Why do Indians settle for goosebumps instead of SOPs that win – systematically and scientifically?

Corporate India and military India are full of stories of how Indians averted crises. How in Rezang La, Galwan, Doklam, Namka Chu, Longewala only a handful of Indians – how only one manager acted against the odds – giving us goosebumps. Indians are blessed to sire goosebumps. Why can’t we have SOPs that win? Why the USA, Israel, and China Don’t Get Goosebumps…

By Debasish Roy
CEO, Royalle Corporation (www.royalle.in)

Pakistan scores defeats, China has salami slicing incursions, Israel wipes out enemies, USA occupies nations while battles by India periodically gives us goosebumps. Why?

There’s something uniquely Indian about valorizing crisis over competence. We are a civilization that celebrates “against-all-odds” moments — whether it’s a handful of soldiers holding off an enemy battalion in the icy heights of Rezang La or a lone manager saving a failing company project. Our national narrative thrives on adrenaline, emotion, and goosebumps. But goosebumps don’t win wars. Systems do.

Across the world, nations and organizations that consistently succeed do so because they have Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that ensure results — not because they rely on last-minute heroics. Yet in India, both the military and corporate worlds seem addicted to the “miracle moment” — the dramatic rescue, the unexpected turnaround, the story that gives us goosebumps.

So why does this pattern persist? Why is India, with a billion minds, still waiting for another Gallantry Medal moment instead of a strategic doctrine that guarantees victory?

The Military Theatre: From Valor to Vulnerability
Rezang La, 1962 – The Immortal Sacrifice

In November 1962, at Rezang La in Ladakh, C Company of 13 Kumaon Regiment fought the Chinese People’s Liberation Army against impossible odds. Outnumbered 10 to 1, 120 men under Major Shaitan Singh held their position to the last bullet. Only six survived. It was one of the most heroic last stands in modern military history — and yet, a symbol of how Indian valor substituted for poor planning.

Rezang La wasn’t a failure of courage. It was a failure of logistics, reconnaissance, and command strategy. Soldiers fought without adequate winter gear, artillery, or air support. The heroism was unquestionable, but the system that put them there was deeply flawed.

We remember Rezang La because it makes us proud.
But rarely do we ask: Why were they left to fight alone?

Namka Chu and the Chinese Lesson

A similar story unfolded at Namka Chu, where Indian troops, following flawed political orders, were pushed into indefensible positions. The result was catastrophe. The Chinese advance was swift, organized, and methodical — guided by years of preparation and clear strategic objectives.

The PLA’s success wasn’t due to superior bravery; it was due to SOPs that worked. Every Chinese unit had pre-defined fall-back positions, supply routes, and contingency protocols. The Indian side had none. The only constant was courage.

Longewala: The Glorious Exception

Fast forward to Longewala (1971) — the textbook case of Indian tenacity. When 120 Indian soldiers faced an advancing Pakistani brigade of over 2,000 troops with tanks, Major Kuldip Singh Chandpuri’s leadership and Indian Air Force’s timely intervention with only three aircraft (why not 10?) turned certain defeat into resounding victory.

Again, we were saved by improvisation. Communication lines were thin, reinforcements delayed, and supplies scarce. But the individual brilliance of commanders and pilots — not a predefined operational doctrine — changed the course of the battle.

Longewala, like Rezang La, became folklore. But beneath the legend lies the uncomfortable truth: India wins battles because of brave individuals, not because of systemic efficiency.

Galwan and Doklam: Modern Echoes of the Same Tune

In Galwan (2020) and Doklam (2017), Indian soldiers once again displayed extraordinary courage in brutal hand-to-hand combat in freezing temperatures. The world admired India’s military discipline and restraint. But why are we still surprised every time our soldiers perform?

Because our institutional expectation is not consistent success — it’s emotional defiance. China’s doctrine of salami slicing — gradually encroaching on contested territories — is an SOP. It’s systematic, incremental, and deliberate. India’s reaction is always a mix of diplomatic caution and military gallantry, but rarely a proactive deterrent policy.

Our soldiers stand like immovable walls, but our statecraft remains reactive.

Why the USA, Israel, and China Don’t Get Goosebumps

Compare this with the United States, Israel, or China — nations that have replaced heroism with systems.

The USA wins not because every soldier is a hero, but because its logistics, air dominance, and data intelligence are unmatched.

Israel, a tiny nation surrounded by hostile neighbors, has developed doctrines of pre-emption — striking first and decisively to ensure survival. From the Entebbe Raid (1976) to Operation Iron Swords (2023), every move is a blend of preparation and precision.

China wins through patience. It slices territory like a salami — millimeter by millimeter — never provoking a full-blown war, yet always advancing its interest.

Each of these nations has something India lacks: a codified doctrine that removes the need for improvisation.

