Nuclear Fiction

“Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”  – Robert Oppenheimer

Mankind’s tireless quest to exert itself on its immediate and distant environment has seen no manifestation as polarizing as nuclear power. Quite a riveting narrative starring the poster boy of female physics Madam Curie and her semi centennial contemporary Mr. Oppenheimer, the history of nuclear physics is one that tends to mire itself in broad abstractions like ‘sustainability’, ‘national security’ and ‘pioneering women’. However, there is no abstraction as definite as death, which becomes less of an inevitability and more of a volition with the very existence of nuclear weapons.

It would be naïve to dismiss the sensational scientific relevance of nuclear physics. Both nuclear fission and fusion are testament to much larger jurisdiction humankind assumes over the natural world, priding itself on assimilating what was only a century prior considered the smallest, most indivisible unit, the atom. It is an outstanding achievement for the scientific world, and humankind as a whole, for nuclear energy is perhaps the only source of energy that will extend our civil existence beyond this century. Ironically, it is nuclear energy that can also limit our civil existence beyond a few minutes. The intent of this article is to analyze the role of the United Nations and its subsidiaries in overseeing fluid foreign policies wholly based on the relentless quest to amass nuclear weapons, while dispelling any propositionary argument for the existence of the same.

Nuclear Family

The United Nations, once the answer to a plethora of the world’s problems, has managed to reduce itself to a spineless organization whose work flirts with mere formality. Although the work that several of the UN’s subsidiaries, including UNICEF, the FAO and the WHO is highly laudable and must be acknowledged, the essence of the UN was to prevent the estrangement of states so as to give impetus to another massive armed conflict. It is safe to say that for the most part, the UN and its five principal organs – the SC, GA, ECOSOC, ICJ and the Trusteeship Council – have failed in their primary objective that is to prevent the outbreak of wars. The advent of the UNPKF has helped contain certain conflicts, but has never pre-emptively prevented a war.

When assessing the UNs work toward nuclear disarmament, there exists no immediate answer. As tends to be the case with the UN, on paper, there exist flawless mechanisms that uphold and respect sovereignty of all states. However, these mechanisms end at that – they sempiteranlly remain as words on a piece of paper. The UNs stalwart document on Nuclear Disarmament – the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (the NPT) – came into force twenty five years after the formation of the UN – meaning that for vast, tension-laden sections of the Cold War, the world lacked any definite treaty on Nuclear Weapons. However, when the Treaty did come into effect, it nonchalantly gave a handful of states – coincidentally the P5 of the SC – the status of being ‘Nuclear Weapon States’, allowing them to legally retain their nuclear weapons with no political or legal reprehensions. Social reprehensions did come up, specifically during the ‘Hippie’ movement, where large chunks of the population demonstrated against the USA’s possession of nuclear weapon states. These movements were too few and far between, making no real impact on global dynamics. That meant that for the 136 countries that had signed the NPT in the 1960s, they were ‘not allowed’ to develop nuclear weapons. It was ‘illegal’. A specific and highly potent criticism of the NPT is that there lacked an enforcement mechanism and had a basic exit-clause that listed no formal consequences. This led to a trio of countries exploiting this legal non-compulsion and exercise their sovereign right not to accede to the treaty. These countries, India, Pakistan and Israel, continue to remain hotbeds of bilateral or multilateral instability.

Out of the five nuclear weapon states, it is certain either the Great Satan or their Russian counterparts are the most likely to push the button. France and the United Kingdom have participated in disarmament practices, more so for the former, but continue to retain a portion of their arsenal. The UK’s presence is mostly in the shadows of the US, and their actions are typically in cognizance with one another. China continues to follow its policy of non-interference and shows impeccable restraint and caution when it comes to Nuclear Weapons, meticulously maneuvering political obstacles to retain large portions of its arsenal; however the Chinese seem hardly interested in instigating violence to a scale where they will be compelled to use their burgeoned arsenal.

