The North Korean Imbroglio

The underground nuclear explosion on May 25, 2009 by North Korea caused tremendous political irritation all over the world. USA did not know how to respond.

Quantification of the destructive power of the North Korean blast is not clear. The test was done underground and the blast creates vibrations in the earth which can be measured on the Richter scale, just as in the case of an earthquake. The Geological Survey of the USA estimated the blast to be of the order of 4.7 on the Richter scale. It corresponds to the explosion of four kilotons of TNT. The preparatory commission for the CTBT at Vienna, which has 39 tracking stations located all over the world determined the magnitude of the blast to be of the order of about 4.5. Assuming these estimates to be not much off the mark, we can conclude that the magnitude of the North Korea blast generated yield of 4 to 5 kilotons of TNT. Nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had yields of 15 and 22 kilotons of TNT respectively.

The May 25 explosions highlighted the helplessness of the USA. President Obama’s comment that it was “a flagrant violation of the International Law” does not sound convincing because the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) under which the Korean nuclear test would have been illegal has not yet entered into force. Ironically, even the USA has not yet ratified the CTBT. However, it can be argued with some justification that the nuclear test by North Korea was clearly violative of the Security Council's Resolution no 1718 of 2006, and hence it did violate the International Law. Its staunch allies Japan and South Korea stand exposed to nuclear blackmail by the North Korean totalitarian regime. Russia and China do not have anything to fear. The Chinese are only concerned about the possibility of mass exodus of the North Korean refugees should the hostilities break out in the region. Russians do not have any serious concern. Japan and South Korea have most to worry and fear as their entire technological and industrial complexes lie exposed to North Korean nuclear missiles. Americans are also worried about the safety of 28,000 American troops in South Korea and more than 30,000 of them in Japan, who will be sitting ducks should the mad rulers of North Korea decide to unleash their nuclear fury against them. However, that is only a theoretical possibility. Howsoever mad or naïve Kim Jong-il might be he cannot underestimate the devastating American retaliation, which will finish him off and bring Stone Age to his country.

There are various speculations as to why North Koreans should go for an atomic test at point of time. One theory is that Kim Jong-il is upping his ante in the game of brinkmanship vis-à-vis the Americans. He and his advisers seem to have calculated that playing the nuclear card at this point will ultimately get them a better deal from the Americans. Another theory is that it might be easy to sell a tested weapon for which there is ample demand in the West Asian black market. Yet another theory is that Kim is suffering from the megalomania and wants North Korea to be accepted as a de facto nuclear state. Some analysts also guess that Kim ordered the nuclear test to promote his strong man image with the North Korean military establishment. Whatever the reasons might be, the North Korean test explosion has created enormous political turmoil in the region. If the American navy intercepts the vessels destined for North Korean ports for carrying the contraband nuclear material or equipment, there might be violent reaction from the North Koreans. It may even trigger off hostilities in the region with the risk of a nuclear exchange. North Korea has nothing to lose in such a situation because they not have a worthwhile industrial base. It is difficult to predict what turn the events will take in such a scenario. Even a 5-kiloton nuclear device dropped on South Korea and Japan would be a catastrophe. It would create a situation which will not be rectified by massive nuclear retaliation by the Americans.

The American strategy has been transparently to prevent hostilities in the northeast corner of Asia. Since the mid-nineties, the North Korean policy of the USA has lacked a strategy. That is one of the reasons why their policy has failed and the United States are groping in the dark for viable options in face of the belligerent behavior of a small country. Since the time when the power in North Korea passed from Kim Il-Sung to Kim Jong-il in 1993-94, the American policy had been to disarm the North Koreans by appeasement by way of negotiating with them. The Bush Administration leaned heavily on six-nation talks, hoping that China would use her leverage with North Korea. American lack of leverage was obvious in the six-nation deliberations.

