On Harold Pinter

Harold Pinter died yesterday at the age of 88. He was one of my favorite writers.

I came to know about Pinter about a decade ago when I traveled from Bucharest to New York. I am a vegetarian and the cabin crew had mixed up my food with something I do not eat. The perceptive Israeli woman sitting next to me remarked that such stupid errors cannot happen in her country. That was the beginning of an interesting talk about kosher food, Jewish institution of kibbutz and Jewish contribution to human civilization. We also talked about the place in the history of mankind of great Jewish names such as Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Henry Bergson, Franz Kafka, and other timeless celebrities.

She asked, “What do you think of Pinter?” Like an ignoramus, I blurted, “Pinter? Who is that?” That was the beginning of my acquaintance with Harold Pinter. She gave me a brief oral backgrounder on Pinter. From that day on, I grabbed any book written by Pinter. The more I read his works, the more I fell in love with them. My admiration for the great writer grew exponentially as time passed.

Pinter had a lower middle class ancestry. He spent the formative years of his life in a London Grammar school. The friends he made in those days, like Henry Woolf, Mick Goldstein and Morris Wernick remained an integral part of his emotional life.

This is not an obituary of Pinter. It is a just my personal tribute to one of the greatest literary figures of 20th century. In his acceptance speech of Nobel Prize in 2005, he said “There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false. I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?”

That was perhaps the essence of wisdom coming from this great man. It placed him along with Kierkegaard, Sartre and other great existential thinkers.

He was as fond of Noam Chomsky as Chomsky was of him. And like Chomsky he was fearless, formidable and utterly honest. He was a leading critical voice against violation of human rights all over the world. His defense of Kurdish people against the Turkish repression will remain memorable in the contemporary history. He talked in simple language and spoke the truth with devastating effect. Nobel Prize did not add any additional glamour to his name. It only served to make his name heard repeatedly at the dinner tables of bejeweled high-society ladies.

The Grand Architecture of Nuclear Disarmament

The World War-II ended in 1945. However, there was no peace in the world. Only the actors and mode of hostilities got changed. Allied and Axis powers were replaced by the new two super powers: the USA and the USSR. The hostile interaction between them was called Cold War. The activities in the theaters of war were replaced by open political hostilities and often by proxy wars. Some people called it a war between capitalism and communism. It had all the fanaticism of medieval religious battles. Both parties were preparing for a hypothetical supreme clash on a gigantic level. Each of these two superpowers believed in the inevitability of such a conflict. They went on arming themselves with nuclear weapons of increasing firepower and deadly accurate delivery systems. With time their inventory of nuclear weapons grew to monstrous levels. At one point it was said that either of them had more than adequate number of nuclear weapons to blow off the world seven times over.

However, at some deeper level there existed feeling of unease in both the countries. The leaders of the Soviet Union and the USA also felt that it was a mad, mad race with no end in sight. Various attempts, some half-hearted, some sincere, were made by them to halt this inexorable march towards catastrophe. The leaders of these two powerful countries at some point must have realized themselves to be utterly stupid. But the situation was like riding a tiger. It was difficult to get off it.

United Nations was the only international body which could initiate talks on nuclear disarmament. The effort began in a modest way. First there came a 10-Nation Committee on Disarmament in 1959. It was followed by the 18-Nation Committee on Disarmament in 1962. It attempted to organize a dialogue between the USA and the USSR at the height of so-called Cold War. The 18-Nation outfit also failed to deliver any result, although it lasted till 1968. It was only in the year 1979 when the United Nations set up Conference on Disarmament (CD) located in Geneva. It was a unique, multinational platform for conducting negotiations on disarmament.

In the due course of time, a number of international agreements came about out with a view to realizing the dream of a nuclear-weapon-free world. First to come out was Limited Ban Treaty (LTBT), also known as Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT). It entered into force on October 10, 1963. It proscribed testing of nuclear weapons anywhere except underground. Subsequently, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) came into force on March 5, 1970. It aimed at preventing development or acquiring of nuclear weapons by those states which did not have them already as on January 1, 1967. Next was Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT). It entered into force on December 11, 1990. Under the treaty no signatory of the treaty was allowed to have the maximum destructive power of a nuclear weapon more than 150 kilotons of TNT. The ceiling sounds ironical in face of the fact that the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima had the destructive power of only (!) 15 kilotons of TNT.

The most important treaty, however, is the one which has yet to enter into force in spite of it having been signed more than 12 years ago. It is the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty (CTBT).The treaty bans all the nuclear tests anywhere and for all times. It carries forward significantly the Partial/Limited Test Ban Treaty (PTBT/LTBT) which bans all such test explosions, except those conducted underground. The CTBT will come into force immediately as soon as the USA ratifies it. Hopefully, the Obama Administration will give priority to the ratification of CTBT by the Senate. Once the nuclear tests are abolished by the force of CTBT, it is very unlikely that any country, signatory or non-signatory, will have guts to violate it. CTBT, after it has entered into force, will be an iconic landmark. It will reinforce international morality. It will say “so far and no further” to the development of nuclear assets. It is a matter of great credit to Russia and the USA that they have not conducted a nuclear test since 1990 and 1992 respectively in spite the CTBT having not entered into force.

It is hoped that Pakistan and India will also sign CTBT for the simple reason that they each have adequate deterrent nuclear power. It will be stupid on their part to go for a fresh nuclear test and earn world opprobrium without any advantage. India has already voluntarily declared moratorium on fresh nuclear tests in addition to their No First Use (NFU) policy. Pakistan has neither declared moratorium on fresh tests, nor they have a NFU policy. They do not have a well-defined, transparent nuclear doctrine and they seem to suffer from a chronic inferiority complex vis-à-vis their eastern neighbor.

No First Use (NFU) is a formidable weapon in the non-proliferation campaign. So far only China and India have declared that they will not be the first to use a nuclear weapon. If all the nuclear weapon countries enter into a treaty that they will not be the first to use their nuclear weapon against anybody, the world will be a safer place. At this point of time it is only a pipe dream.

Yet another treaty of tremendous importance is Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). Presently, the world is awash with uranium and plutonium, the two well-known fissile materials. It is estimated there exist globally about 1600 tons of highly-enriched uranium and 500 tons of weapon-grade plutonium. If an FMCT sees the light of the day soon, all this uranium and plutonium will become legally unusable for producing nuclear warheads. The treaty is yet at the proposal stage. Underlying logic of CTBT and FMCT is straightforward. CTBT will put a halt on all test explosions of nuclear weapons, and thus will prevent development of fresh weapons, and stall attempts to upgrade the existing ones. FMCT will slash the jugular of the nuclear monster. It will prevent production of the enriched uranium and plutonium without which a nuclear device cannot be produced. It is a thousand pities that FMCT is still at the proposal stage and even the negotiations for its formulation have not begun.

In between these international treaties, which have come into force, and which have yet to come in force, and which are yet to be formulated like FMCT there have taken place bilateral agreements like SALT-I and SALT-II. The acronym SALT stands for Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. SALT-I was signed between the USA and USSR in May 26, 1972. It significantly restricted the so-called Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM) systems. It froze the total number of strategic missile launchers at the existing levels pending further negotiations of a more comprehensive treaty limiting strategic missiles and bombers. It boosted the morale of all those people who were campaigning to dismantle the nuclear infrastructure. It was a landmark agreement in those days.

SALT-II was to follow in June 1979. It was signed by the USA and the Soviet Union at Vienna. It provided that each signatory party shall have the same level of strategic weapons. This included strategic bombers, strategic delivery vehicles, and strategic missiles. It was to be reviewed and negotiated for further mutual reduction of nuclear weapons. However there was no follow-up due to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. SALT-II was also not ratified by either party. But it redounds to the credit of both the superpowers that the major constraints laid down in SALT-II were scrupulously observed by both the sides. It was, I think, because both the countries had realized that it was the stupidest thing in the world to go on wasting their precious resources on acquiring and developing nuclear arms which would never be used.

Another monumental agreement Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty-I (START-I), (called at that time SALT-III) was signed by the USA and the Soviet Union on July 31, 1991. This agreement provided that either party shall not have more than 6,000 nuclear warheads on either side. It also provided, inter alia, that each party shall not have in aggregate more than 1600 deployed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), Submarine-launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) and heavy bombers.

