Bharat Vs India Vs Hindustan! The fight is on!

Raju Korti
The recent overemphasis by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi on the use of "Hindustan" as against its other counterparts like "Bharat" or "India" have expectedly stirred a hornet's nest. But a disclaimer in place first! This blog is not about Rahul Gandhi per se but political leaders' penchant to twist the words to their advantage by poking people's brittle emotional and political conscience. 

It is no surprise that in "India, that is Bharat", a phrase that former MP and journalist Baburao Patel used extensively to make his proclivities clear, the tendency to politicise every issue has become ingrained in the fabric of public discourse. From social issues to cultural events and even matters relating to scientific research or technological advances, there is a marked propensity among political parties and their supporters to view everything through a partisan lens. As a natural corollary, this politicization often leads to polarized debates where the focus shifts from the substance of the matter at hand to scoring political brownie points or subtly reinforcing ideological stances. Among other things, it hinders constructive dialogue and problem-solving, potentially overshadowing history, genuine concerns and solutions inclined to boost political agendas.

Politicians are known to use "Bharat," "Hindustan," or "India" strategically to appeal to different sentiments and audiences for political gain. Behind the specious terming, there are subtle messages to convey so they carry to the right quarters. All the three have a historical and cultural context but politicians have fine-tuned the art of creating controversies where none (should) exist.

Remember, days before the much anticipated G20 summit was scheduled to begin in Delhi, the dinner invite mentioning "President of Bharat" sparked widespread controversy. It was a political full toss  (or a yorker?) delivered to a class of people who revel in conspiracy theories and love to ready everything between the lines. Knowing Modi's predilection and talent to finger his opponents, this was quickly interpreted as "India" would be officially named as "Bharat" in the ensuing session of the parliament. That didn't happen but always ready to rub salt on the opposition's festering wounds, I am sure the PM just derived some fiendish pleasure.

Following the G20 dinner invites, the Modi's visit to Indonesia for the 20th ASEAN India Summit and 18th East India Summit, added fuel to the fire by referring to him as the "Prime Minister of Bharat". In all the indignation, it was forgotten that this was not the first time "Bharat" was used in an official document. When Modi attended the 15th BRICS summit in South Africa and then went on an official visit to Greece thereafter, the government notification referred to him as "Prime Minister of Bharat". The use of "Bharat" as against the commonly used "India" by the international community, was dubbed as a "symbol of colonial slavery."

Without quoting Shakespeare's trite, each of these words have their own origin. In its Constitution, the world's most populous country has been mentioned as "India" and "Bharat". "Hindustan" is believed as the land of the Hindus. It is an attribution that comes most Muslim countries, especially referred to as such by Pakistan. The use of "Hindustan" is loaded with political and religious overtones that can be understood and let pass, unlike "Bharat" which has acquired a political tinge. 

The words "Hindustan", "Bharat" and "India carry a deep cultural, historical and political implications in the context of Indian subcontinent. From time to time, these are twisted and used out-of-context to give it a glaring political hue. Politicians are known to have used "Bharat" or "Hindustan" to invoke a sense of cultural pride or national identity rooted in historical and cultural heritage. No prizes for guessing these appeal to sentiments of nationalism and cultural unity, especially among conservative or traditional voters.

Depending on the context and audience (read constituency), these are also tossed around or sautéed to align with specific religious communities. To that extent, "Hindustan" signifies a Hindu-majority identity (or a more pointed reference to the minorities), appealing to voters who prioritize religious affiliation in their political choices. The choice between "Bharat" and "India" carry a subtle political hint where "Bharat" is often associated with a more traditional or indigenous identity, contrasting with "India" which is perceived as a legacy of colonialism. Often, these are conveniently interchanged to appeal to different demographics.

In multilingual and culturally diverse "India" "Bharat" or "Hindustan" are used in regions where these terms resonate more deeply due to historical, linguistic or cultural reasons. Politicians cunningly shape historical perspectives to fit their political narrative. The manipulation of these terms is a reflection of the complex socio-cultural and political landscape of the country. Leveraging them to gel with target audiences and strengthening political prospects come with a hefty price that the country pays in terms of their divisive outcome. 