The Security Council will no doubt tighten the existing sanctions against North Korea, and perhaps enact more sanctions. However, it is unlikely to go for military sanctions against the erring regime, because of the Chinese veto. Chinese, no doubt, are annoyed with North Korea by its latest nuclear folly. But they will not allow their close ally to be upended ignominiously. For one, the nuclear weaponry of North Korea is not a threat to China, just as the nuclear weaponry of the UK is not a threat to the USA. Secondly, should China pressurize North Korea by restricting food and oil, it might open the floodgates of millions of refugees pouring into China. Thirdly, keeping a small naughty country holding dagger at the American troops in Japan and South Korea is an entertaining spectacle to the Chinese Communist Party. They have yet to realize that if the present situation is allowed to continue, Japan may jump into nuclear arms race. A nuclear-armed Japan is not a pleasing prospect for China.

South Korea has announced that it will become a full member of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to curb trade in weapons of mass destruction. North Korean reaction was on expected lines. They said, “Any tiny hostile acts our republic, including the stopping and searching of our peaceful vehicles……will face an immediate and strong military strike in response…. Our military will no longer be bound by the armistice accord as the current US leadership….has drawn the puppets (South Korea) into the PSI.”

White House supports enforcing the 2006 resolution by the Security Council that permits the inspection of vehicles suspected carrying nuclear or missile components. However, there are practical difficulties. The American intelligence is poor in this field. It is ironical that President Bush had last year removed North Korea from the list of states that sponsor terrorism. Now the American administration is trying to find a face-saving way to reverse that decision.

What are the viable American options in the present scenario? One of the plausible options for the USA is to pre-empt the possibility of nuclear mischief by the North Koreans by destroying their nuclear infrastructure by heavy conventional bombing. China or Russia may make some noises but their noises will lack the political amplitude. The pre-emptive American strike will also send a strong message to the recalcitrant Iranian regime.

There are indications that Americans are bracing for a strong action. Speaking on ABC’s This Week, the Secretary of State Clinton said if the test and other recent actions by North Korea did not lead to “strong action”; there was a risk of “an arms race in Northeast Asia”.

The North Koreans are supplementing their nuclear folly by showing off their delivery vehicles. North Korea does not have a missile having a credible long enough range to reach the United States. However, there are some indications that they are preparing to another test of their long-range ballistic missile Taepodong-2. Their first Taepodong-2 fired on July 5, 2006 was a miserable failure. It flew only for 35-40 seconds after the launch.

They test-fired a long-range ballistic missile on April 5, 2009. The three-stage missile traversed over Japan and first stage of the rocket fell into the Sea of Japan, and the other rocket stages as well the payload fell into the Pacific Ocean. It was calculated that the rocket reached 3850 kilometers from the launch site. There are hints that they may be making preparations for another test of Taepodong-2. If they do it is bound to exacerbate the already tense situation in the region.

Key to the solution of the North Korean Imbroglio lies with the Chinese. They have got the clout and the leverage. They supply them with fuel, food, power plants and money. But will the Chinese have the foresight to see the consequences of their policy of letting the situation drift? It is a question on the answer of which lies the prospect of world peace. If war erupts in the northeast region of Asia, we do not know how it will it end.

Strictly speaking, the Korean War that took place in the middle of the last century never came to ended. Only an armistice was signed on July 27, 1953. With the passage of time the peace in the Korean peninsula has solidified along the famous 38th parallel of latitudes. Both sides of this line, huge military concentrations of rival regimes of North and South Korea stare at each other. Neither side wants war, however. South Korea is afraid of the huge enemy artillery trained on Seoul and also the lately developed nuclear weapon capacity. North Korea, on the other hand, is acutely aware of the devastating military might of the United States and the American prowess in technological warfare. North Korea cannot expect to win the war. But it will not be a cakewalk for the Americans, either. China, the prime player in the region, also does not want war as it might give rise to a militant, and possibly nuclear-armed Japan. In spite of their vast military superiority, the Chinese psyche retains the traumatic experience at the hands of the Japanese imperialist machine.

A Can of Worms Opened Unwittingly!