START-I was followed by START-II. It was signed by President George H W Bush and Boris Yeltsin on January 3, 1993. It banned the use of Multiple Independently targetable Reentry vehicles (MIRV) on ICBMs, and is often cited as the De-MIRVing Agreement. Both the countries had MIRVs which were dangerous because they put a premium on first strike. For example, if the American President puts 10 MIRVs on one of his ICBMs and fires it towards Russia, each MIRV will carry a nuclear weapon and deliver it on a pre-specified target. Hence 10 targets might be hit in Russia in a single go. Same scenario applied to America if the Russian President became wild earlier.

START-II was ratified by the United States Senate unconditionally in January 26, 1996, and the Russian Duma ratified it on April 14, 2000 but only conditionally. Net result was that it never entered into force. On June 14, 2002, Russia announced that it would no longer consider itself bound by START-II.

The third Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START-III, was negotiated between the USA and Russia. It aimed to significantly diminish their nuclear inventories. The negotiations of the treaty were kicked-off in 1997 at Helsinki between President Bill Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin. They agreed in principle that each party reduce nuclear stockpiles to 2,000 to 2,500 warheads. But there were insurmountable political problems to formalize the agreement. Russia was opposed to eastward expansion of NATO and building by Americans a missile defense system, which would need American withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Treaty. There was a stalemate on the issue of the proposed missile defense system. The treaty finally got killed when the USA withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on June 13, 2002.

START-II was officially replaced by Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT), which was signed by George W.Bush and Vladimir Putin at Moscow Summit on May 24, 2002. Each of the signatories agreed to reduce their operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by the year 2012. SORT entered into force on June 1, 2003.

There were other important bilateral treaties signed between the two superpowers. The Soviet Union and the U.S. signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) on December 8, 1987. The agreement came into force in June 1, 1988. It did not specify any time frame. It is said this treaty landmarked the beginning of the end of Cold War. The treaty sought to destroy nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The treaty specified a deadline of June 1, 1991 to do so. Adhering to the deadline, 846 and 1846 intermediate range weapon systems were eliminated by the U.S. and the Soviet Union respectively. What a hugely precious achievement for mankind! Imagine how many Hiroshimas and Nagasakis were saved!

An important element in nuclear disarmament is to put curb on delivery systems of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ruined by atom bombs dropped on them from planes. That was way back in mid-Forties. Beginning in the Fifties the USA and the Soviet Union wasted their large technological and financial resources on the development of formidable ballistic missile systems. These systems were capable of delivering nuclear assets on the enemy territory or ships with incredible precision. As part of the Strategic Arms limitation Talks, the USA and the USSR negotiated a treaty to curb the menace of big-ticket ballistic missiles. It was signed on May 26, 1972 and entered into force on October 3 of the same year. It prohibited both the countries from deploying nationwide defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. In the treaty preamble, the two sides asserted that effective limits on anti-missile systems would be a "substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms." It also banned the transfer or deployment of ABM systems or components outside the United States/ Soviet territory. The protocol attached to the treaty in 1974 allowed specifically one regional defense of 100 ground-based missile interceptors to protect either the national capital or an ICBM field. Soviets selected Moscow. Americans selected Grand Forks Air Force Base located in North Dakota. The treaty remained in force till June 13, 2002 when the USA unilaterally withdrew from it due to political reasons. It was the first time that USA unilaterally withdrew from a major international obligation. It was argued by the Bush administration that withdrawal was in their national interest, as without withdrawing from the treaty, it was not possible to build National Missile Defense to protect the USA from nuclear blackmail by a rogue state. However, many analysts felt that death of the treaty was a formidable blow to the campaign for nuclear non-proliferation.

This is the brief story of nuclear disarmament campaign. The story is not yet over and there have been glitches and hiccoughs enough to give impression to the cynic that the world will never be free from the scourge of nuclear weapons. For example, in the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy held in February, 2007 President Putin publicly suggested reconsidering the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between the USA and USSR. The Russians asked as to why only the USA and the USSR should be the countries not having small and medium range of missiles, while other countries like China, India, Pakistan, and many other were freely developing them. Similarly, there was the unilateral American withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on June 13, 2002. The very next day, the Russians declared they did not consider themselves bound by the START-II treaty. But in spite of all these negative developments, the worldwide sentiment against the nuclear weapons is prevailing and is strong. It is hoped Obama administration will advance the cause of nuclear disarmament by ratifying the CTBT, and by committing to the No First Use of the nuclear weapons.

The Intriguing Story of Intraocular Pressure (IOP)

Glaucoma is a serious eye disease, which may cause vision loss and ultimately result in blindness, if not treated in time. The common way to determine whether Glaucoma is round the corner in your case is to get your eyes tested for Intraocular Pressure (IOP).

There are many ways to determine IOP, but applanation tonometry is considered to be the gold standard. Once the IOP or tension exceeds 20 mgHg in the eyes of a patient, doctors immediately prescribe appropriate treatment to lower the tension.

The normal value of IOP is essentially based on the data collected meticulously by a large number of investigators. In most of the studies, the mean value of IOP has been found to be 15.5 mmHg with standard deviation of 2.5 mmHg. The distribution of IOP values is not normal in the statistical sense, and the eye pressure in healthy people has been found to vary between 10 and 21 mmHg. The values of IOP taken over a large number of people are skewed towards higher values. It means more people have pressures higher than 15.5 than those having lower than it. Doctors, trying to hunt for glaucoma get concerned if the IOP of a patient exceeds 21 mgHg.

From January 1985 to November 1988, an epidemiological eye study was conducted in East Baltimore, Maryland. More than 5000 persons aged 40 or more were subjected to comprehensive testing for glaucoma. They were screened by all the available diagnostic tools available at that time. The investigators found that in case of a glaucomatous eye, its IOP being more than 22 mmHg was 8.6 times higher than the likelihood of its having IOP less than 22 mg. That showed a strong positive correlation between glaucoma and the IOP being more than 22. Hence, the figure of 22 mgHg got stuck in the collective memory of the physicians as the cutoff point. To further simply, the figure of 22 was rounded off to 20. Things became simpler: if your eye shows IOP more than 20 mgHg you are having either glaucoma or at least a high risk for this disease.

That was the scenario till 2002 when a large American study called Ocular Hypertension Study (OHTS) was published. It found a statistically significant correlation between the central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP. The study showed that CCT is a reliable predictor of development of glaucoma. If your cornea is thin, that is, less than 555 microns, you have three times greater risk of developing glaucoma than those fortunate people whose cornea is more than 588 microns. The implication was that thin corneas should be viewed with greater respect by the physician as they have a more nuisance value as far as glaucoma is concerned. Of course, it does not mean that the thin cornea is a causative factor in the development of glaucoma. The OHTS implied, inter alia, that the role of thin corneas is to blow the whistle in conjunction with high IOP.

OHTS has conclusively shown that a thicker cornea tends to inflate the value of IOP, and vice versa. For example, your IOP may be 24 mgHg and yet it may not be alarming if your CCT is 587 microns. Conversely, your IOP may be 15 mmHg but it may be alarming if your CCT is 470 microns. The practical problem in the prevention and management of glaucoma is that an ophthalmologist, who is trained in the eighties or earlier, might not be familiar with the newly found relationship between the CCT and IOP. He still goes by the rule of the thumb that more than 20 mgHg pressure consistently shown in the eye by applanation tonometry calls for preventive or curative measures for glaucoma.

Of course, it may not be always fair to blame the ophthalmologist for it. In the villages and small towns of India, there is hardly an ophthalmologist who is equipped with the instrument for measuring corneal thickness. Sometimes he does not have even a slit lamp or an applanation tonometer. In those conditions it is very difficult for him to correlate corneal thickness with IOP and reach a satisfactory value of IOP for diagnostic purpose. I have seen that even in the USA, the 20 mgHg rule of the thumb is often applied. I specifically know a dear friend of mine whose glaucoma was discovered when it was too late. During his routine eye checkups, his IOP had been consistently within the normal range for many years. However, they did not care to check his corneal thickness. Had they checked up his corneas for thickness they would have found them relatively thin.

Before 2002, ophthalmologists knew that some people do have glaucoma even when the tension in their eye is normal. They called it normotensive glaucoma. However, they did not understand the why of it. Even now, they are not sure about the whole story. But After the Ocular Hypertension Study in 2002 they now at least know about the part played by the corneal thickness in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Pachymeter, which measures corneal thickness, is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of eye-care specialists who are waging a relentless war against glaucoma.

