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!