ON OUR JOURNEY IN SEARCH OF THE UNPARALLELED – THE 1965 WAR

 

Ferocity, in battles on the land and duels in the air, was the hallmark of the second Indo-Pakistan war of 1965. Many books have been written, on both sides of the border, about the war and its battles, both in the air and on the land. Carefully researched facts, figures, and diagrams outlining the progress of operations lend an essence of authority to the work. Each story, replete with grit and valour, with all the attendant ghastly details finely woven in, makes compelling narratives that deify domestic military heroes and demonise the adversary. Straying from the truth while writing about battles is an honourable compulsion, soaked in nationalism. After all, war has never been about absolute truth, and history, the narrative of the victor. 

But what happens when both parties declare themselves victors? Deja Vu?

This article, like the previous three on India’s unparalleled wars, will not take us through individual battles. We will navigate mostly through the causes to understand what happened, briefly touching upon the war, in search of unparalleled aspects. The war is said to have begun on 6 September 1965 when India launched a full-scale counterattack across the international border and headed towards Lahore. It ended in a Soviet brokered ceasefire declared on 22 September 1965. Ironically, both countries declared themselves the winners in the war. Sensing parallels and the unparalleled?

The term “counterattack” clearly indicates that there was an attack by Pakistan on India, to which India responded. Why would Pakistan attack India in 1965, out of the blue? The obvious answer that everybody can easily peddle is that the unfinished Kashmir business had to be completed. After all, the previous war, fought in 1947, was about Kashmir.  The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 had brought the first war to a ceasefire operative on 1 January 1949. Resolution 47 was only an expansion of Resolution 39, adopted on 20 January 1948. Resolution 39, the second on the Kashmir dispute, was to investigate the issue, bring out the facts and recommend ways to settle the differences between the two parties. Resolution 47 now mandated the three-step process of ceasefire, withdrawal of troops and plebiscite. Both parties were to withdraw all their military forces from the area. Claims and counterclaims aside, demilitarisation never happened. The first step was never taken. There were 12 resolutions on Kashmir before the war, mostly on issues brought up by Pakistan. All these resolutions either set conditions for the process to move forward or reaffirmed what had already been said. Interestingly, the last resolution on Kashmir before the 1965 was Resolution 209, adopted on 4 September 1965 was passed after the Pakistani Troops had crossed into the Rann of Kutch. 

Was the 1965 war, therefore, the result of Pakistan’s frustration with 16 years of waiting? 

Well, let us explore a little more before we form an opinion.

On 28 September 1965, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in his speech in the United Nations General Assembly, complained that Pakistan had repeatedly approached the Security Council since 1948 for a solution and that it had exhausted peaceful diplomatic means. That speech certainly said nothing about their efforts to demilitarise the area. Delivered after the war, it was more of a justification of the misadventure. Only the gullible would fall for this explanation. If military action was the way out, it could have happened just after 1962. India was at its weakest militarily and economically. If Pakistan had launched an attack simultaneously with the China war, it would have had a major impact on India. Politically, India was also weak at that time.

War is the military implementation of a political decision. Wars do not originate out of nothing. It commences when one country feels that either the conditions of the adversary are conducive or favourable enough to launch an offensive, or when domestic conditions warrant a move against the adversary.  When the military leader is himself the political head, the distance between decision and execution diminishes. Waging war then becomes the first and easiest option. While the conditions within India would have been favourable for Pakistan to launch an attack then, it did not happen. Certainly, something else would have been the reason.

Let us look for it.

The post-independence march of the country with Mohammad Ali Jinnah as its first Governor General ceased in 1948 with his death. Said to have been diagnosed with tuberculosis in 1930, he developed lung cancer and died on 11 September 1948, barely a year after Pakistan had won independence. Pakistan plunged into a very turbulent period of power transfer. Khawaja Nazimuddin became the second Governor General of Pakistan, and Mr Liaquat Ali Khan, already the prime minister, with Mohammed Ali Jinnah, continued in office. On 17 January 1951, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan made Mohammad Ayub Khan a general and the first commander-in-chief of the Pakistan army, replacing General Sir Douglas Gracy. Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated on 16 October 1951.

The assassin, Saad Akbar Babrak, an Afghan National, was shot dead immediately, and the reasons for the assassination, undiscovered or undisclosed, were buried with him. Incidentally, Liaquat Ali Khan had survived an attempted coup in March 1951. Khwaja Nazimuddin, the Governor General of Pakistan, became the Prime Minister. Gulam Mohammed, the finance minister, was appointed as the Governor General. On 23 March 1956, Pakistan became an Islamic Republic, and the office of the Governor General was replaced with that of the President. Major General Iskander Mirza (retd) became the first President of Pakistan. Meanwhile, governance had deteriorated, and the common man had started feeling the impact. The divide between various regions of the country aggravated, leading to political instability.

Meanwhile, Pakistan exploited the Cold War conditions to beef up its military hardware. On 19 May 1954, it signed the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement (MDAA) with the USA in Karachi. The USA, in pursuit of the Truman Doctrine to contain communism, found the geographical proximity of Pakistan suited to its plans against the Soviet Union and China. India was not willing to play second fiddle to the US in their Cold War efforts. MDAA fetched Pakistan tanks, fighter planes, transport planes, radar systems and naval ships. Pakistani military officers went to the US for training. 