Mumbai Carnage: A Wake-up Call for the Civilized World

Condoleezza Rice is visiting India to express solidarity with the Indian people in the wake of the terrorist attack in Mumbai. Americans are worried that any armed conflict between India and Pakistan at this point of time will be a setback to their efforts to finish off Al Qaida and Taliban.

It is a wake-up call for them. Not only to them, but to the entire civilized world. A similar thing can happen in future anywhere in the world. The terrorist training camps churning out terrorists by hundreds are not India-specific. They have visceral hatred for Americans as well as all the people who are not Muslims. It is in the long term American interests to destroy the training camps in Pakistan. India can do it also, but that may lead to war between the two nations with unpredictable consequences.

India should immediately ask for a meeting of the Security Council and demand immediate dissolution of the terrorists training camps in Pakistan. India and the USA should try that the Security Council pass a resolution authorizing a consortium of the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China to take all measures, including military if necessary, to wipe off the terrorist training camps in Pakistan. In the present political climate, none of the Security Council members are likely to oppose the resolution. China, the best friend of Pakistan, is unlikely to veto it. In fact, they may support it enthusiastically. They have been having sufficient trouble with the Uighur separatists in their Xinjiang province. Uighurs are Muslims. A Chinese foreign ministry warned sometime back of the danger of an Islamic terror network. "These people have links with the Bin Laden clique and have been infected with the jihad mentality. We should regard cracking down on these terrorists as part of the international struggle against terrorism" it said in a statement.

A strongly-worded resolution will send an appropriate message to Pakistani defense establishment, which is training terrorists with or without the support of its government. It is possible they may dismantle the entire training network. If they do not do it they stand serious risk of being bombed out by the consortium of big powers.

Pakistan has already rejected the demand of Indian government to handover to them a number of criminals who are directly or indirectly linked to the recent carnage at Mumbai. Political temperature in the subcontinent is rising. It certainly calls for a meeting of Security Council. If India does not call for it somebody else will do it. It is not in the American interests that their plan to eliminate Bin Laden and his gang gets knocked out because of a needless war in the Indian subcontinent.

Wisdom of No First Use (NFU) of Nuclear Weapons

Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, said on Jan 22, 2008 that Pakistan was willing to consider No First Use (NFU) of the nuclear weapons. It is cheerful news for the people of South Asian region. India and China already stand committed to NFU. If Zardari can really maneuver an authentic, categorical declaration of NFU by the Pakistani establishment, as India and China have done, it will immensely boost political stability in South Asia.

The concept of NFU has pre-eminent place in the fabric of nuclear disarmament. Implication of NFU vis-à-vis non nuclear states is straightforward and simple. All the nuclear weapon states have made that commitment. Their commitment echoes in the Security Council’s Resolution on Security Assurances (no 984 dated 11 April 1995). It will be extremely wicked on the part of a nuclear weapon state to nuke a country which cannot retaliate in kind. The only examples in the history are Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that was more than half a century ago. Times have changed now, and no government of a civilized country can now even think of doing so, whatever be the provocation. People of no country will endorse their country dropping atomic bombs on the civilian population of any country.

If all the nuclear weapon states decide not to be the first to use their nuclear weapons, there will not be any use of having a nuclear weapon. The logic of having a nuclear weapon is based on the perceived vulnerability of the countries having it. A country, say X, feels that unless it has a nuclear weapon capacity, it might be open to invasion by another country, say Y, who has a nuclear arsenal. So X starts getting into the business of making the nuclear bombs. This happened in the case of Pakistan. In the wake of first Indian nuclear test explosion in 1974, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the then Pakistani Prime Minister said, “If India builds the bomb we will eat grass or leaves, we will go hungry. But we will get one of our own.” Similarly, India’s nuclear program was initiated after China test-exploded it first atomic bomb in 1964 at Lop Nur. The sad fact of South Asia is that the hostility between China and India on one hand, and India and Pakistan on the other has become an emotional fixation. India feels insecure vis-à-vis China. Hence it needs nuclear weapons. Pakistan feels insecure vis-à-vis India. Hence, it needs nuclear weapons. The political situation between India and Pakistan has been colored by the baggage of Kashmir which both the countries having been carrying since they got independence from the British in 1947. For the similar reasons there falls the shadow of Sino-Indian war of 1962, whenever talks of rapprochement between China and India are held.

Simplistically, China and India should not be afraid of an unprovoked nuclear assault from each other. Both of them are categorically and publicly committed to NFU of their nuclear weapons. Both are respected members of international community and adhere to the norms of International Law. It is highly unlikely they should go back on their commitment. This may appear a naïve view to the cynical. However, there are political reasons why a nuclear exchange between Indian and China is unlikely. China need not attack India with nuclear weapons, as it is much superior to India in terms of conventional military prowess. And India will not make the first nuclear strike against China for the fear of massive retaliation. Then why are India and China wasting their resources in upgrading and developing its nuclear arsenal? In case of India, the answer lies in (a) the ambiguity of the Pakistani nuclear doctrine, and (b) the Pakistan’s neurotic obsession with Kashmir. In case of China, the reason lies its infatuation with the dream of becoming a topmost military power in the world.

In case of the United Kingdom and France, nuclear weapons provide a visible basis for their big power status. Both of these two countries are permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations and wield veto powers. But for the historical reason that they were the major players in the Second World War, they do not have any raison d’etre of having the status they have. Economically, they are on a less sure footing than Japan and Germany. It is quite possible that their place in a reconstructed scheme of Security Council might be called in question.

The UK and France do not have NFU in their nuclear doctrine.

The UK does not have it because politically it is a wartime and peacetime ally of the United States. To have NFU policy, when the USA does not have it, will be antithetical to its overall alliance with the USA. On February 2, 2003, during the TV program BBC Breakfast with Frost, the British defense secretary Geoff Hoon said, “We've always made it clear that we would reserve the right to use our nuclear weapons in conditions of extreme national self defense and that remains our position and that is the position that has been set out consistently by government ministers.”

France also does not believe in NUF doctrine. It wants to retain its right to use nuclear weapons in unspecified hypothetical situations. On January 19, 2006 speaking at the nuclear submarine base L’ille Longue in Brittany, President Jaques Chirac said that France reserves the right to use non-conventional weapons against “leaders of states who would launch a terrorist attack against France.” The real reason for the French not having NFU doctrine in their nuclear policy is their obsession with what they believe to be their fiercely eminent place in the community of nations.

The Russian nuclear doctrine has gone through many changes. The erstwhile Soviet Union had declared in 1982 the NFU to be the basis of their nuclear doctrine. However, the Russians rejected it in 1993, and in the year 2000 they declared that they reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a large scale conventional aggression. Technically it violates the Security Council’s resolution of 1995 on Security Assurances, because the country launching a large scale invasion may be a non-nuclear weapon country. The recent decision of the USA to position its missile defense shield in Poland is presently a cause of annoyance to the Russian administration. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said recently that Poland’s acceptance of American missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons. He added that Russia’s military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them.

USA, the most heavily armed nuclear weapon state, does not have NFU as a part of its nuclear doctrine. They have commitments to defend their NATO allies, Japan and South Korea. NFU may bind their hands in a number of hypothetical situations, and understandably they will not like to get themselves into a nuclear straitjacket. Their Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations dated 15 March 2005 says that the United States does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons. The Cinton administration was non-committal on the question of whether the nuclear weapons would be used to address the problem of chemical and biological warfare, or even using them in case of conventional armed conflicts. But it was tacitly assumed that they would not waste their nuclear assets unless the very existence of American nation came under serious threat.

American view seems to be that nuclear weapons, by themselves, do not pose a problem. Real problem is under whose control they are. Nuclear assets with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and India are fine. What is worrisome their being with Pakistan, or (potentially) with fundamentalist regimes like Iran. In order to deal with any situation involving the rogue states using nuclear weapons, the USA does not want to commit itself to NFU.

NFU is an intensely ethical concept. If all the nuclear weapon states agree not to be the first to use their nuclear weapons, it will be a step in the direction of eventual nuclear disarmament. Often it may come in clash with the national interest of a nuclear weapon state which swears by it. In spite of a large number of ifs and buts and hypothetical infirmities NFU will prevent nuclear wars and bring the world closer to nuclear disarmament. It is bound to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. NFU is a very strong political commitment and if all the nuclear weapons states make it an integral element of their nuclear doctrine it will go long way to usher a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The Chinese Dilemma

The Chinese government are on the horn of a dilemma. If they are not, they ought to be.