All three have a distinct etymology and I would not labour over them for obvious reasons but vulnerable population needs to understand the political tapestry of the Indian sub continent and their implications. A simplistic view of these terms, knowing their cultural dynamics, would perhaps take away all the vicious sting that politicians bring to them with their ulterior motives but that is impossible where people cud on issues that don't need too much to be read into.

As a fundamental rule, I have used all three from time time to time in different but non-controversial contexts. I clearly remember, I had used "Hindustan" in an attribution to Asaduddin Owaisi and some overzealous elements on Facebook, pounced on me as if I had coined the word. Owaisi and his ilk get away with these (things) but those commenting from the sidelines with zero vested interests face the flak. Do I need to say more?

Its not climate change, its human callousness.

Raju Korti
I am fundamentally opposed to the term "vagaries of nature". It is an expedient way to blame the Nature for all the ills humans suffer. The phrase often implies a randomness or unpredictability in natural occurrences, suggesting that Nature operates without discernible pattern or purpose. As a compulsive student of Climate Physics (my own coinage, of course because it is never taught as a proper subject in science curricula), I find the term patently flawed in its implication. 

A file grab from the United Nations website.

No disasters are artificial, they are all man-made, including those laid at the doorstep of what is being bandied as "climate change". Admitted, Nature. though sometimes complex and sometimes unpredictable, operates within the framework of intricate systems and laws that govern the universe. I call it Climate Physics that hasn't reached the depths of human understanding. It is not altogether surprising that there are very few who observe the phenomena from weather patterns to geological processes rather than treat them as mere whimsical fluctuations.

Dismissing natural disasters as vagaries undermines all serious efforts in scientific principles at play and diminishes the awe-inspiring intricacy of the natural world. In the hurry to dismiss the issue with a tinge of scrappy research, it is often forgotten that it is through rigorous study and exploration that we uncover the order and beauty within what might initially appear as chaos. Climate Physics doesn't get the attention it deserves and the efforts to understand "climate change" often gets lost in a maze of confusing facts and figures that vary geographically but with little efforts to co-relate them and present a plausible model. In simpler words, we are just not able to delve deeper into the fascinating mechanisms that govern our plant and universe.

It is no secret that humans are primarily responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. Greenhouse gases are warming the world faster than at any time in at least the last 50 years and humans love to pay more lip service to the cause than any steps on ground. It is obvious that the efforts to contain or mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and bring a semblance of order to rampaging Nature, have been significantly less. Governments across the globe are either indifferent or do not think the issues is weighty enough to expend money and worthwhile research. Far from being inclement, Mother Nature has been kind, giving humans umpteen hints that there is scope for mitigation.

Most people think climate change means warmer temperatures. That, however, is just a superficial exterior and beginning of the story. Because the Earth is a system, where every other parameter is connected, change(s) in one area has the potential to influence changes in all others. The adverse and all-pervasive effects of climate change have been spelt out with regular alarm -- intense droughts (dry and wet), water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms, declining bio-diversities, and the unprecedented but ubiquitous heat waves all over the world. The last one was the dominant news other than our pathological obsession for Politics.

The flip side of rising presence of greenhouses gases means rise in carbon footprint, causing global temperatures to soar. The scientific consensus should be clear: Human actions are the dominant driver of the perceived climate changes over the past century with profound implications for ecosystems, weather patterns, and human societies worldwide.

At the cost of being a naysayer, I will dare say that further warming of our atmosphere is now impossible to avoid. It appears to have reached an irretrievable point-of-no-return. While the ecosystems get destroyed, the Earth will become inhabitable for many species, leading to extinctions and redistribution of species, threatening food production with alien pests and diseases. Man, in his superior wisdom might manage to outlive a bit longer but the doomsday clock is ticking rapidly and how! If the consequences of climate change -- impacts on agricultural economies like India -- are especially dangerous for the poorest. Nature will not leave it to crooked politicians to eradicate poverty.

The potential human cost will be catastrophic that no budgets will be able to take care of. A rise in sea levels threatens hundreds of millions in coastal communities and cities across the globe -- our own Mumbai, now billed as the third biggest city in the world -- at risk. Epidemics could force large-scale migrations by 2050 which is just 25 years away. The next generation will be condemned to watch and endure as humans cause Mother Earth's degeneration.