The whole story erupted like a volcano with the release on April 16, 2009 of the four top secret memos on the torture. They were prepared by the Office of the Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Justice Department in the year 2002. Prepared by John C. Yoo, Steven G. Bradbury and Jay S. Bybee, these memos virtually gave a green signal to the CIA operatives to inflict torture of the prisoners by giving a highly perverse interpretation of the law. The memos defended the use of waterboarding (a cruel form of simulated drowning), as well as sleep deprivation, isolation and physical violence.

The picture which comes out of the torture used by the interrogators of the Bush Administration is utterly disgusting and shameful. The methods used to extract confession from the prisoners were unconstitutional, grossly uncivilized, inhumane, and in violation of The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the United States is a signatory. According to Manfred Nowak who is the special United Nations rapporteur on torture, the USA is bound under the above Convention to prosecute those who engage in torture. According to him the decision of President Obama not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law.

Leon Panetta, the director of CIA, was not in favor of releasing the memos, at least without heavily redacting them. The CIA director reasonably felt that such release would hamper the work of CIA interrogators in future, as they would be under tremendous pressure to confine themselves to the red lines. He also felt that it would have an undesirable effect on their relationship with the foreign intelligence agencies.

According to the declassified information, waterboarding was used on alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003. Suspected al-Qaida logistics Chief Abu Zubaydah was subjected to the treatment 83 times in August 2002.

It is naïve to believe that the degrading acts of cruelty performed by the intelligence gathering operatives have enhanced the security of the great American nation even by an iota. On the contrary it has dragged country’s name in mud, and encouraged terrorists of all sorts to outperform Americans in devising more and more diabolical ways to inflict tortures on their prisoners, some of whom might well be Americans.

The insects used by the CIA operatives to extract information by instilling fear amongst prisoners is a throwback to the Paleolithic times when large swarms of stinging insects were released in the caves to smoke the enemy out of their shelters. The use of waterboarding, physical violence, sleep deprivation and other forms of torture remind us of Gulags of the Soviet era. They were also used by the communist regime in China against their enemies in the fifties. The notorious Pol Pot in Cambodia did not have any compunction in using such methods.

Where is the moral pre-eminence of America when such repulsive practices was allowed and encouraged by the Bush administration in the name of making the nation more secure? The then director of intelligence, the then defense secretary and the then attorney general are in the dock of public scrutiny and they should be given an opportunity to say as to what extent they were involved in organizing the most nauseating drama in the history of this nation.

The domestic law of the USA is very clear on this issue. Torture is defined in the section 2340 of United States Code Title 18. The punishment for committing torture is provided for in the section 2340A. Both these sections can be seen below.

Section 2340.
Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Section 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

The legal opinion tendered by a counsel cannot supplant or upstage the substantive law. If a competent court decides that torture as defined under section 2340 was actually committed, the penal provisions of section 2340A will immediately become enforceable. The accused will include not only those intelligence agents who actually performed the torture but also all those who abetted in the crime by giving direction or justification, howsoever senior they might be in the hierarchy of the administration.

President Obama is now being buffeted from all sides. The liberal Democrats as well the civil right groups are encouraging him to prosecute the involved CIA investigators as well the lawyers in the Justice Department who gave an opinion, prima facie in contravention of the domestic and international law. They feel that the President has a sworn duty to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and execute the laws of the United States. On the other hand, the conservative Republicans are shocked at the talk of applying human values to the ranking terrorists. They believe that the organs of Bush administration had been functioning legitimately and properly in defending the nation with all the ingenious methods at their disposal. The whole thing has become a public clash of values and perspectives.

As things stand presently, the President Obama has decided not to prosecute those who directly or indirectly were responsible for inflicting torture. He has also forbidden the intelligence agencies the use of torture as an investigating tool. It is difficult to predict how things will shape in future. But one thing is certain. President might be regretting now the day he decided to declassify the top secret memos. It is easy to open a can of worms, but difficult to persuade the worms to go back in the can.