The US has politely warned China not to go forward on their plan to build two more nuclear reactors in Pakistan without first taking approval of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). China is a member of the 45-member NSG, which controls the international commerce in nuclear fuel and nuclear technology. All the decisions of NSG are taken consensually. That means every member country has veto power. Pakistan’s record of non-proliferation is not very inspiring, and it is unlikely that the Chinese will be able to get a consensus on their proposal to co-operate (whatever that might mean in practical terms!) with Pakistan in constructing two ostensibly civil nuclear reactors Chasma-III and Chasma-IV.

Chinese hugely care for their reputation as a country which believes in the ethical value of commitment to an international treaty. It is not easy for them to ignore the advice of the US administration.

It was only during the last month that the Chinese decided to sell two nuclear reactors to Pakistan to be located at Chasma. Chasma is a small town located near the well-know Chasma Barrage built on the river Indus in Punjab. The designated site already has got two reactors Chasma-I and Chasma-II built with Chinese assistance. The first one is active and is generating 300 MWe of electric power. The second one will be completed shortly.

The Chinese offer came in the wake of Indo-American nuclear deal concluded in October 2008. Pakistan felt diminished by the deal and their self-esteem got wounded. They fell back on their old ally China, who promised them give them two reactors, if not a nuclear deal comparable to the one reached between the USA and India. The offer of the two nuclear reactors had materialized during the visit of the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to Beijing. It helped the newly elected Zardari improve his domestic image.

It appears the Chinese decision was taken in a hurry without analyzing the implications. The Chinese perhaps reasoned that giving nuclear reactors to Pakistan made sense because (a) it would dilute to some extent the risks posed by the burgeoning Indo-American alliance against them, (b) give them more political clout in Pakistan, and (c) further depress an already poor image of the USA in Pakistan.

Obviously, they did not think of wider implications. They forgot their commitment to NSG as one of its responsible members.

If they withdrew their offer now in face of the American warning, they would be accused of having made a diplomatic faux pas in making the offer. They might also be talked about of being incapable of standing against the mighty Americans. It will give cause them embarrassment vis-à-vis Pakistan. On the other hand, if they persist in honoring their offer to Pakistan, they seriously risk damaging their image of being a reliable international player who plays by the rules of the game. Not only this, their membership of a large number of international organizations might come under cloud.

I predict Chinese will not do anything, except doing nothing. They will not display any reaction to the American advice. With the passage of time, the story of their foreign policy gaffe will pass into oblivion.

The Sad Case of Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT)

The New York Times dated Nov 20, 2008 published a news item (due to William J Broad and David E Sanger) which mentioned that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Iran has made 630 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. Several experts are reported to believe that this fissile material may be sufficient for producing a nuclear weapon.

It brings into bold relief the failure of the international community to conclude a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMTC). It is time to recollect why and how a FMTC has failed so far to see the light of the day.

There are two pragmatic ways to curb nuclear weapons madness. One is an effective Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which has been hanging fire since 1996. The other one is Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), which is yet to be negotiated. Underlying logic of both the treaties is straightforward. CTBT will put a halt on all test explosions of nuclear weapons, and thus will prevent development of fresh weapons, and stall attempts to upgrade the existing ones. FMCT will slash the jugular of the nuclear monster. It will prevent production of the enriched uranium and plutonium without which a nuclear device cannot be produced.

The UN General Assembly’s resolution UNGA 12/1148 of Nov 14, 1957 called for “the cession of the production of fissionable materials for weapon purposes”. Since then, more than fifty years have rolled by, and we have yet to see any thing like a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) coming into being.

Presently, the world is awash with uranium and plutonium, the two well-known fissile materials. It is estimated there exist globally about 1600 tons of highly-enriched uranium and 500 tons of plutonium. If an FMCT sees the light of the day soon, all this uranium and plutonium will become legally incapable of being used for producing nuclear warheads.

FMCT has a depressing history. President Clinton, in his historic address to the UN General Assembly in September 1993 called for a multinational treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear warheads. Within two months the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and international effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." On March 23, 1995 the Conference on Disarmament (CD) set up a mandate committee to organize discussions on FMCT.

There are many roadblocks to the conclusion of the FMCT. One is lack of consensus as to what the cutoff date should be. This was one of the chief reasons why the negotiations were stalled in 1995. USA and Russia are of the view that the existing stocks of fissile materials should not be covered by an FMCT. In other words the cutoff date should be from the date the FMCT enters into force. China is of the view that future negotiations on FMCT should not involve the issue of stockpiles. Generally, the position of the Nuclear Weapons States is that an FMCT should not get involve itself with the stock of their fissile material before it enters into force.

Pakistan, however, is very keen that the existing stocks should be taken into consideration, and the cutoff date should be fixed retrospectively. Pakistan feels that unless it is done, the nuclear power balance in South Asia will be disturbed. They believe, unless FMCT fixes a cutoff date retroactively, the recent Indo-American Civil Co-operation Agreement will allow India to import nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors and India will be able to use its indigenously produced fissile material for its nuclear weapons. There is a legitimate fear in the minds of many that if the existing stocks are not taken into consideration, it is possible, a few of the nuclear weapon states might show the future production of fissile material as being the stock before the cutoff date. An FMCT without a proper verification mechanism is likely to be ineffective.

Another major difficulty in the conclusion of the FMCT is the definition of fissile material. There is a host of ways to define it. Some of them are:

a) International Panel on Fissile Material defines them as the material that can sustain an explosive fission chain reaction. Under it falls highly enriched uranium or plutonium of almost any isotopic composition description.

b) The United States defines fissile material as "(i) Plutonium except plutonium whose isotopic composition includes 80 percent or greater plutonium-238 (ii) Uranium containing a 20 percent or greater enrichment in the isotopes uranium-233 or uranium-235, separately or in combination or in (iii) any material that contains the material defined in (i) or (ii) above."

c) Russia defines the fissile material as “weapon-grade uranium and plutonium for the purposes of nuclear weapons”.

d) Italy used the definition "plutonium and/or highly enriched uranium enriched over 20 percent U235".

e) IAEA defines fissile material as “plutonium 239, uranium 233 and uranium enriched in the isotopes 235 or 233.

The originally proposed FMCT did not envisage inclusion of tritium in the list of fissile materials. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen and has half-life of twelve years, and is used to boost the destructive power of explosive device. Some people think it should be included in the list of fissile materials.

Yet another bone of contention has been how to verify the compliance of FMCT. On January 25, 1994, CD appointed a Special Coordinator, Gerald Shannon of Canada, to organize appropriate arrangements for negotiating the Treaty. Shanon produced in March 1995 what has come to be known as the Shannon Mandate. According to the Mandate an ad hoc committee will be responsible for all negotiations and would settle all the issues. The Shannon Mandate was agreed to consensually and was even acted upon for a few days in the summer of 1998. Many diplomats felt that the consensus behind the Shannon Mandate was real, and fruitful negotiations could take place under it. But Bush Administration threw a spanner in the works by rejecting in 2004 the Shannon Mandate’s concept of international verification. The USA tried to sweeten its rejection by pledging its continued support for negotiating an FMCT. In order to reinforce its sincerity, it even tabled a draft mandate and draft treaty.

On March 23, 2007 a draft decision FCD/2007/L1 was put before the CD. It provides for “negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices.” Almost all the delegates were agreeable to the draft decision L1, except China, Iran and Pakistan. They wanted discussions for any future FMCT to be conducted under Shannon Mandate.

The states likely to be affected by an FMCT are the nuclear weapon states, both recognized and unrecognized, as well as those states, like Japan, Canada and Australia who produce large amount of fissile material for peaceful purposes. It has been often said that FMCT is now ripe for serious negotiations, and the encouraging fact is that no country has openly opposed the raison d’etre of the treaty.

Heart of the problem is to design an FMCT which will stop the production of fissile materials in the hands of the nuclear weapon states, both recognized and unrecognized, and yet leave sufficient scope for the production of such material in the hands of non-nuclear states for peaceful purposes. There is transparent dragging of feet by the nuclear weapon states. They have been doing so under one pretext or the other. There is no other option for the civilized world than to conclude a FMCT as early as possible.

India and Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

May 18, 1974 is a landmark date in the history of India. On that date India conducted its first atomic test. The Indian atomic test was a strategic and political response to the Chinese test explosion conducted at Lop Nor in 1964. These two atomic tests were separated by ten years.