Coastal areas around the world are diverse and vital ecosystems where land meets the sea. These regions are characterized by a dynamic interface of land, water, and air, supporting unique biodiversity and human livelihoods, they also play a crucial role in global economies, providing resources like fisheries, tourism opportunities, and transportation hubs. As these take a hit, they face significant challenges such as erosion, pollution, and climate change impacts, underscoring the need for sustainable management and conservation efforts to protect these invaluable environments for future generations.

I read in a journal that according to latest research evaluating 44 countries, emissions arising as a result of population growth wiped out two-thirds of the reduction in emissions arising from greater energy efficiency between 1990 and 2019. Meanwhile, solutions such as reforestation (which in India are more of  cosmetic photo ops) may be more difficult to implement with more people needing food and land. In its landmark report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) specifically identified high population growth as a "key impediment" to hitting the critical target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

The projections on "climate change" are scary. it has been overemphasized that global surface temperatures have increased 1.5 degrees F (0.8 C) on an average with a rise in acceleration in the last 50 years. The culprits are far too many and well known to bear any repetition. The IPCC report vindicates my contention that the turning point has been since 1970, until which, Nature was well within its limits. Satellite observations suggest that the rate of sea level rise globally since 1992 has been twice as rapid as it was during the previous century.

Climate action calls for significant concerted efforts globally and need enhanced financial investments by governments and businesses. But there is no will, and therefore, no way. Governments have money for populist measures but none for the Earth's population. Green economy is a mere figure of speech. A complex interplay of factors that include political inertia, vested interest in fossil fuel industries and societal reluctance to make necessary lifestyle changes will thwart any reversal. 

Short-term economic priorities often take precedence over long-term environmental sustainability, leading to insufficient policies and investments in renewable energy and carbon reduction strategies. Moreover, the global nature of the issue makes international cooperation and consensus challenging to achieve, further exacerbating the problem. We are only condemned to watch as climate crisis and its impacts devastate ecosystems and human societies worldwide.

Of spinning electoral narratives!

Raju Korti
If there is one thing that I dread before, during and after every election, it is the prospects of listening to the lengthy, pompous and holier-than-thou political narratives that "experts" in the media dish out in their bid to outdo each others. As I sat through the election coverage across TV channels yesterday, it was nothing different with usual and predictable noises from predictable people with predictable views -- all in the name of being "spin doctors". It is one therapy guaranteed to leave you sicker than before.

Pic representational: You can choose your studio!

As a seasoned journalist of over 45 years who has extensively covered parliamentary, assembly and local self government elections since 1980, travelling with prime ministers like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda, Inder Kumar Gujral and many union/state ministers, MPs and MLAS, even connecting with grassroots, I can vouch that readers who base their opinions on these narratives are first class hypocrites who are compromised because of their naivete and poor perception. They watch TV and newspapers (of their choice) to feel comfortable with the narratives that suit their prejudiced minds.    

Trying to keep your head on your shoulders listening to the "spin doctors" has to be an acid test of your tolerance and endurance. It is where truth travels in diametrically opposite directions, often losing its way in the trajectory. Taking names serves no purpose as they all are prisoners of their ideologies and preferences that send their good conscience on a sabbatical. I can tell you first hand how tricky, if not tough, it can be to spin narratives because there is no room for objectivity and unvarnished truth in the complex algorithm of politics.

Trying to untangle political narratives is like trying to follow a squirrel on caffeine high meandering through a maze of mirrors. You think you are on to something, but then suddenly you are lost in a convoluted hodgepodge of conflicting facts and interpretative ballets. As a spin doctor, you twirl your words like spaghetti on fork, hoping you will swallow their junk without realizing it is just a mass of tangled, frigged mess. 

Those on the television are a class unto themselves. The TV studios are a circus where the clowns wear suits and the lions replaced by talking heads roaring their two cents louder than a stadium full of unruly soccer fans. Don't take them to heart, and if you do, pop a sorbitrate before you get the heart-burns. In the circus of politics, the only thing that is certain is the truth is made a contortionist. In the grand carnival of politics, there's a ride that stands out among the rest, where truth takes a backseat and spin reigns supreme -- the Spin Cycle. If you don't strap yourselves in, it is a guaranteed roller coaster.