Brouhaha on the AIG Bonus

The whole world is abuzz with the bonus given to a certain group of executives of the American International Group (AIG), the colossal insurance giant. People are aghast at the enormity of the event. When the country is passing through recession, it is unconscionable for anybody to accept huge sum of money by way of bonus, and it was stupid on the part of the management of the AIG not to be able to find a way to avoid such an embarrassing situation. It is all the more so, because the recipients of the bonus were the very same people who are said to have dealt in the derivatives trading which brought financial ruin on the company. Simplistically, they were rewarded for their incompetence. At least this is the view, which is popular in the media and public. Fuming with rage, the attorney-general of the New York, Mr Cuomo declared that he would “name and shame” the recipients of the bonus. Not to be left behind, his counterpart in Connecticut said, “……these people should have been shoved out the door, not showered with cash." In a fit of righteous anger, a senior Senator went to the extent of advising them to “resign or go, commit suicide.” In private conversations, people used much stronger language.

Yet, there is another side of the story. The bonus given to AIG executives was not a performance bonus. It was retention bonus and its value was not linked to the performance level of the individual recipients. It was a part of their total compensation package, and the company was obliged to pay it under a contract with them, regardless of how the company fared. Unlike the performance bonus, the retention bonus is not designed to be a percentage of the profit which they would be expected to add to their company. This modus of bonus is prevalent in many big corporations. In the popular mind, the concept of bonus is invariably associated with the idea of a reward which an employer gives to an employee for his exceptionally good work. In this case of AIG employees, it was an integral part of their pay packet.

Let us see the situation from another perspective. A surgeon cannot be denied his fee, even if an operation fails and the patient dies. A lawyer cannot be denied his fee even if his client loses the case. So why a banker who does his work with due diligence and sincerity be denied his contracted compensation, if he fails to add profit to his company due to circumstances beyond his control. Fact of the matter is that nobody in the world had foreseen the denouement of the story of subprime housing mortgages. One might argue, with some justification that the compensation paid to the top officials of the Bush administration should also be denied or heavily taxed because they failed to see the storm of recession coming well in time.

Jake DeSantis, the Executive Vice President of the AIG-Financial Products resigned on March 24, 2009. In his letter of resignation addressed to the CEO of AIG, he made a point that most of the employees of the finance product division who received the bonus had nothing to do with the large losses which occurred due to credit default swaps. He remarked, inter alia, that “None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.”

At this point of time it is purely academic to debate the ethicality or otherwise of the assailed AIG bonus. There are two seminal questions at this point which should be publicly debated.

Whether the law to tax such bonus retrospectively can stand legal scrutiny at the apex court; and

Whether taxing heavily AIG bonus will set a bad precedent and be detrimental to business climate in the USA.

The cardinal principle of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is that an ex post facto rule of law is astoundingly unfair and therefore invalid ab initio. Constitution of the United States is categorical on this issue. Section 9 of the Article 1 of the Constitution lays down, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” It is, therefore, somewhat surprising that the House of Representatives passed a bill levying tax on certain categories of bonuses with retroactive effect. In all likelihood, this law shall be set aside by the apex court. If the matter goes before the courts, it is bound to create lot of interest not limited to the law-practicing community.

The retroactive law, if upheld by the Supreme Court, will set a bad precedent for the American business. The entire financial system is based on the trust. Treasury bonds worth billions of dollars are bought on the trust that the interest rates committed will not change. How many people, least of all the foreign governments, will be interested in investing in those bonds, if they are not sure that in some not foreseeable future the Congress might dilute the interest rates retroactively? Will it not make purchasing the American debt a risky affair for China and Japan?

Many banks have received assistance under Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Since the law passed by the House relates only to those financial institutions who have been given massive financial assistance by the government, they may well tend to refuse such assistance as it would bind their hands in matters of deciding compensation to their executives. Financial institutions which fall in this category are the likes of Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America who may determine that the advantages of getting massive funds under TARP in exchange for their preference equity or general equity might not outweigh the advantages of their retaining operational freedom. This is all the more so when they are planning to sell their toxic assets to private equity funds and hedge funds. Accurate differential pricing of such assets will be crucial to the profitability of big banks and the whole exercise will need highly specialized skills and vast experience of their executives. Restricting their compensation package under an executive fiat or an oppressive tax regime is bound to encourage their prized employees to seek greener pastures elsewhere.