Unfortunately for India, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) did come into force only during this critical decade. It entered into force on March 5, 1970. The treaty was initially signed on July 1, 1968 by the USA, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. It was kept open for signatures by other countries. Almost all the major countries of the world have acceded to it except India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. India and Pakistan do not make secret of their having nuclear weapons. Israel has a deliberate policy of being non-committal about its nuclear program. North Korea’s case is peculiar. It had signed the treaty, violated it by pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Later on, it withdrew from the treaty on April 10, 2003. It made North Korea the only country to ever withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The NPT does not outlaw the vertical proliferation of the nuclear weapons. That means it does not restrict fresh upgradation or development of their nuclear arsenal if you are a nuclear weapon State. However, if you are a non-nuclear weapon State you can neither receive from anybody nor manufacture any nuclear weapon. If the non-nuclear weapon States plan to produce a nuclear device entirely for peaceful purpose like generating power, they are allowed to do so under the treaty. But in that case they are bound by active supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In short, the NPT has created a system of nuclear haves and nuclear have-nots. Haves can do all nuclear activities, military and peaceful. Have-nots can indulge only in peaceful nuclear activities, but under strict IAEA supervision and control.

India is a billion plus country like China. It has a long unsettled border dispute with the latter since Indo-Chinese war in 1962. China has a huge nuclear arsenal. Pakistan too is believed to have considerable inventory of nuclear weapons. Pakistan has fought four wars with India. India finds itself surrounded by the two nuclear-armed countries. How can international community take exception to India’s right to have a nuclear deterrent against potential threats to its security?

India has a track record of not transferring any nuclear material, technology or relevant information to any country. It has behaved with great responsibility as though it were a nuclear- weapon State within the meaning of NPT. Also India has a declared policy of no first use of its nuclear weapons. Amongst the nuclear-weapon States China is the only country having the no first use policy in respect of its nuclear weapons.

India has consistently resisted attempts to persuade or coerce it into signing the NPT. The recent Indo-American Nuclear Deal, which was approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and endorsed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, recognizes implicitly that India is a de facto nuclear- weapon State. The Deal clearly recognizes India’s right to continue working its dedicated nuclear establishments for exclusive military purposes.

Article IX (3) of NPT creates a roadblock for India should it consider acceding to NPT. Under this Article a nuclear-weapon State is defined to be “one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967”. India tested its nuclear device in 1974 and therefore it is not a nuclear weapon State within the meaning of the NPT.

The international non-proliferation regime will be strengthened if India accedes to NPT. India can join it only if the cutoff date 1 January 1967 in the NPT is changed to a date prior to 18 May 1974. If there is a political will on the part of the nuclear-weapons States and other important members of international community, it can easily be done by amending the Article IX (3) of the treaty by substituting the cut-off date to be 1 January 1975 in place of 1 January 1967, under the procedure provided for in the Article VIII of the treaty.

According to the provisions of the Article VIII of the treaty an amendment “must be approved by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to the Treaty, including the votes of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency......"

If the NPT is amended to change the cutoff date to accommodate India, it will remove a political anomaly and formalize a de facto situation into a de jure one. It will not affect the strategic balance of power in the world. It will give a more respectable face to the non-proliferation regime.

What's There in a Name?

Rumpelstiltskin is an intriguing name. It is borne by the chief character in a children’s story of the same name. The story is very popular among children. It revolves around two of the common human traits: greed and importance of one’s own name.


Briefly, there is a miller who goes to the king and lies that his daughter can spin straw into gold. The king puts his daughter in a closed room with plenty of straw and gives her three days to convert the straw into gold. The poor girl weeps and weeps till a kindly out-of-the-world dwarf appears and offers to turn the straw into gold in exchange for her necklace. Both parties honor the deal and the king is surprised when he sees the room full of gold. Being a greedy man, the king puts her into a bigger room having more straw stacked in it. The girl cries and the dwarf appears and again turns straw into gold, this time in exchange for her ring.


The king becomes greedier. He marries the girl and makes her his queen. Then he puts her in a very big hall having a huge stack of straw. The history repeats. The girl cries bitterly during night and the dwarf appears on the scene. This time he offers to convert straw into gold only if she agrees to give her first-born baby to him. It is a very hard bargain. She does not want to do it but there is no way out. She agrees with a heavy heart.


In the due course, the queen gives birth to a baby. The dwarf appears as if from nowhere and demands her newly born baby. She cries bitterly and requests him to forgive her and allow her to keep her baby. She is willing to give him anything in the kingdom except the baby. But the dwarf does not relent. However, as a concession to her, he says that he will return after three days, and if by that time she is able to guess his name he will allow her to keep her baby.


During the next three days, there is hectic activity in the kingdom. The queen scans thousands of names and keeps wondering what the real name of the dwarf might be. As luck would have it, one of her servants reports to her that in a faraway forest he saw a dwarf around a fire and singing a song in which he says his name is Rumpelstiltskin.

The dwarf returns as scheduled after three days. After teasing the dwarf playfully for a little while she tells him that his name is Rumpelstiltskin. The dwarf is stunned, and in a monumental fit of anger vanishes in thin air. The story has different versions which differ in details. But the basic elements of the story are the same.


Legends, myths, and fairy tales have tremendous influence in shaping culture. Often they have a sneaking moral value; but generally they mirror a ground reality. In the above story, the moral is apparent. The miller is a liar and his blatant lie about his daughter lands her in a trap which had no exit. Similarly, the greed of the king led him to marry a woman only because he thought she was a gold mine. Then there was a dwarf who was greedy and had a touch of perversity along with obsession for his name.

There is another angle to the story. Normal greed is associated with ordinary people like king and the miller. Perverse greed is linked to a dwarf, who is believed to be a repository of physical defect and disability. In many cultures, the inadequate and the physically deformed people are thought to be vicious. In Ramayana, the oldest Indian mythological epic, it is Manthra, the hunchbacked maidservant, who deliberately gives a mischievous advice to the Queen Kekayi. One may explain such phenomena by assuming that the physically deformed people need attention and they try to get it by being actively vicious. The authors of the tale of Rumpelstiltskin made the protagonist of their story a dwarf, a victim of ridicule in any cultures. In many circuses, one may find dwarfs performing as clowns. Rumpelstiltskin is greedy and mean. More importantly, he is intensely attached to his own name. This only confirms that he is too human.


In all cultures, including the ancient ones, one’s name has been the supreme identifier of one’s entire existence. One’s identity is a conglomerate of so many factors: face, body shape, age, depth and extent of experience, and their value system. But all these identifiers stand superseded by the name one bears.


Every change of name is a political statement. Contemporary history is full of examples when cities have changed their names. Take the case of St Petersburg in Russia. It was called Petrograd from 1914 to 1924 and Leningrad from 1924 to 1991. After the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991, it was renamed as St Petersburg. Burmese government even changed the name of their country to Myanmar. In India and China, cities have changed their names to assert their identity aggressively.

Certain communities in India, wives are not allowed to address to or even mention their husband’s name. It is a silent political statement asserting that the power center in society is man. In most cultures a woman changes her last name to that of her husband’s, thereby reinforcing the prevailing male domination in society. In an Indian joint family often a newly married woman is encouraged to change her first name because it happens to be same as that of another woman in the family who has traditionally a higher status. In certain parts of western India, the first name of the woman is changed upon her marriage, regardless. Changing name of a human being is a societal way to create a new identity of that person. It is coercion and a kind of mental cruelty, if done without the willing consent of that individual. In the age of emerging gender equality, it sounds a discordant note when a woman alters fully or partially her name after marriage.


Often people keep their last name or sometimes first or middle name to indicate or highlight a certain part of their cultural, professional or religious identity. All this tends to show that the most visible identifier of a human being is their name.


What’s there in a name? I would say a whole world.

Obama's South Asia Policy Goals

Presidential elections in USA are over, and there is a great deal of speculation in the Indian press as to the policies President Obama will follow in respect of India. Will he pressurize India to resolve Kashmir issue? Will he be able to prevail upon the government of Pakistan to see the ground reality that the real danger to them is not from India but from militant Islamic outfits?

It is difficult to say what the policy of the new South Asian policy of the new American administration will really be. But one thing is indisputable; their new policy will reflect their national interest as perceived by them presently.

Their major concern in South Asia is to ensure that i) they win the war in Afghanistan, and ii) the nuclear assets in Pakistan do not fall in the hands of the Jehadi outfits. Every thing else is subordinate to these two supreme policy goals of theirs.