Pakistan received more than $900 million worth of military equipment, effectively bridging the military hardware disparity it faced after partition. Interestingly, all this military hardware, according to the agreement, was to be used exclusively for internal security, legitimate self-defence or participation in the United Nations’ duties. (Rings a familiar bell? The USA did that again later. Starting January 1983, Peace Gate 1 Program delivered 28 F-16 A, 12 F-16 B, besides other military hardware to Pakistan, all for counter terrorist and counterinsurgency operations. In February 2025, the Trump administration released $ 300 out of the $ 450 million funds sanctioned by the Biden Administration in September 2022.) 

On 7 October 1958, the President of Pakistan abrogated the constitution, dismissed the central and provincial governments, declared martial law and appointed General Mohammed Ayub Khan, then the army commander-in-chief, as the Chief Martial Law Administrator. On 27 October 1958, hardly a fortnight later, Ayub Khan removed Mirza, in a bloodless coup, exiled him to London and became President himself. He also retired from the army that day! Since the public was already dissatisfied with how the country was run, the coup seems to have been welcomed. President Ayub Khan introduced many land reforms and strengthened the relationship with the United States.

On 27 October 1959, Ayub Khan’s presidential government declared him a Field Marshal. On that same day, the government also introduced a system called “Basic Democracy”. The country was divided into 80,000 “Basic Democratic” units, and each such unit was to elect one representative called the “Basic Democrat.” Pakistan now had 80,000 local representatives to ensure grassroots governance. In 1962, through the newly promulgated constitution that advocated a presidential system, Ayub Khan consolidated power in his hands. Despite curbs on political freedom, Pakistan under Field Marshal Ayub Khan achieved significant economic growth. The benefits of the modernisation and industrial growth seemed to favour West Pakistan. East Pakistan felt politically and economically marginalised, and the divide between the two became glaring. 

On 13 October 1962, one week before China attacked India, Pakistan commenced negotiations with China over disputed territories. The talks culminated in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Chen Yi, the two foreign ministers, signing the Sino-Pakistan boundary agreement on 2 March 1963. China ceded about 750 square miles while Pakistan gave away more than 2,050 square miles, mostly in the Gilgit-Baltistan area that India claimed ownership. China also gave $60 million interest-free loan to support Pakistan’s economy and strengthen military cooperation.

On 2 January 1965, Pakistan went in for a presidential election. The electoral college of 80,000 Basic Democrats voted. The public had nothing to do with the election. The main contestants were Mohammad Ayub Khan and Fatima Jinnah, the sister of the founder of Pakistan, backed by a coalition of all the opposition parties. Ayub Khan is said to have polled 49,951 votes. Fatima Jinnah, who contested as the mother of the nation, gathered only 28,691 votes. The other two contestants, both independents, Mahmud Ali Kasuri, polled 2,847, and Ghulam Muhammad Sadiq got 1,106.  The total number of votes polled exceeded the official electoral college by 2,595. Naturally, there were complaints of vote manipulation in favour of the sitting president. This led to widespread agitation alleging rampant vote rigging. The urban areas of West Pakistan and most areas of East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh) saw protests. The public turned against the ruler, and Ayub Khan's legitimacy as the President took a severe blow. Something was required to quell the rising discontentment and opposition and redeem the trust of the public in the presidency. Uniting the country against an existential threat was the best way forward.

Meanwhile, India had already lost a war with China. Conditions were perfect now.

Would Kashmir be the objective? We will find out in the next part.

 (NOTE: Picture GROK generated)

1. If you decide to comment, it will be nice if you give your name too. Just write your name after the comment.

2. Please DO NOT FORGET TO FOLLOW.

3. Read in your language?

  Click on the translate button and choose your language .

(To be continued…)

 

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.

 

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

 

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 big and small aircrafts were used for airlifting 329 soldiers of the 1 Sikh led by Lieutenant Colonel Ranjit Rai and the load required for the operation. They took off from Willingdon Airfield, Delhi, as and when each one was loaded. 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 of 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: 

1. The Picture  is representative of soldiers in 1947 and AI-generated.

2.  For those wanting to clarify dates and inference request post query in the comments section. I shall happily share the details and sources.

 

 

Master of the Moat

Palaces, Castles, and Moats

 

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

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

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

Ever Wondered Why? 

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

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

Contemporary Relevance?   

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

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

Survival - Not entitled? 

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

Optimising Moats 

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

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

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

 

The School in Kumaranalloor and a Few Lessons

 

 

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

Praveshanolsavam 

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

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

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

Questioning Literacy 

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

Why is the menace of drug abuse in Kerala growing? 

Why is road rage increasing in Kerala? 

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

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

Why is integrity as a virtue disappearing?

Why is breaking the law becoming fashionable?

Why do we fall easy prey to propaganda?

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

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

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

Education 

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

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

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

Do we believe education comes from books? 

Wisdom and Books 

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

Educating Children 

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

Teachers and Parents 

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

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

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

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

Why fiction? Why not textbooks?  

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

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

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