It is human nature to find a 'whipping boy' for their misfortunes. The monumental outpouring of public anger against the AIG bonus recipients stems from the people's belief that they were the villains of the piece, and that the recession would not have visited them but for them. The great hullabaloo on the AIG bonus issue has only resulted in distracting attention of the Obama administration from fixing the larger problem of rising unemployment and premature foreclosures on defaulted mortgages. Loss of 165 million dollars, assuming it is a dead loss and totally unjustified, is almost nothing in comparison to the federal budget of about 3,500 billion dollars, and less than almost nothing in comparison to the American economy of about 14,000 billion dollars.

We cannot afford to be million wise and billion foolish in our hour of supreme financial crisis.

Metastasis of Talibanism in Pakistan

Government of Pakistan has virtually agreed to the Talibanizaton of Swat district of its North West Frontier Province (NWFP). They have entered into a formal agreement with the militants for the promulgation of sharia laws of Islam.

The agreement is a fig leaf to Pakistan's total capitulation to militants in Swat. In the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, the writ of Pakistani government never ran. Now Swat has been added to the list of places in Pakistan where nobody cares for the government at Islamabad.

Swat district is in the Malakand division of NWFP. It is home of the Swat valley which is known the world over for its skiing resorts, fruit orchards, flowing streams and snow-capped peaks. For Al Queda and Taliban it is not only a political victory over Pakistan, it is a triumph of tremendous implications. The pride of the formidable Pakistani army has been severely wounded.

Pakistani army did not have many options in Swat. Its troops were outmaneuvered by the militants. Many, if not the most, Pakistani soldiers, who had the background of madrassa education felt empathy with the fundamental Islamic goals of the militants. There was yet another factor which demoralized Pakistani troops in that area. Since 2007, when the Taliban activities began in Swat, Pakistani army had ceded about three-fourths of the Swat area to the enemy. Talibans used savage methods of public beheadings and public floggings to terrorize civilians and the soldiers alike. According to Amnesty International, a quarter to half a million people have fled Swat since 2007, and at least 1,200 civilians have been killed in the region. Barbaric cruelty of Talibans induced a speechless fear in a large number of Pak soldiers. Demoralization has set in all their ranks.

There is a reason why the Talibans of Afghan origin felt at home in fighting in NWFP. The NWFP is primarily an area inhabited by Pakhtoons (also called Pashtoons or Pathans). They are of the same ethnicity as the majority of Afghans. In fact, the people of NWFP, of which Swat is only a district, are culturally quite different from the rest of Pakistan. They speak a different language, and their traditional way of living has nothing in common with the rest of Pakistanis. They have always had a secret longing for uniting with Afghanistan.

It is interesting to visit the contemporary history of NWFP. Pakistan came into existence in 1947 as a result of the partition of erstwhile India into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. NWFP was the odd man out. Out of all of the 5 provinces proposed to constitute Pakistan, only NWFP did not have a Muslim League government in spite of its being a Muslim-majority province. It was governed by a coalition of Indian National Congress (INC), Khudai Khidmatgars and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind. INC and its coalition partners hated the ideology of Pakistan. People of NWFP were also averse to join the new state of Pakistan because they believed their ethnicity would be compromised by joining Pakistan, which might be ruled by Punjabis and the Urdu-speaking migrants from Northern India. However, the geography of the subcontinent was against them. They were landlocked and the choice given to them in the referendum ordained by India Independence Act 1947 was to join either Pakistan or India. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who was known as Frontier Gandhi, and his brother Dr Khan Sahib, who was the then Chief Minister of NWFP, agitated for an independent status for NWFP by the name of Pakhtoonistan. In June 1947, Acharya Kripalani, the president of INC, wrote a letter to Lord Mountbatten, the then Viceroy, pleading for an option for NWFP for independence along with the option of joining either India or Pakistan. Two months earlier to his letter, the British Legation in Kabul had written to Government of India, that “the view taken by the Afghan Government is that the tribesmen in tribal territory are more closely connected with the Afghan Government than with the Interim Government of India and the Afghans have, as you know, already asked that the tribes should be given the option of securing their complete independence or joining themselves to Afghanistan if they wish to do so rather than continue as part of India”. However, India Independence Act of the British Parliament did not give them that choice, and NWFP willy-nilly became a part of Pakistan. They could not vote for India as geography was against them. The turnout of the voters in the referendum was extremely poor in spite of a vicious and violent campaign launched in favor of Pakistan by Muslim League.