Keeping the USA and Russia’s perpetual antics aside, the ambivalent nuclear states – India, Pakistan and Israel, have seen their foreign policies being profusely affected by nuclear weapons. DPRK can also be added to this compendium, for their accession to the treaty was later withdrawn in their pursuit of nuclear weapons. What emerges is a horrendous double standard. On the pretext of their previous accession to the treaty, the UN burdens DPRK with a multitude of sanctions on an annual basis, and indiscriminately isolates the juche state from the rest of the world. Similar sanctions were applied on Iran. It is imperative to remember that the DPRK were well within their rights when they withdrew their signature from the treaty. Article 10 of the treaty allows for the same, and the ‘extraordinary events’ that forced their withdrawal can most definitely be stated as their ongoing armed conflict with the Republic of Korea, who continue to remain under the USAs nuclear umbrella and carry out annual military exercises with the same.

Never has there been substantial discourse on sanctions for the Indian, Pakistani or Zionist state. Thus emerges a trend of institutionalized discrimination from an organization that seeks to uphold and respect the sovereignty of all its member states. States that are not purveyors of democracy as the West is, will be subject to a barrage of obstructions, however states that are pivotal to the perpetuation of hegemonism will not.

The Israeli policy of nuclear opacity provides both the state and it’s handful of allies with the ideal excuse of there existing a scenario that Israel does not possess nuclear weapons. Their policy of opacity is simply a ‘deterrent’.

Deterring Deterrents

The term of ‘nuclear deterrent’ is flashed at any nuclear detractor. The argument tends to go as follows:

‘We’ require nuclear weapons to prevent other states from attacking us. Our arsenal will intimidate them into not going to war.

While the argument makes sense at face value, it can be self-destructive. This concept was at the core of the Cold War, and while it did prevent nuclear Armageddon, it simply synthesized theatres of war spanning the globe that were not nuclear. Perhaps the most disconcerting facet of this argument is that it advocates proliferation or disarmament. It vehemently affirms the case for nuclear weapons as a pivot for the defense and foreign policy of a country. This is unacceptable.

The very existence of these weapons and any pro-nuclear sentiment stems from a warped sense of privilege, where so-called representatives of the people take over their thought processes and instill in them that they need these weapons. None of these individuals have witnessed the sheer power of one of these weapons, nor are they capable of comprehending the repercussions.

Gradually things around me came into focus. There were the shadowy forms of people, some of whom looked like walking ghosts. Others moved as though in pain, like scarecrows, their arms held out from their bodies with forearms and hands dangling. These people puzzled me until I suddenly realized that they had been burned and were holding their arms out to prevent the painful friction of raw surfaces rubbing together. An old woman lay near me with an expression of suffering on her face; but she made no sound. Indeed, one thing was common to everyone I saw – complete silence.

Nuclear Friction

‘Nuclear Deterrents’ seek to prevent war between politically fragmented states while wholeheartedly condone war against humanity. Nuclear weapons are not weapons against the Americans, the Shia’as, the bourgeoisie or the terrorists – they are weapons against the world. They are weapons against the earth, the air, the sand and the trees, the man, the child, the birds and the bees. The use of a single weapon renders that region uninhabitable for centuries, agriculturally incapable for aeons and the earth carcinogenic. It extracts every ounce of life – every cell, every tissue and every organ – and turns it against itself, encompassing one’s own body in an endless cycle of entropy.  It ensures that rivers that meandered carelessly brought water that was now undrinkable – the water used to nurse the viscera and the incinerated flesh was more harmful than the burns themselves. It certifies a life where our children snort Iodine off rubber sacks in claustrophobic bunkers, too afraid to stick one’s head out for fear of immediate asphyxiation, a world where there is little concept of civility and order, where humanity is prey to maniacal political desires.

The only assertion for nuclear deterrents is one where political greed is placed above civility, normalcy and order. It requires a different level of inhumanity and downright ignorance to consider one’s own concoction of ‘development’ synonymous to the advocacy for nuclear weapons. India has submitted itself to this very fate.