Picture this: A well-lit studio room filled with an eclectic mix of politicians, strategists, and spin doctors, all huddled around a colossal spinning wheel. On this wheel are various narratives, ranging from "Economy Booming" to "Opponent's Gaffe Extravaganza" -- all with the seasoned tempering of a crazy flurry of hands and what is generally acknowledged as a benchmark in noise: fish market. 

The journey is all familiar. The spinning game begins with the very topic of the debate. The way it is twisted is like rigged fight where the ringmaster anchor has already made up the mind who is going to win. The first stop is the blame game. Panellists showcase their gymnastics skills contorting themselves into absurd positions to deflect blame from their own mishaps. 

If you weren't entertained enough, the soundbite shuffle follows where in linguistic dexterity, panellists craft catchy but selective soundbites. If it is about rising unemployment, they will chant "jobs, jobs, jobs" as if repeating it ad nauseum would create employment opportunities out of thin air. Narratives also give ample opportunities for a "Scandal Spin" as part of crisis management -- all in a friendly exchange of pleasantries. The anchor is the King of all, including the panellists and their narratives. 

If the going gets tough to the point where shouting panellists yanking hair off their heads, there is a comic break in the flip-flop boogie woogie. They all come prepared to display flawless somersaults. TV Talk shows allow them them to showcase these skills in a spectacle of flexibility that would make even the most seasoned contortionist green with envy.

As the Spin Cycle whirls on, it is the poor viewer who ends up wondering in the maze of "facts and figures" what is stranger, fact or fiction. So, dear friends, if you are condemned to watch these spinning tracks -- like I was throughout yesterday -- and you find yourself caught in the dizzying whirlwind of political rhetoric, just remember to hold onto your hats and keep your skepticism close at hand. After all, in the Spin Cycle, what goes around often comes around -- just with a slightly different twist.

For the record, spinning convenient narratives is no big deal if you already have a twisted mind. As I would often tell my students in the college: First get your facts right and then think of how to twist them!

Ego boosters called "followers" on social media!

Raju Korti
There is a tantalising and deceptive undertone to the word "follower". The advent of social media and its inanities have produced this species which in simple words refers to people who chase someone's thoughts. The word "leader" is implicit in the word "follower". Followers exist because there are leaders. There is a breed on social media that arrogates to itself the status of a leader because everyone in their list is a "follower" and not a "friend".

I find it less amusing and more irritating that people who have added you to their "friend list" of their own sweet will show in their profiles as YOU who is following them. So you are a follower and not a friend because the choice of words brings this distinction to the fore. Adding someone as a friend and then showing him/her as your follower is a cheap trick to corner some self glorification. 

For the record, I do not follow anyone and I have zero interest in having such bloated egos in my fold. Follower? Really? They can keep their self-assumed importance to themselves and live lives of delusional grandeur. They are narcissists in the guise of leaders of public opinion.

Followers are the faithful minions, loyal subjects of one's digital kingdom (fiefdom if you prefer). They hang on your tweets/posts, eagerly awaiting your next 280-character stroke of genius and share it like it is the gospel truth. They are like the sidekicks in our digital superhero saga, cheering their "leaders" from the sidelines with emojis and some wisecracks.

In contrast, "friends" have almost become mythical creatures you encounter even outside the realm of social media. In a dopamine rush of notifications, they will also dislike your tweets and posts as much as they like them to keep your egos in check. On the other hand, "followers", to me, lurk in the depths of one's list , adding a touch of intrigue to someone's social media escapades.

To the self-proclaimed leaders of public opinion (euphemistically calling themselves as digital creators), followers are like Wi-Fi to their Netflix binge. They serve their purpose of validating their existence in the vast digital wilderness, reminding us that even in the age of algorithms and cat videos, there are people out there who actually care about your two cents. Or at least who care enough to hit that much sought-after blue button.

So here is a salute to faithful followers without whom the social media empire would be just a lonely desert island in the sea of cyberspace.

To all my followers, near and far
You click and tap, you like and share
Your support for me beyond compare.

Through memes and tweets we march on,
In this digital world where we all belong,
You boost my ego, make me feel grand,
With every follow(er), I fist-pump and stand.
The more in my fold, bigger my bandwagon.

From sunrise to sunset, you're always there,
Reading the rambles of my digital flight.
Through ups and downs, you remain true
My dear followers, you are my alternate ego.