Presently there are three political forces swinging in the NWFP. First is the active political and military presence of Talibans and Al Qaeda. Second is the presence of the demoralized and confused Pak army. Third is the yearning of Pakhtoons to get detached from Pakistan. A virulent anti-American sentiment is cementing all these forces to the detriment to the concept of a united Pakistan.

Talibanism in FATA and Swat is thriving on the vulnerability of the dysfunctional body politic of Pakistan. It is difficult to see how a military effort alone can prevent it from encroaching upon the settled areas of NWFP. With the historical background of NWFP it is very difficult for Pakistan to retain political or military control over NWFP for a long time.

Talibans are now trying to gain footholds beyond NWFP. On Feb 7 and Feb 11 this year they attacked two police outposts in Mianwali district of Punjab which lies along the river Indus. Punjab has a chain of mosques where Wahabi brand of Islam is preached. Talibans may find them handy in promoting their agenda.

Talibanism is now beginning to metastasize.

Twin Rubik Cubes of Afghanistan and Pakistan

Mr Richard Holbrooke is bound to feel elated at the supreme confidence reposed in him by President Obama. However, he will soon realize that his job is not exactly a bed of roses.

He has been asked to clear the terrible mess American interests are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. USA has two primary goals in that region. One is to destroy completely the training camps and leadership of Al Qaeda and Taliban. Second goal is to ensure that the nuclear assets of the Pakistan do not fall in the hands of extremist elements.

It is easy to see that both these goals do overlap, making this region a veritable nightmare for the Obama administration.

Holbrooke's mission is much more than an uphill task. In Pakistan he is facing at least three main power centers at the federal level. One is the civilian government, another is the army, and yet another is Inter- Services Agency called ISI. They have different perspectives as to what the national interests of Pakistan are. In theory, army is subject to civilian control. In actual practice, it is the other way round. Government cannot take any crucial policy decision without taking army chief into confidence. In May 1999, the Pakistani army took the decision to rattle India by initiating what is known in the contemporary history as Kargil War. It is widely believed that the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was kept in total dark and he came to know only after the attack on the Indian positions by Pak army units actually began. Similarly, ISI is supposed to be a part of Pakistani defense establishment. But in actual practice it is an autonomous body who has its own foreign policy goals and own views on domestic politics. It believes brass of Pakistani army to be too soft and naive to understand the realpolitik. The head of the ISI is always a senior officer of the rank of Lieutenant General of the army who after being appointed to the post falls in the tradition of asserting ISI's Independence from the army headquarters. Before Ashfaq Parvez Kayani succeeded General Parvez Musharraf as the Chief of the Army Staff he had been the Director General of the ISI for three years. The attack on the Indian embassy at Kabul on July 7, 2008 was engineered by ISI presumably without the knowledge of Pakistani army or the Pakistani government. Taliban provided only the fig leaf for that attack. It is also believed that the dastardly attack on Mumbai in November 2008 was done by an extremist Pakistani outfit Lashkar-i-Taiba with the active support and professional training of ISI. Much of the power of ISI stems from the fact that it keeps dossiers on most of the politicians, many of whom have many skeletons in their cupboards.