There is a general feeling in some quarters that India is deliberately dragging her feet in resolving the Kashmir dispute. Their argument is that Indian establishment feels that Pakistan is militarily and economically too weak to take on India on this issue, and therefore, sooner or later a combat fatigue will set in the mind of Pakistani establishment. So Indians feel let us talk blah, blah, blah with them and tire them out. This hypothesis may be true, false or partially true. But the Obama administration is bound to keep this possibility in their mind when formulating their options in respect of Indian subcontinent.

Americans have more leverage with Pakistan than with India. They don't any significant clout with us. Many people in India erroneously believe that the Indo-American nuclear deal give American an upper hand over them. But, fact of the matter is that the nuclear deal is as much in their favor as in ours. The deal had bipartisan support, and Obama is on record supporting it. It is very unlikely that he will do anything to upset the new understanding reached with India on the basis of the deal. With Pakistan they have huge leverage. The economy of Pakistan is in tatters and the health of their armed forces depends upon American supplies. However, their leverage with Pakistan is diluted by strong anti-American feelings in that country.

How will Obama administration promote American interests by balancing mutually hostile Pakistani and Indian concerns? That is a question which time alone can answer. It will require tight rope-walking and intense diplomatic maneuvering by India, Pakistan and the USA. It is like the classic three-body problem in Mathematics which is extremely complicated.

Bharat Ratna for Bhimsen Joshi

By nothing India is so rich, as by its classical music. It may sound an exaggeration. But it is the exaggeration of an essential truth.

The Indian government has now awarded Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian award to Bhimsen Joshi. It is an award which should have come to him at least 20 years ago. He is one of the all-time greats of Hindustani classical music. He belongs to the league of the great vocalists Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Fayyaz Khan, Karim Khan, Sawai Gandharv, Gangubai Hangal, Jasraj, and Kishori Amonkar.

Born in 1920, Bhimsen Joshi learnt music at the feet of Sawai Gandharva in the true guru-shishya tradition of ancient India. Sawai Gandharva was another great name in Hindustani music that belonged to Kirana Gharana founded by the great vocalists Karim Khan and Abdul Waheed Khan. The range and mellifluousness of Joshi's voice is incredible. He has boundless stamina. His inimitable rendering of ragas haunts his countless admirers all the world over. He is a man of impeccable courtesy. People find it difficult to believe that such an eminent celebrity could be full of so much humility.

I had an opportunity of hearing him sing at Siri Fort Auditorium in Delhi long ago. The raag Darbari rendered by him still haunts me like the memory of a sweet dream. It was a bravura performance. The range of his voice was unbelievably wide. His style was dazzling and his breath control simply out of this world.

His Bharat Ratna came to him in the evening of his life. But, as they say, it is better late than never.

Obama and CTBT

As expected, Barack Obama has made it. Not only he has won the election, his Democratic party has secured majority in both the houses of Congress.

Barack Obama has a passion for nuclear non-proliferation. One of the stumbling blocks in the non-proliferation regime is the fact that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has not entered into force. This is because the USA, China, India and Pakistan are not parties to it. Pakistan has openly refused to sign it unless India did so. India has not overtly said so but it is clear to everybody that India will not sign it unless China ratifies the CTBT. China has its own fears. It has been dragging its feet on ratifying the treaty because the American Congress has denied ratifying it.

It will have a profound implication for mankind, if the new President of the USA is able to prevail upon the Congress the wisdom of ratifying the CTBT to which the USA had become a signatory more than 12 years ago. It will have domino effect. If the USA does indeed ratify the CTBT, China will have no strategic reason to deny ratification of the Treaty. Once China does it, India and Pakistan will do it one after another, or may be simultaneously. Once CTBT enters into force, where is the political provocation for India or any other country to explode a test bomb?

If the 44th President of the USA is able to pull it off, his country may be well be set on a path to gain the moral leadership of the world, and Obama's place in history will be assured.

The Curse of King Tut

Today the entire media is full of the Obama-McCain combat in the USA. However, in an obscure corner of my mind this date rang a bell. It was on this date that the British archeologist Howard Carter discovered the tomb of Tutankhamen.

I have always found the name Tutankhamen sounding mysterious and his story utterly fascinating. The story of the boy-king Tutankhamen, also known as King Tut, is shrouded in legends and myths. The phenomenon of Tutankhamen, also known as the King Tut, took place about 3500 years ago. He was born and dead in the 14th century before Christ.

Egyptian Civilization is one of the ancient civilizations. Stories linked with are colorful and known for their abiding human interest. We can relate them to our own experience and thus do not find them too weird. Tutankhamen’s tomb was found by Carter in an unusually well-preserved condition. Unlike other ancient Egyptian tombs, it was not ravaged by greedy robbers. What struck Carter was an inscription on the sarcophagus in which the body of King Tut was preserved. What is the story of Tutankhamen and why his name became so famous in 20th century? It was a carefully preserved tomb. It had a large number of artifacts. A golden death mask covered the mummy of King Tut. That mask has now become a symbol of the great ancient Egyptian civilization.

The story begins in the very hoary past, very long ago. Archeologists have tried to construct details of his life and times from a large number of bits of evidence discovered at various sites in Egypt.

Tutankhamen, or King Tut, was born in the year 1341 before Christ and died when he was about 19 year of age. Egyptian ancient history is full of dynasties. King Tut was 12th ruler of 18th Egyptian dynasty. He ruled for about eight year. He was a stepson of another ancient Egyptian luminary Queen Nefertiti, and he married his stepsister, daughter of Nefertiti.

There are reasons to suspect that King Tut was murdered. An X-ray taken in 1968 led to the theory that he died of a blow on his head. However, later research has shown, though not conclusively, that he might have died of blood poisoning after he had broken one of his legs.

However, Tutankhamen’s name became famous because of weird stories associated with his tomb. On his tomb were engraved the following words: Death shall come on swift wings to him who disturbs the peace of the king.

Warning of this kind is normally found on the tombs of Egyptian mummies. But the warning on the tomb of Tut did not prove to be an empty threat. Carter discovered the sarcophagus of King Tutankhamen on November 4, 1922. He sent a telegram to Lord Carnarvon, his patron and financier who came running from England and reached Egypt on November 26. He visited the excavation site and admired the accomplishments of Carter. However, His lordship died soon after returning to Cairo from the site of excavation. Legend has it that when he there was an unexplained power failure in Cairo. Lord Carnavon’s son reported from London that their favorite dog howled mysteriously and died same day. It was found that the death of Lord Carnavon was due to an insect bite on his left cheek. In 1925, when the mummy of Tutankhamen was unwrapped, it was found that the preserved mummy of Tut had a wound exactly at the same spot as the insect bite on Lord Carnavon’ cheek.

By 1929, eleven people who were linked directly or indirectly with the tomb had died prematurely and of unnatural causes. This included: two relatives of Carnavon; Carter’s personal secretary Richard Bethell; Lord Westbury (father of Bethell), who committed suicide by jumping from a building. His suicide note said, “I really cannot stand any more horrors and hardly see what good I am going to do here, so I am making my exit.”

The English press followed deaths carefully and chronicled each one of them ascribing them to the curse of Tutankhamen. By the year 1935 there were 21 victims believed to have died from the curse of Tutankhamen.

However, there is another way of looking at it. Herbert Winlock, the head of the Metropolitan Museum of New York figured out that out of 22 people present at the opening of the tomb in 1922, only six had passed away by 1934, and out of 22 people present at the opening of the sarcophagus in 1924, only two had passed away by 1934. When the mummy of Tut was unwrapped in 1925, nobody who was present at that occasion had died by 1934.

In 2002, Mark Nelson, an Australian scholar showed that the curse of Tutankhamen was only a myth. He considered a group of 44 people who were alive at the time the tomb was discovered in 1922. Out of this group 25 were supposed to be exposed to the curse because they were in some way linked directly or indirectly with the opening of the tomb, sarcophagus, the coffin, or the mummy. He found out that those supposed to be exposed to the curse had the same length of survival as those who had never heard of the phenomenon of Tutankhamen.

The last word on the subject is provided by the fact that Howard Carter, the archeologist who initiated whole episode of King Tut lived till the age of 66. He did not die under suspicious circumstances.

Dear Guests, We Clean Here Also!

November 4, 2008

It was the fall of 1985. My wife and I both traveled from New York to Atlantic City in a Grey Hound. We were keen to have a fun-filled holiday. I had never been to a casino before. At the back of our mind was curiosity about casinos.

We checked in Hotel Atlantis. The room was spacious and well furnished. I told my wife that the housekeeping of the hotel was very good. She smiled wryly and said, "I do not believe it could be that good. People always forget something to do."