The Corporate Parallel: Heroic Maverick Managers and Broken Systems

The same syndrome infects Indian corporate culture.
In boardrooms as in battlefields, we idolize the lone warrior — the “rockstar manager” who saves the quarter, the CEO who turns around a crisis, the employee who burns midnight oil to meet impossible deadlines.

But why does every Indian success story read like a rescue operation?

The Crisis-as-Culture Syndrome

Ask any Indian manager and you’ll hear the same tale: “We pulled it off in the last minute.”
We thrive on chaos. We fix problems instead of preventing them. And we celebrate the hero who worked 72 hours straight, not the planner who designed a process that avoided the fire in the first place.

This crisis-driven culture creates the same paradox as our military: individual brilliance compensates for systemic mediocrity.

In contrast, corporate cultures in the U.S., Japan, or Germany are built around predictability, repeatability, and accountability — not adrenaline. Toyota’s Kaizen philosophy, Apple’s design-first process, and Amazon’s data-driven operations all function on clear SOPs.

When a problem arises, they don’t need heroes; they need procedures.

When Tata, Infosys, and HDFC set SOPs That Work

There are exceptions. Tata Group, for instance, built its century-long reputation not on dramatic recoveries but on process integrity. Tata Steel’s Jamshedpur plant operates with world-class safety and efficiency metrics. Infosys, under Narayana Murthy, built its empire through process documentation — not crisis firefighting.

Similarly, HDFC Bank’s rise to dominance came from internal governance, strict risk protocols, and a culture of quiet efficiency. It was not built on CEO charisma but on systems that minimized uncertainty.

But these are islands of order in an ocean of improvisation. Most of Indian industry still operates on the belief that “jugaad” — a makeshift solution — is innovation. It’s not. It’s survival.

The Cultural DNA: The Romance of the Last Stand

Why are Indians wired this way? The answer may lie in our civilizational psyche.

For centuries, India has celebrated the tragic hero — from Abhimanyu in the Mahabharata, who fought surrounded by enemies knowing he’d die, to Padmini of Chittor who chose immolation over surrender. Our cultural mythology glorifies sacrifice more than strategy.

This emotional inheritance seeps into our institutions. We equate moral victory with actual victory. We’d rather have a glorious defeat than a calculated win.

In military doctrine, this translates into reactive defence. In business, it manifests as firefighting over foresight.

When Goosebumps Replace Governance

India’s national pride today rests on stories that “move the heart.” The image of a soldier standing unarmed at Galwan, the story of an ISRO scientist sleeping under his desk before a launch, or the software engineer who delivered code hours before deadline.

Each story is inspiring — but collectively, they indicate a lack of institutional preparedness.

We’ve built a culture that rewards heroism, not process. That celebrates outcomes without questioning the inputs.

The Cost of Hero Worship

Hero worship may feel patriotic, but it’s expensive.
When systems depend on exceptional people, they fail when those people leave. When battles depend on courage alone, they bleed resources and lives. When corporations depend on star performers, they crumble when those stars burn out.

A country’s greatness lies not in its exceptions but in its consistency.

Toward an SOP Mindset

To move from goosebumps to governance, India needs a cultural shift — from emotion to execution.

In the Military:
India must invest not just in weaponry but in institutional doctrines that pre-empt conflict. A doctrine of rapid mobilization, integrated intelligence sharing, and localized tactical autonomy would reduce the dependence on heroism.

For instance, Israel’s Unit 8200 — a cyber-intelligence wing — functions with SOPs that allow immediate, decentralized responses. India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) can learn from this model by establishing operational frameworks that integrate data, AI, and logistics.

In Corporate India:
Companies must replace “crisis glory” with “process mastery.”
The success of startups like Zoho and Freshworks comes not from luck but from building scalable processes early. Each milestone is replicable — not miraculous.

In Government:
Bureaucratic reform must focus on executional predictability.
The Digital India and GST implementations are steps forward, but they need embedded feedback loops that prevent policy paralysis.

In Education:
Our schools teach us to memorize answers, not design solutions.
A child who learns to “cram before the exam” grows up to become the adult who “fixes it at the last minute.” Process orientation must be taught as early as leadership.

From Goosebumps to Governance: The Way Forward

A nation that relies on goosebumps cannot lead in the 21st century. India’s future greatness depends on building systems that scale, doctrines that deliver, and SOPs that sustain.

When we admire the courage of our soldiers at Rezang La or the brilliance of our managers during crises, we should also ask: Why must they always save us? Why not build systems that save themselves?

The next time India faces a border standoff, a market crash, or a pandemic, the goal shouldn’t be to find the next hero. The goal should be to ensure that no hero is needed — because the system works.

When that happens, India will no longer just give itself goosebumps.
It will give itself victory.