There is yet another aspect of the fractured polity of Pakistan. Pakistan has four major provinces. Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and North West Frontier Province (NWFP). Between NWFP and Afghanistan lies an area called Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). Its area is more than 27000 square kilometers and its population more than three million. FATA is nominally a part of Pakistan but the writ of the Pakistani government does not run there. It is controlled by fiercely independent Pakhtoons. Culturally they consider themselves Afghans and are happy thriving on narcotic and arms trade. It is irony of history that they fall in east of the Durand Line which is the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Durand Line was drawn arbitrarily by the British Government in the year 1893 between the then British India and Afghanistan's the then ruler Amir Abdur Rehman Khan. The treaty formalizing the Durand Line was for one hundred years and has lapsed in the year 1993. The Afghan govt has refused to renew the treaty. No Afghan government has ever accepted Durand Line as the international border between them and British India (or its successor state Pakistan). In fact the Loya Jirga of Afghanistan has repudiated in 1949 the Durand Line as the international border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, Pakistan does not feel itself obliged to renegotiate the treaty. It believes that Durand Line is the international border in perpetuity. Even during the Taliban regime when Pakistan was extremely friendly with it, Afghan government did not agree to the legitimacy of Duranad Line. It is felt by Pakhtoons that it artificially divides Pukhtoons living in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Durand line has been a continuous source of tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

FATA which is politically a part of Pakistan has become adopted home of Al Qaeda. American intelligence agencies believe that Osama bin Laden and his top operators are hiding in FATA. The mountainous and rugged terrain of FATA also helps the Al Qaeda fighters. American pilotless drone aircraft are repeatedly bombing the suspected hideouts of Al Qaeda as and when they get actionable intelligence. Americans do not share their intelligence with Pakistan, because they suspect their intelligence might be clandestinely passed by the ISI to the Taliban or maybe even to Al Qaeda.

The chief reason of Pakistan facing problems in FATA is the fact that inhabitants of FATA think themselves as more of Afghans than Pakistanis. Kabul has always claimed that NWFP as a whole belongs to Afghanistan as it is inhabited by Pakhtoons. The name NWFP itself is not an ethnic name unlike Punjab, Sindh or Baluchistan.

The story of Swat is intriguing. It is an administrative district in th NWFP and home of Swat Valley, which is popularly known to be the Switzerland of Pakistan. It is a place of exquisite natural beauty and home to a number of skiing resorts. Since December 2008, practically the entire Swat is under control of Talibans. They have banned female education, watching TV, listening to music. Men are obliged to keep beards. They have burnt down more than 170 schools for girls. Swat is hardly 100 miles away from the capital of Pakistan, and its falling into the hands of Taliban militants has introduced a new equation in the already tangled political and military situations in Pakistan.

Situation in Afghanistan is no better, if not far more worse. The writ of Hamid Karzai government does not run beyond Kabul. The functionaries of his government are steeped in corruption and the governors of Afghan provinces do not care for the central authority. The Afghan army is ill-trained and poorly organized and virtually ineffective as a fighting force. Present position is little short of pathetic. Presently there are deployed troops from the USA and other NATO countries. They have dual function of supporting the Karzai government and hunting Taliban and Al Qaeda. There is a United Nations Military force International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) stationed there since December 2001. Presently it is commanded by Eurocorps since August 9, 2004. The function of this 6500-strong force is to help the Afghan administration reconstruct the country in all fields of public life. Unlike NATO forces, it is supposed to be politically neutral.

Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic society. Pakhtoons are the most prominent group. Then there are Hazaras, Tajiks and Ujbeks. All these groups have their own political agendas. Hazaras are supported by Iran, because they are shias like Iranians. Not only this, almost the entire opium produced in Afghanistan is exported via Iran. All these factors make the role and authority of Kabul utterly diminished. The American envoy might find it difficult logistically talk to the leaders of the major ethnic groups who are corrupt and do not care for anybody in Kabul or Washington, but without whose support the Afghan imbroglio cannot be untangled.

Holbrooke is a great negotiator and has unquestionably profound skills of a star diplomat. However, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is tangled, messy and full of so many power centers that the distinguished American envoy may not find it easy to solve the twin Rubik cubes of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Pedigree of American Recession

The present recession in the USA has a complicated pedigree.