I asked her, "For example?"

She said, "Well, even in the best managed households people do not care to sweep under their bed."

I did not make any remark, but crouched on the carpeted floor to peep into the underside of our bed. I saw there what looked like a business card. With some difficulty I managed to pull it out. To our amusement and surprise, it had the inscription: Dear guests, we clean here also.

My younger daughter was thrilled when we told her this story. She sent it to Readers Digest under her name. They published it under their feature Life's Like That!

The Genius of Stephen William Hawking

October 26, 2008


Humbly tucked in a small corner on page 19 of my daily newspaper was a small news item about Stephen Hawking. It said that Stephen Hawking would retire in January next year as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics from the Cambridge University. Apparently the editors of the newspaper did not think much of Hawking or the distinguished Chair he has occupied since 1979.

Stephen William Hawking is a genius. He occupies a unique place in the pantheon of 20th century scientists. Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in the Cambridge University has a distinguished history of more than 300 years. It was occupied by the likes of Isaac Newton, Charles Babbage and Paul Dirac. It is arguably the most famous academic chair in the world.

Hawking is one my favorite heroes in the field of science. I have repeatedly read his best seller A brief History of Time (1988). Every time I complete reading it my understanding of the physical universe becomes better. His beautiful book On the Shoulders of Giants, the Great Works of Physics and Astronomy (2002) gives an interesting peep into the contemporary history of Physics and Astronomy.

Hawking has always been fascinated with the ultimate reality of physical universe. Along with the celebrated English physicist Roger Penrose, he has demonstrated that the General Theory of Relativity implies that space and time have a beginning in Big Bang and an end in Black Holes. His fundamental research includes quantum cosmology, Big Bang theory, structure of the universe, and Black Holes.

The most attractive thing about Hawking’s persona is his stubborn will to live. He has been suffering, since he was 21, from a serious disease called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). It has crippled his neuromuscular control. He cannot move his limbs normally. He speaks through a computer that he is able to operate by his eye and lip movements. But that has not prevented him from wanting to travel in space. .

He has a very practical attitude on his disease. In an interview with The Guardian (UK) on September 27, 2005 he said, “It is a waste of time to be angry about my disability. One has to get on life and I haven't done badly. People won't have time for you if you are always angry or complaining." He is a supreme example of mind's victory over body. The only comparable example which pops up in my mind is that of Helen Keller.

In spite of being extremely busy with his research he retains his concern for mankind. He spoke convincingly at George Washington University on April 21, 2008 about the desirability of colonizing space. The topic of his lecture was ‘why should we go into space’ and the occasion was the 50th anniversary of NASA. He has speculated on the existence of life outside solar system.

Stephen Hawking traveled in a zero-gravity flight of a special aircraft arranged by a Florida-based private company. He experienced eight bursts of weightlessness each lasting 25 seconds. He thoroughly enjoyed the fun. He observed later, “Many people have asked me why I am taking this flight. I am doing it for many reasons. First of all, I believe that life on Earth is at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus, or other dangers. I think the human race has no future if it doesn’t go into space. I therefore want to encourage public interest in space.”

Hawking has a quaint sense of humor. He took an interesting bet with Kip Thorne, the eminent theoretical physicist. In the 1988 edition of A Brief History of Time, he says, “This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse. When we made the bet in 1975, we were 80% certain that Cygnus was a black hole. By now, I would say that we are about 95% certain, but the bet has yet to be settled.”

Hawking lost the bet. Cygnus was proved to be indeed a black hole. Like a gentleman, that he is, he honored the bet and gifted one year's subscription of Penthouse to Thorne.

Hawking has had two divorces. It caused him emotional trauma, but that did not daunt his indomitable will to live. He travels all over the world delivering lectures and attending scientific conferences.

He remarks with his characteristic lucidity, “My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.”

Sounds like he belongs to the tribe of Newtons, Galileos and Einsteins. Is it a matter of sheer coincidence that he was born exactly 300 years after the death of Galileo?

A Lollipop called Threshold Test ban Treaty (TTBT)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were brutally destroyed by the American atomic bombs in the fall of 1945. By the end of the year about 220,000 men, women and children had lost their lives. Hundreds of thousands of the survivors were affected by fatal diseases induced by radioactive fallout. Human tragedy on such a colossal scale had never visited this planet before.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of 15 and 21 kilotons TNT yield respectively. TNT is a powerful explosive material, and the destructive power of a nuclear weapon is measured in terms of the kilotons of TNT. A nuclear weapon yielding one kiloton of TNT is equal to the destructive power of one thousand tons of TNT. Usually, the acronym TNT is dropped while describing the yield of a nuclear weapon.

Second World War brought in its wake an era of cold war between the USSR and the USA. They found themselves trapped willy-nilly into a mad nuclear arms race. Not only they were each producing and stockpiling a large number of nuclear weapons, they were developing bombs of increasingly higher destructive power. To quote an example, the USA exploded at Bikini atoll a thermonuclear device code-named Castle Bravo of 15,000 kilotons on March 1, 1954. Not to be left behind the Soviet Union answered back by exploding their hydrogen bomb Tsar Bomba on October 31, 1961 with an estimated yield of 50,000 kilotons. It outperformed the Castle Bravo by a factor of more than 3. It must have sure put a malicious smile on the face of Nikita Khrushchev.

Insanity of the superpowers was boundless. However, the USA and the USSR had been coming under immense international pressure to halt the arms race. There was growing realization by the all concerned that explosions of gigantic sizes were extremely dangerous and could lead to unintended consequences. Military experts knew that the super nuclear devices did not give any party any real strategic advantage over the adversary. Rather, these jumbo weapons would give rise to untold logistical problems. It needed a series of complicated technical maneuvers to detonate them precisely at a predetermined time and place. The underground tests carried another serious risk. Destructive force of an unusually powerful underground blast might crack open the ground surface and release its radioactive debris in atmosphere. A powerful underground explosion could also trigger off a earthquake. Slowly and surely, it became clear to everybody that the weapons of extremely high yield were not force multipliers. At best they were ego multipliers. They were ugly showpieces of military hardware.

Huge international pressure had been building up on the Soviet Union and the USA to restrict the size of their nuclear devices. Ultimately the USA and the Soviet Union caved in.

At Moscow on July 3, 1974, President Richard Nixon and General Secretary L.Brezhnev, on behalf of their respective countries, signed the Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests limiting the destructive power of nuclear test explosions. The treaty, popularly known as the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT) banned nuclear test explosions having yield of more than 150 kilotons of TNT. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had yield only of 15 kilotons. By implication, these two superpowers believed that it was good enough for them to have a nuclear device more than ten times the destructive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, the treaty removed from the minds of people the fear of testing or developing any more monstrous weapons like Castle Bravo or Tsar Bomba. The treaty thus restricted the overall deployable destructive power of their weapon systems. It suited both the USA and the Soviet Union, as it was compatible with their first strike capability. Unless you test the reliability of a weapon one hundred percent you will be foolish to use it for a first strike. It was easy to test the reliability of a smaller weapon than a very large weapon.

In simple English, the treaty meant that in the worst case scenario of a war between America and the Soviet Union, the first or the retaliatory nuclear strike will not have the destructive capacity of more than 150 kilotons of TNT. The treaty could give only psychological comfort to the people who were rooting for substantial nuclear disarmament. A 15 kiloton bomb wiped off Hiroshima. A 150 kiloton bomb would easily wipe off New York, Moscow or London.

The Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT) entered into force on December 11, 1990. It provided, inter alia, that the compliance would be monitored by seismic stations, situated outside the testing country. A protocol attached integrally to the treaty designated specifically the sites where the tests could be conducted. The procedures for the exchange of technical information were also laid down in detail with a view to improving the quality of verification.

TTBT turned out to be a gentlemen’s agreement. There was an express understanding recorded in the transmittal documents which accompanied the TTBT, when it was submitted on July 29, 1976 to American Senate for ratification.

“Both Parties will make every effort to comply fully with all the provisions of the TTB Treaty. However, there are technical uncertainties associated with predicting the precise yields of nuclear weapons tests. These uncertainties may result in slight, unintended breaches of the 150 kiloton threshold. Therefore, the two sides have discussed this problem and agreed that: (1) one or two slight, unintended breaches per year would not be considered a violation of the Treaty; (2) such breaches would be a cause for concern, however, and, at the request of either Party, would be the subject for consultations.”

