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.

 

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.

A Table Full of Dishes ; Sanu Ki?

 Ubiquitous Affliction

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

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

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

Disaster Everyone Shut Their Eyes To

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

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

Cost of Collusion

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

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

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

Bite The Bullet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Beings and Human Doings

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

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

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

---

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

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

Two Telephone Calls The Redwood Trees and A Stamp Pad

 

The First Call

It was a call from a former colleague and friend. He was organising an event to get former army officers and their spouses together, on an informal platform. He and a coursemate of mine reached out to all the veteran officers. Their efforts bore fruits. Many officers confirmed their attendance. I presumed he called up to discuss something about the meeting. 

“Sir, I want you to give a talk on ‘group dynamics’ at the meeting, he requested. I could not decline. Each attendee had a distinguished career behind him. Most of them had commanded and led troops in operations. They were masters at keeping teams together and eliciting performance from them in the most trying circumstances. Their spouses had seen it all from very close quarters. Talking to them about team dynamics, I knew, was like showing a candle to the sun. 

I scoured the web for research papers on the subject. All the articles, I laid my hands on, were clinical in their approach. Those in the realm of behavioural sciences took the psychology and psychiatry routes. Papers dealing with management used medical, clinical, and industrial inputs to explain the why of everything. They prescribed how to increase organisational harmony, growth, and productivity. I wanted my talk to be something other than academic because I was to address men and women who risked their own lives for the safety, honour, and welfare of the country and the men they lead. I wanted my talk to connect with their hearts.

When urgency dictates responses, people normally choose easy fixes. I loathe it because such solutions invariably become residual problems that persist. I just dig deeper, strive harder, and normally succeed in coming up with solutions that don't become problems later. I have been lucky. My mind was hard at work. I had not yet come up with any interesting connection. 

The Second Call 

It was quarter past eight in the evening and bedtime was fast approaching. My mobile buzzed. The message was from one of my cousins. "Will you be at home on the 28th of September?" it said. "As of now; Yes," I responded. "Can I call," he asked. "Certainly," I replied. 

He was older than me and was more of an acquaintance than a cousin. Our childhood interactions were brief. We were next-door neighbours and also members of the same local club. Members of the club were a band of youngsters, all in the same age group, looking for adventure and fun. He came to the club only to play badminton and steadfastly stayed away from mischief we worked up. He was studious, focused, hardworking, detached, reserved, and determined to carve a niche for himself. I was part of all the mischief that we, friends, planned and executed unless they decided to pull one on me. 

After graduation, he pursued studies in engineering and secured a career with a prestigious company. When I graduated, I joined the Military Academy and became an army officer. We drifted apart and raised our own families. We met just twice or three times in the last 40 years. Social media opened up avenues to catch up with people and we found a place on each other's contact list but never contacted each other. His message, therefore was a surprise. 

My mobile rang. “It has been many years. I want to meet you, sit down, talk with you, and hug you. We all are running against time. I want to spend some time with you before it is late,” he said. I could sense the sincerity in his words. We agreed to meet on the 30th of September. My mind was still hard at work when I retired to bed. “Why did he call me up?” 

That night I had a strange dream. I saw a forest full of giant Redwood trees. The name ‘redwood tree’ lingered on. I got up from the bed and drank water. Redwood trees? The dream was about things alien to me. I went back to sleep. I dreamt of the Redwood trees again. 

The Redwood Trees

Normally, I find it difficult to recall dreams once I wake up. This dream refused to fade away. I had never been to any Redwood forests. Then, out of the blue, I recalled having read something about the redwood trees of California while I searched the net for places to visit in the USA. I searched again.

Redwood trees are amongst the tallest, biggest, and oldest trees in the world. Some trees are said to have a girth with a diameter of more than 20 feet. It withstands rot, fire, and pests. What is visible to the naked eye is not its actual strength but the manifestation of the real power that lies hidden beneath the surface. Storms and floods cannot fell a Redwood tree. They hold each other. I decided to make the secret of the Redwood trees the ‘connection’ between me and the audience. 