The story begins with the tragic events on September 11, 2001. The dastardly attack on the USA by Al Qaida shook the soul of America as never before. The earlier major national traumatic experience was Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. But it was peanuts in comparison with what took place on 9/11. Al Qaida pierced the very heart of America. Japanese had used their own aircraft as weapons at Pearl Harbor. In 9/11, Al Qaida used the American aircraft to stress the humiliation heaped on American psyche.

The 9/11 attack kicked-off a chain of events. It triggered off invasion of Iraq as the American government believed on the basis of the evidence available to it that the next attack on the United States, possibly nuclear, might come from Iraq. Iraq war was a huge military success in the initial phase, but since then it has dragged on interminably. The military activities are over in Iraq, but a huge contingent of troops continues to stay there. It continues to drain the American treasury.

There are various estimates as to the cost of Iraq war. The Bush administration understandably downplayed the cost. We must take into consideration not only the upfront cost incurred on the military deployment and operations but also the staggering social and economic costs which might not be obvious. According to Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, in a scholarly article published in the Washington Post on March 9, 2008, the total cost of Iraq war might exceed 3 trillion dollars. Even if we assume that their estimate was liberal by a factor of 2, in a 14-trillion economy, a wasteful and entirely non-productive outlay of 1.5 trillion dollars is bound to be impactful.

Even before the Iraq war, the federal budget of the United States had a huge deficit. The war opened the floodgates of expenditure. This expenditure was met with the borrowed money of national debt, which was soaring by about $1 billion a day, thanks to the heavy purchase of the debt by China and other exporters to the United States. Iraq War, along with Afghanistan war, made its own contribution to the recession which is plaguing the United States and therefore the world, today.

The balance of trade between China and the USA has been continuously rising in favor of China since 1986. During recent times, it has grown from $203 billion in the year 2003 to $266 billion in the year 2008. Cumulatively it adds up to about one and a quarter billion dollars over the last six years. Quite a good chunk of this money has been used by the Chinese in purchasing the US national debt. Can we, therefore, not say that Chinese-American trade also played a role, albeit indirectly, in deepening the financial crisis?

However, the greatest and most visible contribution to the recession was made by so-called subprime landing. These were the loans granted by bankers for buying houses, cars and other assets without checking the paying capacity of the borrowers. Most of the borrowers of such loans did not have adequate capacity to service their mortgages. Such mortgages were then collated by the first lenders in various bundles, securitized and sliced suitably in the form of attractive looking bonds at high coupon rates and sold to greedy investors who believed they were too clever to go for the traditional form of investments. Thus banks created assets for themselves some of which were ab initio non-performing assets or toxic assets. The ultimate value of such bank assets depends upon whether the mortgages taken against those bonds are repaid or not.

The bubble burst, as it was destined to, and the people ran for cover. The value of the assets based on such securitized bonds fell freely as though under gravity. Value of stocks of banks and other corporations in the share market plummeted. It severely restricted the capacity of banks to open fresh lines of credit. In turn, this made the entire economic system totter on the brink of uncertainly, if not sure disaster. Moralists feel it all happened due to human greed. Economists say it was all due to lack of adequate regulation and overseeing of the financial system.

Consumer spending has got steeply diminished. The 14-trillion dollar American economy depends at least 65 per cent on consumer spending, both on goods and services. Demand of goods and services is falling and and people have lost jobs in consequence. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the payroll employment has declined by 3.6 million since December 2007. Imagine the misery it must have brought to so many households. People are finding it very painful to survive.

The fundamental strategy to address this grim scenario is to boost demand, which can only be done by injecting huge outlays in the system. Food stamps and unemployment benefits are sure shot as the recipients are bound to spend the money as soon as possible. Tax cuts to the low income groups is another way to inject expendable money in the system. President Obama has creative ideas like going in a big way building infrastructure like new roads and schools. Giving money to states is also a good idea as it will stimulate social security programs like Medicaid. Banks should also get huge chunks of money so that they are able to reactivate their lines of credit to the borrowers who might be willing to invest in productive ventures.

At this point of time it is difficult to say what should be the nitty-gritty of stimulus package. Time alone can say to what extent Obama administration will succeed in averting the economic disaster.

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.