In its desperate endeavor to be a global superpower, it has engaged in practices within and outside its borders that are irresponsible and unnecessary, but none of these are comparable to its unwavering stance on nuclear weapons. Long considered to be India’s ‘biggest enemy’, Pakistan, has offered the olive branch to India with respect to nuclear weapons on six occasions. India rejected all six proposals. It is unfortunate that hostility prevails over discourse, and India continues to antagonize both China and Pakistan by remaining fervent in its argument for Nuclear Weapons. Little do the politicians realize that a war against Pakistan would be war against a region its people called home until 1947. A region home to waters we drink from and mountains we worship. A nuclear war against India or a war against Pakistan would not pacify either population, as it is tedious to hear when wearing a gas mask. It would only further the deepening schism between our states.

Nuclear weapons strip the earth of its dignity. They simultaneously defile populations. There is no glory in war, let alone nuclear war. It is merely another tool in the arsenal of those who seek to dichotomize human beings from one another, and from the earth they reside in. There is no alternative but to demand a future for our progeny that does not resign them to abjectness, a future where dialogue and discourse precede mindless acts of war, a future where nuclear weapons are a thing of the past.

The Frailty of Nationalism

India’s 2016 Budget Session began on the 23^rd of February. Intellectuals, political and social scientists and the discerning intelligentsia found themselves vociferously debating the events that proceeded the budget session. As the beginning of the session inched closer, the air was filled with the usual expectancy and anticipation that we see year after year, with every budget and every year being dubbed as the year that India finally becomes a global superpower. While all discourse preceding the budget session usually concerns retrospective taxation and the like, what dominated the session on this occasion was how a handful of students divided a nation through its heart.

While the narrative is quite shocking in itself, it is the fallout that is most frightening. The division of our country’s population into two camps – nationalists and anti-nationalists – by the media and the regime is the latest chapter in the divisive nature of our nation. India, the poster boy of diversity, finds its internal sovereignty being threatened at the drop of a hat. For a country that constantly prides itself on equality and fraternity as prescribed by its ‘sacred’ constitution, the government (while regime is a more appropriate word) in power shows no signs of hesitating to fragment a democracy built on the principle of equality. With the men (and women, especially our esteemed, well-educated HRD Minister) in power aiding and abetting the constant onslaught on constructive criticism, and actively metastasizing manufactured propaganda, it is an ominous series of events that have characterized the supposedly ‘pluralistic’ and ‘developed’ India of the 21^st Century.

We are not asking for freedom from India but asking for freedom in India. – Kanhaiya Kumar

(picture from APB News)

While bloggers, politicians and virtually anyone with access to the Internet had an opinion about the events that unfurled at the JNU, this article strives to question the need for this brand of aggressive nationalism and how detrimental it is to the prospects of a truly democratic state. Definitions, connotations and meanings of the most popular words used during this time – sedition, anti-nationalist, media, honesty – were as malleable as can be, and differed from individual to individual. This resulted in sections of the media spewing allegations, spitting hatred and screaming without reason.

Yes, not unheard of. The media tends to be voracious, explosive and often over-dramatic in their reporting. But the worrying aspect of the reporting was the irresponsibility that plagued it. Channels aired videos of the event that were doctored and morphed, based their debates and arguments upon these videos and used these videos to ruthlessly incriminate opposes of the regime. While moral absolution is considered a myth, the transmission of fake ‘evidence’ to further ones cause questions the moral fabric of the so-called objective nature of journalism. Quite bluntly put, it is downright appalling for a prominent news channel to misuse the power bestowed upon them by Article 19 of the Constitution to immorally influence millions of viewers. What makes the situation more disgusting is that after the videos were confirmed as doctored, the anchor of the channel made a five minute monologue insisting that he was a real journalist. Not an apology, not an acknowledgement, not a disclaimer. A pompous declaration that the journalist would wear his actions like a ‘badge of honor’, and would not hesitate to do the same again. An egoistic tyrant with an incredible effect on the hapless viewers who lap up his words and transform themselves into pseudo-intellectual individuals. While this grim picture in itself depicts an owned, bought media, the more frightening segment is who actually owns and buys the media.