So here's to you my loyal online crew,
With every click you help me renew,
My faith in the power of virtual bonds.

You compose my online journey,
make it a savoury virtual toast,
My followers, you are the ones I boast. 

PS: I do not have any followers. Just "friends".

Rhetoric is fine, but getting POK back will be a headache!

Raju Korti
The talk about India getting Pakistan Occupied Kashmir back in its fold is a red herring. All the national sentiment whipped up on the issue in the last three or four years do not seem to be disposed towards any consideration of why or how it can be done. The international community's view of POK being a "disputed territory" apart, the bottom line remains that it comprises two ethnically and linguistically different regions: What Pakistan feels is the Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan which is the northern most tip of Kashmir and covers parts of Ladakh. The latter makes for an overwhelming area of POK and seems to have found little mention in the strategic discourses and debate on the future of Kashmir.

Defence Minister Rajnath's Singh's optimism of getting back POK is based on the assumption that India will not be required to do anything (by which he means the use of military might) as the people of POK are themselves in favour of a merger and the ground situation in Kashmir much better than what it was in the earlier years. He, of course, did not deviate from the professed Indian line that "POK was, is and will remain ours".

While reports indeed say that there is an increasing unrest in POK and people wanting to become a part of India, it is not so simple as buying a chocolate on a counter. There are over 5 million people in POK. What does India do with them? Give them citizenship? Since the Partition they have been systematically brainwashed into believing that India is a sworn enemy. Can India ask them to go to Pakistan, and if they don't want to, as is most likely, will India use force? The ferment is fundamentally because of the fact that its inhabitants are staring at utter poverty, unable to make ends meet and in comparison to the bankrupt Pakistan, India appears to be the rising Sun. The new-found love for India by the people of POK is driven by expediency and the need for survival, not because of any change in religious or territorial priorities.

There is and will be a serious question mark on how these five million plus people will conduct themselves as law abiding citizens of India and whether we can afford to expend a substantial military might to hold on to them in the times to come should there by any eventuality. Are we willing to risk our soldiers on people who have been for decades armed by the Pakistanis? How do we feed them? They all use the Pakistani currency which is not legal tender in India. So, do they exist as refugees surviving on Indian largesse until they become part of the country's mainstream? The noise to become part of India should be seen more as the futility of living with a broke Pakistan than any affinity for India. 

There are, of course advantages. It is a strategic terrain for India's national security advantage and gives access to Afghanistan and Tazikistan for trade benefits. If India takes back POK or POK merges with (I make a subtle distinction between the two) India, Pakistan's geographical importance will diminish and give India better connection with Central Asia, Russia and Europe. It will not be altogether surprising that Pakistan will oppose this tooth and nail even if it means being blacklisted by the FATF.

In the midst of this talk, it is not sure how much conquest and diplomacy would work. There is at the moment there is nothing to indicate that this so called merger will be unequivocal; especially given the ruling dispensation in India. Also do not forget that India could not take back POK after three wars with Pakistan. A referendum in POK? Too early to even talk about it. What happens to the Radcliffe Line? Will the borders with Pakistan be remapped, and how? Winning battles on the front is one thing and winning them on the negotiating table is quite another. On that front, the record has been rather dismal.

Pakistan will never nod for any legal or political solution, and a war among the nuclear states could be catastrophic. The non-state actors are always onto the bandwagon. Besides, there is the China factor. As I see it, if a referendum is held in POK today and the only option of Pakistan and India is presented to the people, majority might choose India. But if we talk about the political opinion of the people of "Azad Kashmir/POK", then majority would back the independent state of Jammu and Kashmir which means reverting it back to its earlier status. Hence out of question.

I see zero reason for India to waste money and resources on a piece of land that has little to offer  beyond some patriotic rhetoric. Getting POK back would mean precious little else than an ego booster of rubbing dust on Pakistan's nose. It makes horse sense to keep such emotions aside and think sensibly. A prosperous India is far better than a bigger India with a chunk of land that will bring more headache. The cons far outweigh the pros.

To say that POK is a "disputed territory" is being over-simplistic. POK's merger with India has complex and sensitive ramifications with historical, political and cultural roots. The discussions about the status of POK are often deeply intertwined with the larger geopolitical dynamics and historical context of the region. It is not easy to find consensus on the solutions to these complexities.