 

The Secret

All trees send roots down; the taller the tree, the deeper the roots. Redwood trees are the tallest but adopt a different strategy. The taller the tree, the farther its roots travel. Like other trees, it does send its roots deep down but unlike other trees, it also sends its roots away in search of other Redwood roots. When the roots of different Redwood trees meet, they embrace each other and eventually merge. It is believed that each redwood tree is connected, at its roots, to all the other redwood trees in the forest. Imagine the strength of each tree held firm by a forest full of roots. No storm or flood can harm a Redwood tree. Storms and floods are inevitable.

Storms 

Individually, each one of us might be super achievers. We might tower over everybody else around us with our achievements. Our wealth and health may seem unassailable. We may even feel undefeatable. Unfortunately, aging is inevitable and afflicts all of us, however mighty we may be. It is also an uneasy process. It brings along storms every day; to each man his own. 

“Empty nest” is a common challenge. We plan the future of our children and strive hard to raise them to succeed in life. When our children grow up, they leave the nest in pursuit of careers of their choice and also raise their own families. Initially, we take great pride and satisfaction in saying that our children have gone far but as age catches up one realises that the nest is empty. It is a situation that we all strive to bring upon ourselves and therefore an irony that we have to come to terms with. Emptiness is the first storm to hit an empty nest.

The storm gains fury as we age. Physical ailments, lack of sleep, and loss of purpose accentuate emptiness. Days become shorter, nights become longer and the horizon looks a bit closer than before. The clock sounds louder at night signaling the presence of emptiness in our nests. The inability of our children to meet our demands on their time, proximity, and care starts hurting us and even negates the pride we once carried about their achievements. The more we demand the less we feel we get irrespective of whatever and how much soever they do. Emptiness is the most dangerous form of cancer. It rots one from within.

Loss of spouse and friends, inevitable in our journey in time, worsens emptiness and makes the storm unbearable. Those amongst us who toiled all our lives only for ourselves, like trees sending their roots down without connecting with the world around, can find emptiness unbearable and storms hard to survive. Those unwilling to mend ways have nothing but bitter emptiness for company, as they age. Their escape comes through Dementia, Alzheimer's, and eventual death. Luckily, it is never too late to start extending our hands of friendship and cooperation to the people around us. There is just one impediment, the baggage we carry.

Baggage

The only impediment to sending our roots out in search of other Redwood trees is our ego. We think no end to ourselves because of the success we attribute to ourselves. We might have been anybody when we were at the zenith of our profession. The place we considered our thrones, the very symbol of our achievements and success, has to be handed over to someone younger even if we don't like it. There will be people more capable than us even if we don't accept it. It is better, we understand that positions and authority are transient and we have travelled beyond them. It is the same with our failures. Success and failures are comparative and perceptional. Pivoting happiness on success and failure is the ultimate cruelty to oneself. This realisation can make it easy for us to let go of the baggage of success or failure that weigh us down as we age. Unwanted cargo only helps a ship drown faster in a storm.

The Stamp Pad

 

Finally, the day I was to address the veterans dawned. I opened the closet to choose the shirt I was to wear. The first thing that caught my eye was the stamp pad. 

It happened a year back, I had called the Soldier welfare officer, requesting an appointment with her. My wife and I were required to affix our thumb impressions on a document in her presence and get that document attested by her. The fine lady had a busy schedule that day. She could not give us an appointment on that day during office hours. She, however, visited us on her way back home. She even carried the stamp pad for the thumb impression. She left the stamp pad back with us. Her act was one of absolute benevolence. I have kept it as a memento. Every time I see the stamp pad, I am reminded of, not just the immense kindness she showed but all that I received all my life. It also reminds me to be grateful for anything I receive. 

A sense of gratitude is a great nutrient. It changes the way we look at life. We become aware of our interdependence as members of the community we live in. It helps initiate, maintain, and sustain fruitful relationships and contribute without expectations. It also works as one of the best antidotes to the ailments inflicted by ego. The older we get, the more reasons we can identify to be grateful. The more we age, the faster we must shed our egos. 

Sans egos and filled with gratitude it becomes easy to stretch our hands out for friendship. When many hands come together each one of us becomes tall like the Redwood trees in the forest, immune to storms and floods that we encounter in our daily lives.

Pretenders and Koels: Organisational Narratives

 Robbery?

Have you ever felt cheated at work? 

You did all the work and someone else robbed you of the credit! 

