or she gives the organisation and the impact the person makes easily stand out from the rest. They are normally so self-motivated that they only need to be told the end state, not the how. Team leaders can easily distinguish between those driven by qualification and fired by “callification.” 

Selection Criterion 

Recruitment is now mostly an outsourced activity. Recruiters and head hunters are guided by the selection criteria template provided by the client. They look only at the qualification and track record of the prospective resource because they have no means to determine the callification.  Team leaders at all levels would love to have those fired by “callification” because it makes achieving goals easy. Many “callified” people are considered mavericks and leaders unsure of themselves may be loath to have them around. 

One of the common responses I get to most of my articles is, “What is the remedy?” There is no panacea for HR problems. It must be tailored to suit each situation. I cannot help HR professionals or those involved in making policies on selection, career progression, attrition,
and retention, by prescribing any means to determine if someone has the “callification” that they are looking for. I certainly know of a CEO who goes to great lengths to look for it.  

The CEO 

The qualification required to get on to the organisational roll is just an engineering degree. The degree guarantees the prospective candidate only an opportunity to sit for an examination conducted by the firm.  The exam unlike entrance processes adopted by many other firms focuses mostly on the application of knowledge that the qualification was supposed to have provided the candidate with. It also evaluates the ingenuity and adaptability of the candidate. 

Once a candidate gets through the written gateway, he or she faces an interview. According to the CEO, they look for the “spark” in the candidate. Talking to the CEO, I understand that the candidate reveals the presence or absence of the “spark” they are looking for within the first five minutes of the interview. The candidates call it the “desire to do something special” and I now call it “callification.” The candidate’s lack of communication skills does not become a barrier in this determination process.  It is a vibe, a feel that the candidate sends across and one that can easily be picked up by the discerning. The firm attributes the almost 100% retention of the resources to that spark or callification. The firm has been growing, in size and business. 

With no malice to recruiting agencies and professional head hunters, third-party recruitment may always ensure qualified resources, not “callified” ones.  Organisations staffed by “callified” people can make even deserts bloom.