India should not be taken in by the popular sentiment in POK which stems from their desperation of living in a country struggling for survival and at a point of no return. At the end of the day, people of POK are Pakistanis and don't deserve to become a part of India even if they wish so. There also are rumblings in Pakistan where a section believes that the Partition was a monumental mistake -- a realisation born out of the same consideration. 

Imagine a (hypothetical) scenario where Pakistan again becomes what was erstwhile India. There are many in India and Pakistan who visualise this and claim that together, they will be a global force on all fronts. In that case, history will record the Partition, the subsequent bloodshed and pre-Partition leaders presiding over the political manoeuvrings as a poor joke.

Rhetoric should remain what it is. A poor substitute for action and none whatsoever if it is fuelled for some brownie points. 

Gandhi experimented with Truth. I experiment with Kitchen!

Raju Korti
Necessity, as the wise old proverb goes, is the mother of invention. I have extended this rationale to "...and inventions happen out of experiments." Long before I came to this Mother Earth, there was Mahatma Gandhi who experimented with truth. Decades later, here I am experimenting with the kitchen. This is no comparison because there isn't any. Yet, I will have the audacity to say that at an experimental stage and as experimenters, all stand on an even keel. You just need to sauté your instincts with passion. 

Cooking Paav Bhaji for my one and only wife!

Please note the use of preposition when I said "my experiments with the kitchen and not in the kitchen. That, to me, would mean dumbing down the love of my labour. The rationale is as basic as it can get: No matter how beautiful your theory is; if it doesn't agree with your experiment, it's wrong. In my chequered existence that is more of a jigsaw puzzle, I have been experimenting with this, that and the sundry in a laboratory called life. The one that has given me tangible results is the kitchen where my restless curiosity finds an outlet and feeds my own satisfaction.

My experiments both with and in the kitchen started some 30 years ago, much after I had started my experiments with words. I find parallels in both, stimulating and creative in similar measure. As a writer, on my type-pad I use Teflon-coated words. In the kitchen I use Teflon-coated pans. To quote another maxim, nothing succeeds like success. So one successful experiment after the other tell me that even as a man, the kitchen is a creative place to be -- a fact already established by the mushrooming number males you see hosting cookery shows round the clock. Note the use of word mushrooming! It is the product of my nutritive imagination.

My first statistical inference told me I must learn about the vegetables I need to cook and the spices required to embellish. Garnishing follows. As I have already borne in a random post on my Facebook wall, my limited wisdom acquired from donkey's years have enlightened me that self-help is the best help and being self-taught is the best education. It shaped my culinary instincts and fuelled the experiments that I conducted regularly thereafter. Experiments were driving me to a precision where practice meets the kind of finesse that women across the world already bring to the craft.

My experiments have been highly satisfying, both as a performing cook and then as a consumer. Testimonials from friends, relatives, and most importantly, my better half, show that my trajectory in the kitchen has been exemplary. Starting from cooking vegetables, pulses, lentils, and dishes made from chickpea flour (besan), rawa, maida, noodles, pasta and what have you, I believe I have honed my skills over the years. It has reached a stage where in your comic smug satisfaction, you start laughing at your own joke.

One of my most significant findings is understanding the spices and their potency. Trust me, it is an ocean out there. To say that variety is the spice of life is unfair to the spices. They provide variety to life! That this vast variety and their myriad permutations and combinations can be limitless experimentation is a thought that excites and intrigues me no end. An occasional flop show would only convince me that absurdity is the ecstasy of intellectualism.

One does not have to be a philosopher to find out that satisfaction is the ultimate reward for any creativity. Whatever I have been experimenting in my little kitchen has been good enough for the kind of money one pays for dishes with fancy names in the hotels. Food cooked in home might be no-frills, simple spread but it has the biggest ingredient -- your instinctive temper(ing) and seasoning. As for me, having earned so many rave reviews on the Facebook post, all I can say is: The proof of the pudding lies in its eating. So come, savour and give me a testimonial. It is love's labour.

It is not as if everything that I cook can be pompously described as scrumptious. In the complex cooking algorithm that is defined by the ingenuity of the ingredients you deploy, a little measure here and there has the potential to upset your apple pie. But intuitiveness keeps me going and the experiments leave me more the wiser. It is a universally accepted logic that applies as much to a scientist working in a laboratory to a tenderfoot, half-baked like me dabbling in the kitchen. The findings matter!         