The answer lies in plain sight – certain entities present in the media are owned by political or politically motivated organizations. This problem, however, is not endemic. The current American Presidential election trail reporting by certain revered news channels is considered to be biased towards certain candidates, for  no other reason than that large chunks of campaign financing can be traced to and fro the entities. For an uncritical and intellectually dependant population such as India’s, the first hand reception of any information is detrimental in the formation of opinions. Thus, with political parties exposing the dirtiest side of democracy by segregating our population at the flip of a switch, it brings us to the latter half of this twisted political agenda – the enforcing of information.

The current regime reeks of insecurities. Like a possessive girlfriend, the sovereign demands and expects absolute attention and obedience from its citizens. This is suffocating not just for the free-thinking, liberal, politically charged parts of the population, but for the average citizen striving to live and behave in a manner of their choosing. To prohibit and outlaw subaltern, dissent, criticism or anything against the tide is counterproductive on all fronts. The authority, the victim as well as the common man are all losing parties. For the authority, it is quite simply bad publicity. Their actions alienate sections of the electorate from ever considering that party as credible candidates in the next election. The victim, for their exercise of their rights has resulted in criminal repercussions. And most importantly, the common man who usually is the beneficiary of this constructive criticism will have no access to attempts made to further his cause and improve the general standard of life for him. What the current power does, in turn, is to subject the masses to an onslaught of a brand of aggressive nationalism. This unique concoction incriminates anyone who does not conform to the ideology of the regime, much like the case was in Fascist Italy. Furthermore, it innocuously fuses its political entity with that of religion, which too is shoved down the throats of a heterogeneous, unwilling population. The government has an insatiable, incessant need to impose its beliefs on the peoples it is expected to serve.

The pro-national rhetoric that has grown quite popular, has a typical ring to it – that tax-payer’s money is being used to fund ‘terrorist activity’ in Universities, that people who question the death penalty deserve the death penalty and that people who do not fight along the front lines in Kashmir are not real patriots. None of these statements directly or sensibly justify any actions that the tyrants carried out.

The art of blackmail is one that our country has mastered, with the erection of larger than life flag poles to remind our young, proud Indians that we live in a country where the color saffron is always on top (and is always free.  The color white is second in this hierarchy, showing us that peace always comes after the saffron does, and the green is so beaten and trodden upon by the white and the saffron, that it is no longer of any value to us. The first Prime Minister of our country, Pandit Jawahrlal Nehru (The JN, in JNU) once said – “Ignorance is always afraid of change.”

It is unfortunate to see a government so ignorant of what a civilized, modern society indicates and so afraid of change.

 

 

Politics and Religion : A Love Story

Marx once wrote, “Religion is the opiate of the people.” If only our comrade was alive and kicking today to witness the existential crises religion now faces. Religion as a concept has been kicked around, smothered, bent and broken and now faces its biggest, unprecedented opposition. This opposition is widely considered to be science and that perception has been ruthlessly romanticized (as has the notion of atheism), but is in fact not.

Politics is the single largest threat religion faces today.

The 18^th Century saw the ‘Philosophical Enlightenment’ come to the forefront of society. The focus shifted away from the collective and to the individual. The need for rights rode a wave of popularity and was soon a pre-requisite for society. The post-Renaissance period saw momentous scientific development, with Europe being at the heart of this unprecedented progress.  The Industrial Revolution saw the advent of mass production and the mechanization of all possible articles – living or non-living.  The notion of monarchies began to fade away; apparently people did not appreciate that only a certain few people controlled a large number of others.  The intricate foundation for modern society was fabricated from these fragmented, seemingly unrelated events.