For many career men and women, this  may be a daily affair. If you have never come across such a situation in your career; you could be amongst the handful few on the planet; otherwise you may be immune or insensitive enough not even to recognise or register this universal phenomenon.

Have you ever cheated someone of their credits? No. Never; I don't ever do such unfair things!! If one has a few human beings on the ladder steps below them in the organisation, such an event would certainly have happened with or without one’s knowledge. Even if it hadn't  actually happened, it is unlikely that someone below you in the ladder hasn't  thought so. If we have climbed the hierarchical ladder, at least sometime in our career, each one of us would have stood accused of giving credit to a pretender. If you haven't been told so, it is likely that you are either uncommunicative or unapproachable. The question remains; are we big hearted enough to accept what we willingly or otherwise perpetrated? 

Et Tu Natura?

I enjoy sitting out on the veranda, looking at my garden and sipping coffee. I enjoy gardening and love my small garden, mostly potted plants. This is where I saw a management lesson unfold!  

Last Sunday, I noticed that the Orchid at the corner had flowered. It looked beautiful. A single stem, not very conspicuously coloured, beautiful nevertheless. It looked as if it emerged from the basket hanging above but actually it was the shoot from the plant potted well below. That plant had shown no symptoms of flowering anytime in the near future and I was in a mood to chop it away. It was on a second thought that I decided to retain it.  Then, when it set forth its shoot and flowered, it looked as if the plant on top of it owned the shoot. The one above stole the thunder from the real source. It would have been a tragedy if I had chopped it off. Despite knowing each plant individually, for a moment I gave credits to the pretender. But there are other natural phenomena that are even more cruel. Brood parasites abound in nature. Koels use Crows to propagate their young. In the process of laying its eggs, koels are known to actually push as many crow’s eggs out of the nest. Crows unaware of the tragedy Nurtures koels eggs. Koel chicks hatch first and consume the maximum food that the crow brings. An intelligent crow is beaten by a smart Koel. Interestingly, organisations nowadays promote the culture of smart working!

Credit Grabbers and Koels 

In every organisation, there are many pretenders, who practice the art of grabbing credit for someone else's job. They may do it either in subtle ways or even making it obvious. It is not restricted to the lower levels in the hierarchy. It is omnipresent across all levels and all verticals. Modus operandi may differ. As a result, a thorough and hardworking individual could end up being labelled an underperformer. It becomes rampant if the evaluator or supervisor himself is incompetent or has come up through the ‘pretend and grab’ route. They slowly erode the kernel from within.

Organisational koels are not rare either but they like brood parasites can be even more dangerous. They deliberately, covertly or overtly, raise obstacles in the path of a colleague or subordinate to disrupt duties being discharged. Some of them even sabotage the systems and processes to achieve their ulterior motives. The management may not realise the presence of brood parasitic activity. It can come in endless ways. At the lower levels it may be by doing a shoddy job to take advantage of a facility given by the management. At the supervisory levels it could be connivance or fear of correction or both. Though not very obvious it actually cuts the organisation at the roots leading to its failure. Organisations in the service industry are easy prey to brood parasitic activities. 

When we are vested with the authority of assessing output of people below us in the hierarchy, it is possible that we give credits where not due, robbing someone who actually toiled. More the number of subordinates to be assessed, the easier it is to go wrong. Weak systems, inadequate checks and balances can help koels make a killing. 

Who stands to lose from koels and pretenders who grab others’ credits and how?

Losers

If the organisation is proprietary in nature, the loss likely to be suffered would be personal for the proprietor. Since the loss would be felt personally, investigations would be prompt and therefore corrective interventions are likely to be applied sooner than later. In non-proprietary organisations, since the management may not realise the short term or long term losses immediately, pretenders and koels are likely to be at play more often. Larger the organisation, higher the probability of multiplicity in hierarchical interactions and more remote the chance of discovery, more conducive the environment for pretenders and Koels to thrive. While the pretender or koel may continue to reap rewards, the organisation may be hopelessly hemorrhaging. Damages inflicted would be cumulative and might never get attributed to any one individual. Therefore the necessity of putting systems and methods in place to prevent such practices becomes more inevitable in large organisations.

The golden rule to remember is pretenders and koels may make the sun look shining, to make their hay, but they would be pushing the organisation into darkness, sometime for eternity. There are enough examples too.