I reiterate that kitchen is the best place for a man to be. All those men served good, wholesome food on a platter every day, must try it. It is creative, inventive, entertaining and, ultimately, rewarding Hats off to the women who do it day in day out and whom men probably take for granted by default than design. Undoubtedly, the biggest and the oldest theft in the history of mankind will be caught the day women start demanding compensation for their labour. And I am no feminist!

Nuclear deterrence a joke, nuclear blackmail a reality!

Raju Korti
Intolerance is a transgression that seems to work only within a country's national borders but when it crosses national shores, it acquires a different dimension and hue altogether. Like the proverbial one nation's poison becoming another nation's meat. As tensions escalate between Israel and Iran once again after a brief but direct conflict -- unlike the proxy conflict it was earlier -- Iran has sounded the all familiar bugle of changing its nuclear doctrine "if its existence is threatened by Israel."

Iran's Supreme Leader Kamal Kharrazi's response was calibrated: "We have no decision to build a nuclear bomb, but should Iran's existence be threatened, there will be no choice but to change our military doctrine," Kharrazi was quoted as saying, with Tehran already signalling that it has the potential to build such weapons. The country has desisted from having nuclear weapons after the earlier Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei banned their development on the premise that building and stockpiling nuclear bombs is 'haraam' (religiously forbidden). That went for a toss a couple of years later when one of its ministers said the Western pressure could push Tehran to seek nuclear weapons.

That the Nuclear deterrence is fickle, volatile and a double-edged weapon is a no-brainer. Nations possessing nuclear weapons have been trumpeting it guised as national security bogey as also to threaten rival nations. Remember, Pakistani establishment's periodic threats of nuking India, the Chinese nuclear threats against Japan in the past, Trump's "fire and fury" threats to North Korea, itself ruled by a whimsical lunatic, and now Vladimir Putin's saber-rattling machismo about the use of nuclear weapons if pushed to corner by the US and NATO. The world has been constantly sitting on powder keg right from the days of Cuban missile crisis.

Security experts around the globe attributing the stability and world peace to the Nuclear Deterrence Doctrine is specious and is good only in theory but non-sensical in practice. The argument that the possibility of a nuclear war died a natural death with the Cold War stands demolished. Technological and geopolitical expediencies raise a question mark over the efficacy of a Nuclear Deterrence Doctrine. 

For long, direct or indirect nuclear threats have been the default position of states possessing nuclear weapons. Such threats believed to be the essence of deterrence have been laid to rest as nuclear threats are no long only historical curiosities. We have entered an age where the risk of nuclear use -- deliberately or by accident or, worse still, miscalculation -- is rising. The international community is justifiably concerned that in unstable Pakistan, its nuclear armoury could fall into the hands of whom Islamabad is known to dismiss as "non state actors"; is as much serious as an eccentric dictator of the rogue North Korea issuing nuclear threats at the drop of a hat in his bluster and bravado. Also recall how the US in its self-arrogated wisdom spread the canard of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction and used it as a ruse to attack it.      

Regional tensions, proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials to make them -- along with terrorism and new technologies like cyber -- mean the risk of a nuclear weapon or device being used is rising. On the flip side the inability of the governments to manage the increasingly complex global security is also eroding. The self-righteous US bandied the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and tried to ram it down India's throat but India refused to budge on the premise of it being discriminatory. Security concerns are peculiar to a nation and there are no fixed guidelines that can address these concerns. 

Do not go by the so called progress in the reduction of nuclear weapons since the Cold war. The world's combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high with nine countries possessing roughly 12,000 warheads as early as beginning of 2024. A stockpile enough to destroy the universe many ties over.! US and Russia together alone have close to 88% of the world's total inventory. A state that swears by the Nuclear Deterrence Doctrine needs no more than a few hundred nuclear weapons for national security, if at all there is a justification. On the contrary, many states are increasing their nuclear stockpiles. In a world polarized on political ideologies and territorial disputes, a global conflict always looms large even if it could be just two nations at war.

There is only a thin line that divides nuclear deterrence and nuclear blackmail. And a momentary impulse that decides a sane leader from a maniac overcome by misplaced authority and convictions!