A Forgotten People- Kashmir

Everyone loves an underdog, and everyone loves an underdog that’s been consistently suppressed by an evil power-based entity. Any honest-to-god anti-nationalist would agree that the government is by far the most apt example of that sort of entity, hushing up controversies, favouring corporations, threatening minorities, the works. No story fits these two sets of circumstances- the underdog situation and the tyrannical government-much better than the Kashmir conflict, a story fully equipped with its own cast of characters across generations- traitors, tyrants, revolutionaries, puppets and villains. What makes the story even better, is that the characters interchange roles as you move from one narrator to the next- what you’ve been passionately taught in school is very likely to be passionately contradicted in another’s, as is the nature of most of these sort of stories.

The Conflict Motive and Human Nature

In the following article, we speak of and propose contradictory views on the collective motives behind armed conflicts that have occurred through history. We attempt to explain a society’s mass reasoning behind entering into war with another society and that reasoning’s direct source- human nature. As you will read on, Arnav proposes and backs the perspective that all human armed conflict is based on the idea that humans seek to propagate a core set of ideologies they believe in and seek to destroy any competing ideologies- they fight for what they believe in at the subconscious, very basic instinct level. Rahul proposes and backs the view that all human conflict is based on the desire for acquisition of power or resources-they fight for money.

The perspectives put forth below are not backed by hard research and are solely the opininons of the writers, contrary to most other literature on Atypical Rationale. There is no legitimate way to prove either and the choice between the two is purely subjective- both are equally plausible and the only way you can differentiate between their legitimacy is by your own discretion and beliefs about human nature.

Onward to Anarchy

Natural State. The State of the free men. A societal setup exempt of rules, devoid of laws and free from ‘constitutionalised’ concentration of power and public organization. Basically, in simple terms, a time when you could do whatever you wanted, whenever  you wanted, and your freedom only ended where somebody else’s began.

Anarchy.

The Reservations Paradox

In the following article, I speak against the concept of reservations for minorities in employment, education institutions, political processes, etc. Reservations for minorities is a mainly India-based concept especially for the equity of different castes under the caste system, however several legal provisions in several other countries exist as well – UK’s 2010 Equality Act, USA’s and Israel’s Affirmative Action, China’s general reservations for women, etc. Note that my knowledge of reservation systems outside of India is limited, and I apologize for any factual inaccuracies I may make if I refer to reservations not in India.

What the Fuck is Political Correctness?

When did our society progress (or regress) to this- how have we, even with our concepts of liberalisation and humanisation (go gay people!), reached a point where the need for the term ‘political correctness’ has come to exist?

The real question I would like to ask as of now is, what the fuck political correctness is. Another marvel of the 21^st century, Wikipedia, describes it as ‘the term used to criticize language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society’. And while this definition is undoubtedly one of the most politically correct definitions I have read, it leaves my head simmering with an ocean of questions, the most pertinent of all revolving around the very nature of political incorrectness and its manifestations in our lives.

Incurably Gay

I recently watched Clint Eastwood’s 2011 film ‘J. Edgar’, which portrays the de facto founder and head of the FBI, played by the brilliant as always Leonardo DiCaprio, becoming one of the most powerful men in America. A staunch believer in racial and classist supremacy, he works as the defender of his country against domestic threats ranging from Communists to the Negros. He is brought up in an environment which doggedly condemns any sort of ‘odd’ or homosexual behavior; however it can be seen in the movie that he does have underlying homosexual tendencies that are exposed in moments of weakness, especially through his friend/lover/colleague Clyde Tolson. This side of his character lends credence to the fact that many people no matter their sexual orientation background, no matter how rigidly homophobic they may be, are in fact gay. It counters the earlier accepted idea that homosexuality is a choice, not an inherited genetic trait, and that through rehabilitation, it can be treated.

In this article, a sort of follow-up to my previous post on this topic, Why You Should Be Gay, I speak of the romanticism of homosexuality in an attempt by non-conformists to acquire attention, as well as how psychology as a science is corrupted by social influence and how psychology clearly depicts homosexuality as a disorder.

Shalom, tikvah!

“Israel was not created in order to disappear – Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralised by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honours the sword of freedom.”

– John F.Kennedy