Ashok Ogra
There are moments in history when a telephone call becomes more than a routine exchange – it echoes power, purpose and poise.
One day, after a long and exhausting series of meetings and work, Prof. John Galbraith, the eminent economist and US Ambassador to India told his secretary, Emily, that he was taking a nap and did not want to be disturbed.
While he was asleep, a phone call came from the White House. President of the United States was on the line, asking to speak to Prof. Galbraith.
Emily replied: “He is sleeping and said not to be disturbed.”
An irritated President responded: “I am the President of the United States. Wake him up!”
To which Emily said, firmly: “No, Mr. President. I work for Mr. Galbraith, not for you.”
When Galbraith later called the White House back and apologized, the President reportedly said: “I want that woman working in the White House.”
The second story concerns Nehru who was known for answering his own phone sometimes. Once, when a junior officer nervously called what he thought was his colleague’s number, Nehru himself picked up.
The officer panicked and blurted: “Sorry, wrong number!”
Nehru chuckled and said: “There are no wrong numbers in public service. What can I do for you?”
Yet, history has also shown the critical importance of immediate communication – particularly when tensions between adversaries can escalate in a heartbeat. In today’s era of recurrent tsunamis in the form of ‘breaking news’ and fast-paced diplomacy, hotlines – secure direct lines between military commanders and between heads of state – serve as the crucial safety valve in preventing skirmishes across the border or a localized conflict from escalating into an all- out conflict.
The idea behind establishing this communication line was simple but vital: facilitating immediate contact between the adversaries to address misunderstandings and avert war- like situations from developing.
It was hotline facility that that was used last month by both the Indian and Pakistani Director General Military Operations (DGMO) to announce that an understanding has been reached to end the fighting along the India-Pakistan border – thus preventing the situation from turning into a full-fledged war.
It was agreed that both sides would stop firing on land, air and sea from May10 (5pm). The world had a sigh of relief as it feared a nuclear war- like situation developing.
While such hotlines are often associated with modern technology and the geopolitical concerns of the 20th – 21st century, the practice of high-level communication can be traced through much of global history.
In medieval times, messengers were sent between monarchs to negotiate peace or to warn of impending invasions. Royal courts in Europe often relied on envoys that carried urgent messages that could change the course of battles or alliances.
Even in the ancient world, communication networks existed to facilitate diplomacy and crisis management. In China, imperial edicts were often dispatched via fast relay systems to ensure that the emperor’s word reached every part of the empire in time of war or peace. Similarly, the Roman Empire used special couriers to send dispatches to its far-flung territories, ensuring that communication was never too far behind its military movements.
During the Mughal Empire, emissaries and royal couriers played an integral role in communication. The Dak Chowki system, developed under the reign of Akbar, was an elaborate network that allowed the Mughal court to maintain effective communication across vast territories. The system ensured that information-whether concerning a potential war or royal decree-was communicated swiftly and securely.
Similarly, merchants from regions like Gujarat and Malabar facilitated trade and diplomatic communication across the Indian Ocean. These merchants acted as informal hotlines, transmitting not only goods but vital information about political upheavals or threats that could affect trade routes.
However, the key limitations of this period were the absence of instantaneous communication as the telegraph had not yet arrived on the scene. Therefore, misunderstandings could escalate into war simply because it took weeks to clarify intentions (e.g., the War between United States and Great Britain, lasting from June 1812 to early 1815) was partly triggered because diplomatic messages failed to arrive in time.
The best example of the first modern hotline was established between Moscow and Washington in 1962 following the Cuban Missile Crisis. A major misunderstanding between the United States and the Soviet Union nearly led to nuclear war. The tension of the moment and the lack of clear communication between both superpowers escalated the situation to the brink.
This realization of how this could escalate tensions was pivotal in the establishment of such hotlines globally.
But perhaps the most significant communication network in modern India is the DGMO hotline between India and Pakistan. Established in 2004, this military-to-military hotline provides a direct line of communication between the Director Generals of Military Operations of the two countries. The hotline has been used multiple times to defuse conflicts, such as in the aftermath of terrorist attacks or cross-border skirmishes.
In the case of India-Pakistan relations, the hotline has also seen its share of tense moments. One particularly volatile instance occurred in 2016, following a deadly attack on an Indian military base in Uri and India’s counterstrike operations. Despite efforts to use the hotline to ensure clear communication, the situation was exacerbated by misunderstandings over the nature and scale of military actions. The miscommunication, along with a cloud of mistrust, could have easily escalated the crisis had both sides not engaged in real-time discussions.
Incidentally, a hotline has also been functioning between India and China since 2021. This was set up due to repeated border clashes along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). It functions between Indian Army HQ and China’s Western Theater Command.
Some other notable hotlines established are: China-United States Military Hotline (2008) to manage growing military interactions in the Asia-Pacific, and the North Korea-South Korea Hotlines (1971). Multiple hotlines have been established and cut off periodically depending on the political climate. This is also used for arranging family reunions, and managing cross-border incidents.
Hollywood, ever keen on reflecting and amplifying the world’s tensions, has used the concept of hotlines to create some of the most tense and thrilling moments in film history. In movies, hotlines aren’t just technological tools; they’re plot devices that heighten suspense and convey the imminent threat of war.
The US once sent a test message to Moscow containing lines from Shakespeare and Mark Twain to test the line’s quality.
The Soviets reportedly replied with something like:
“We appreciate your efforts, but would prefer if you did not send us literature.”
In the case of the India-Pakistan Hotline, during one of the many tense moments along the border, the two sides had scheduled a hotline call. The call began with serious talk but reportedly veered into discussion about cricket scores mid-conversation.
One officer allegedly said, “If only we settled issues on the pitch instead of the border.”
(This is unconfirmed but widely circulated story in defense circles-showing how sports diplomacy leaks even into military channels.)
These examples underline a sobering truth: even with advanced technological systems, the chance of human error or miscommunication remains high, particularly in situations of high stress or when rapid decision-making is required. The potential for mishaps in communication cannot be ignored.
Hotlines are tools, not guarantees. They ensure the message gets through – but only diplomacy ensures it is understood the right way. In the case of India and Pakistan, one question remains deeply unsettling: dialogue with whom? Pakistan’s civilian government has little real authority over security policy, while its military establishment continues to view a strategy of ‘bleeding India by a thousand cuts’ as central to its doctrine.
The real question is this- are there voices within the Pakistan Army today willing to heed the wisdom in Nelson Mandela’s first phone call to President F.W. de Klerk after his release from prison?
“If we are to build a new South Africa, it begins with our voices, not our weapons.”
It is a message as relevant for the subcontinent today as it was for South Africa then.
(The author works as Advisor with reputed Apeejay Education, New Delhi)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