Although TTBT was signed in July 1974, it was not ratified for a long time presumably due to different perceptions of verification procedures. However, in 1976 the Soviet Union and the USA independently announced their intention to observe the Treaty limit of 150 kilotons pending the completion of the ratification process.

TTBT was ratified on December 8, 1990 by the American Senate. It entered into force on December 11, 1990.

Article III of TTBT provide an important exception to the 150 kiloton rule. It lays down that "The provisions of this Treaty do not extend to underground nuclear explosions carried out by the Parties for peaceful purposes....." The companion treaty was signed on May 28, 1976 at Washington and Moscow by President Gerald Ford and L. Brezhnev respectively. It is popularly called Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty (PNET) and it entered into force on the same day as TTBT. I may sound cynical, but it is possible that PNET might be an eyewash by the superpowers to find an excuse for conducting high-energy blasts, should they really feel the need. I cannot think of any peaceful 150 kiloton plus blast, unless they want to set fire to the Himalayas.

TTBT demonstrated that the superpowers were vulnerable to sensible international opinion. If one digs deeply into the genesis of the TTBT, one cannot help feeling that the top political levels of the USA and the Soviet Union were psychologically insecure. It is difficult to comprehend that some day somebody would need to use a weapon of 150 kilotons of TNT. Mankind cannot afford to see a repeat of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, under whatever circumstances. TTBT is nothing more than a psychological lollipop doled out to a vast number of people all over the world who desire this planet to get rid of all the atom bombs, hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs. It hardly matters if they are big or small, clean or dirty, peaceful or belligerent, capitalist or communist, Occidental or Oriental.....

LTBT: An Irony of History

History, like the lives of human beings, is full of ironies. That makes history interesting, as people can relate historical events to their own experience.

After the World War-II was over, there began a relentless cold war between the USA and the USSR. Both these superpowers went on stashing more and more dangerous nuclear weapons to their arsenals. At one point, it was said that both of them had sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy the whole world seven times over. If this was not madness in the clinical sense, one cannot say what the clinical madness is.

On March 1, 1954, Americans exploded a thermonuclear device, popularly called hydrogen bomb, in the Bikini atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The explosion, code-named Castle Bravo, gave rise to a stupendously huge mushroom cloud of fire and smoke, and was seen on TV all over the world. Meteorologists said that the radioactive debris was flown across the ocean over wide areas destroying marine life. The 23-member crew of a Japanese fishing boat Lucky Dragon seriously affected by the radioactivity of the explosion. One of the crew members died. It created an enormous outrage in the world, particularly in Japan.

The Castle Bravo is talked about as an accident by many people, because of instead of an expected yield of about 8 megatons its actual yield turned out to be in the neighborhood of 15 megatons. It is believed to be the biggest nuclear explosion ever performed by the USA.

The very next year Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell issued an appeal to the leaders of the nuclear powers to stop the nuclear arms race. Einstein died in 1955, but Russell, Norman Cousins and other eminent pacifists all over the world continued to agitate against the dangers posed by the atomic and hydrogen bombs. In 1957, the renowned scientists all over the world initiated the famous Pugwash conferences, thus bringing on a single platform scientists from all over the world to formulate a strategy of total nuclear disarmament. Norman Cousins, who was in those days the editor-in-chief of Saturday Review (SR), powerfully advocated the cause of nuclear disarmament through his weekly. It is no small measure of the popularity of the cause he promoted that the circulation of SR went up from 20,000 to 650,000. People, at large, were getting disgusted by the nuclear arms race.

1957 saw the formation of the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) in the USA. It ran a full-page ad in the New York Times on Nov 15, 1957 pointing to Americans: "We are facing a danger unlike any danger that has ever existed." SANE became a formidable vehicle of protest against nuclear madness in the United States.

In 1958, the Nobel Laureate scientist Linus Pauling released a petition signed by more than 11,000 scientists from the world over urging the nuclear powers to stop nuclear tests. Things were moving swiftly much to the embarrassment of the authorities. But they could not halt the avalanche of protest.

The big nuclear daddies were aware that testing of atomic or hydrogen bombs had an embarrassing disadvantage. Deadly radioactive fallout invariably followed in the wake of every nuclear test explosion. Winds would carry the radioactive dust far and wide. If you exploded a bomb in Nevada desert, there was no guarantee that the wind would not carry the dangerous radioactive clouds to Mexico or California.

In the meanwhile, that is, from 1954 to 1961, the USSR was preparing to outdo the explosion of Castle Bravo. They did so by detonating a 50-megaton thermonuclear device code-named Tsar Bomba on October 30, 1961 at Novaya Zemlya, a remote site on an island in the Arctic Ocean. It had an estimated yield of 50 megatons, and it is claimed to be the largest nuclear device ever exploded. It had more than three thousand times explosive power than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

The Soviet explosion intensified the public outcry against the atomic test explosions. The big powers found it almost impossible to resist the pressures from their own people. This was at least true in case of the USA and Great Britain.

USA and the Soviet Union set to work out the text of an agreement, but by force of habit went on procrastinating to reach an agreement on one excuse or another. They exchanged various aide-memoires, proposals and counter-proposals under the sponsorship of UN Disarmament Commission. Ultimately, they came round to the view that it would be good enough if they were able to test their nuclear weapons below the ground. It would absolve them of the risk and blame associated with the radioactive fallout, and they would be able to fine tune and upgrade their weapons without anybody tom-toming about it. Once this realization dawned on them they lost no time to ink the treaty.

On August 5, 1963, the USA, Soviet Union and the United Kingdom signed a treaty at Moscow. These three signatory countries pompously named themselves as the Original Parties and decided to keep the treaty open for signatures by other countries. The treaty was ratified by the American Senate on Sept 24, 1963 and it entered into force on October 10, 1963.

France and China did not sign the treaty. The why of it became apparent to everybody when France and China tested their nuclear devices in 1974 and 1980 respectively. Neither of these tests was performed underground and thus these tests would have been in violation of the LTBT, had these two countries signed it.

The treaty has the title "Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water". Generally it is known as Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT). In the USA it is known as Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT).

This treaty prohibits nuclear weapons tests "or any other nuclear explosion" in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water. While not banning tests underground, the treaty does prohibit nuclear explosions in this environment also, if they cause "radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control" the explosions were conducted. In accepting limitations on testing, the nuclear powers accepted as a common goal "an end to the contamination of man's environment by radioactive substances."

In the treaty preamble and Article I, the LTBT parties pledged to seek "the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time...."

The LTBT has the record of a fast track movement. The treaty was signed by the USA, the UK, and the USSR on August 5, 1963. By October 10, 1963 it entered into force pursuant to the procedure laid down in the treaty. In contrast, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which prohibits all the nuclear tests under all circumstances, has yet not entered into force even after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date it was kept open for signatures.

Total number of nuclear tests by all the nuclear powers has been more than 2000 since the beginning. Most of them have been underground tests permissible under LTBT. It can be argued with justification that but for LTBT the nuclear powers would not have been able to test their atomic weapons for the fear of polluting the global atmosphere and inviting the hostility of the people all over the world. CTBT has so far failed to enter into force, because the nuclear powers did not wish to give up the permissiveness given to them by LTBT.

One can argue convincingly that this treaty promoted rather than discouraged the nuclear weapon environment in the world. Testing a nuclear device anywhere except below the ground is fraught with the danger of radioactive fallout which the winds might carry across the national borders, apart from causing unpredictable disasters at home. Further, a country conducting a test in the open would be branded as the purveyor of nuclear catastrophe. The nuclear powers were averse to test-explode a bomb in a desert or on an island, except when it was unavoidable. It is, therefore, not surprising that about 2000 nuclear test explosions, all underground, took place after the LTBT entered into force. Exceptions were: a test by France on Sept 14, 1974, and test by China on October 1980. Both these countries in their eternal wisdom had not signed the LTBT.

An effective way to stop the nuclear test explosions was to completely ban all nuclear tests. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is such a treaty, which unfortunately has not entered into force, although it has been lying open for signatures since Sept 24, 1996. There are no indications that it will enter into force in any foreseeable future.

There lies the irony of history. With hindsight one can argue that it would have been good for the mankind, if LTBT would never have seen the light of the day. Such a situation might have led to a comprehensive and enforceable treaty completely banning all the test explosions of a nuclear weapon. That would have prevented thousands of underground tests, and the resulting enormous atomic inventories by the super powers, and our planet would have been a less dangerous place to live on.