Military junkies may have heard about a recent training exercise b/t a US Air Force fighter wing against the Indian Air Force. The Americans apparently got their buts whipped.
One of my favorite military blogs – Strategypage.com – has more of the backstory on what really went on (quoted in full here cuz Strategypage’s permalinks don’t work) –
October 6, 2004: More details have come out about the “losing” performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India’s air force in the Cope India air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the “failure” to justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a demonstrated weakening of American air combat capabilities
Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes to India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.’s helmet-mounted cueing system. Secondly, at India’s request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C’s onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn’t require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting. The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s. The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn’t have, a heavily unrealistic assumption in actual hostilities. However, the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don’t normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical “look.” Some of the Indian aircraft radars had different characteristics than U.S. pilots had seen on stock versions of the aircraft, including some of the Mirage 2000s.
I brought up software to show that India is capable of competing with China in an important area of the global economy.
I could’ve also brought up that far more H-lB visas go to Indians than Chinese, more high-tech outsourcing goes to India than China, and India has built nuclear weapons and missiles without any outside help.
“Let me also say that I’m not saying this just to be an “India basher”, but rather to bring a reality check to some of the RSS saffronism I see here (for ex., PMC seems verrrry fond of the “STRONG LEADER” provided by China’s 1 party dictatorship).”
LOL. I don’t want India to be a dictatorship like China, but I would like stronger leaders that can make difficult decisions with the support of the general public.
I think it’s ridiculous that the public voted the last coalition out of power.
“2) Indian civilization has stretched back for thousands of years, and many great things have been accomplished by Indians in that time (from the Taj to the modern IT movement).”
I agree. Indian civilization has often even surpassed Chinese civilization.
“1) It is foolish to imagine that India is going to catch China, let alone the US, in economic development. It’s more than foolish…it’s wishful thinking of most damaging Hindi-Chini bhai bhai kind. Unfortunately, both saffronists and Arundhatist leftists agree on one thing: that nothing should be said about the likely caste-IQ distribution’s implications for India’s technological development.”
Being ambitious and wanting to compete with China is damaging? I think conceding that it’s inevitable that China will dominate everything is damaging.
How exactly was India able to compete with China in the past?
“Caste reservations are the elephant in the room. If caste reservations are implemented in the private sector as Maharashtra is considering, say goodbye to the Indian economy. Even if they are only partially enforced, mandating hiring of incompetents solely because of their caste will result in a resurgence of bribery and corruption as employers pay off the officials in charge of compliance.”
I agree that caste quotas should not be imposed. If India brings in caste quotas, then India might not be able to compete with China.
“For the above two reasons – lack of athleticism/martial culture, and economic weakness relative to China & the US – India’s military will never be a peer competitor of either. They might be an important regional ally, but never a world power capable of force projection.”
What about Sikhs?
Yo, PMC, are you the Punjabi MC who used to comment over at gnxp ? Seems rather unlikely, but I couldn’t help but wonder.
I haven’t posted on GNXP before.
Gc: India took advantage of a civil warÂ….. But Pakistan is still on the map.
Your argument about the ’71 war is simply a weak one and you should really move on. It’s instructive that your argument depends crucially on mangling the elementary taxonomy of military history. It massively begs the argument by defining victory in war as the elimination of the enemy. That’s not a definition any military historian would accept. The ’71 war was indeed just that—a war—not a battle. One of many wars between Pakistan and India, but a war nonetheless.
GC: Perhaps you don’t grasp the irony, but the Indians who fought for Britain were mercenaries and second class citizens. They were fighting for Britain, not India, because Britain had conquered India….. Not exactly a stellar example of martial virtues.
Perhaps you donÂ’t grasp Indian history, because the example was not about Indians who fought for Brits. Rather, it was about those Indian soldiers employed by various kingdoms in the 18th century. The Sepoy Mutiny was in the 19th century (1857).
Moreover, it was not about the ‘martial virtues’ of Indian soldiers. You were not arguing the merits of siding w/ the British or against them.
You’re shifting goalposts GC. You were arguing that Indian soldiers were markedly physically inferior to some, not about the ‘martial virtues’ of Indian soldiers.
But Indian soldiers have performed heroically for all sorts of ‘employers’ on a wide variety of battle fields, and acquitted themselves quite well. And remember they fought all over the world in the 20th century, against all sorts of adversaries.
GC: The data at hand include this survey of SES and education by caste. Combine that withÂ…..Is agnosticism more warranted than for, say, the fate of modern South Africa? Sure. But let’s not be unrealistic here…
I’m afraid your argument fails here. All the data you cite, while correct, don’t underwrite your conclusion. Or, even suggest it to be more likely than not. In order to do so, you’re simply assuming that the Indian IQ distribution will remain as it is. Given the low levels of nutrition—indeed, malnutrition—and the likely effects of said malnutrition on IQ, I’d argue that agnosticism is better supported.
The rest of your points were responses to others. I will, nonetheless, address one of them. ItÂ’s ironic you—the recipient of much ad hominem abuse–accuse others of ‘RSS saffronismÂ’, an ad hominem if ever there was one. ItÂ’s a slur—at least I take it so—and you ought to have the guts to point out the arguments of all (not merely PMC) who don’t meet your anti-RSS sniff-test.
Kumar
randombrownguy:
I’ve seen you peddle that figure to gullible ABCDs ealier…it’s 1/6th if you’re looking at population, and 1/4th if you’re looking at area. Your point stands, though.
Thanks, my bad. I looked it up on nationmaster and it’s 150 million for Pakistan vs. 1.05 billion for India, which is a 7-fold ratio. Didn’t mean to pass around false info – I had misconstrued the figure myself.
Nano Iyer:
Japan still exists. Germany still exists… When did the war with the Soivet Union occur? When was the last time America picked a fight with a nuclear weapon state?
You’re just too ignorant to debate. Ever heard of the Cold War?!? The Berlin Airlift? The Cuban Missile Crisis? You think the USSR didn’t have nukes?
And yeah, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were wiped off the map. Take a look at a map of East Asia or Europe circa 1940 or 1941 and tell me that those countries still exist (Nazi Germany occupied most of continental Europe + North Africa, Imperial Japan occupied Manchuria and most of Southeast Asia). In addition to that their governments were totally remade by the Americans after the war, they agreed to unconditional surrender, and US troops were stationed on their soil for 50 years.
Now that is a victory.
And by the way, the USSR wouldn’t have survived without Lend Lease. Do you have any idea how much war material we sent them? In any case, given that
a) the USSR started WW2 with Nazi Germany during their joint invasion of Poland
b) the USSR raped their way across Eastern Europe, brought down the Iron Curtain, and set about fomenting Communist insurgency all around the world
…you’ll excuse me if I don’t think we should be “thanking” the USSR for much at all. They started the war alongside Nazi Germany, never contributed in the Pacific Theater (until after we had nuked Japan the first time – real courageous of them), and pushed the people of Eastern Europe into communist slavery.
Hmmm…maybe you’re one of those hold overs from India’s ostensibly non-aligned, actually pro-Soviet era. That might explain quite a bit…
American defeat at the hands of a third world country in the 60s
Right, as if North Vietnam wasn’t a proxy of the Russians and Chinese:
Point: the only country that can beat a superpower is another superpower. The USSR would have crushed the Afghans into communist slavery without our help, and conversely North Vietnam would never have been able to invade South Vietnam without arms and equipment from the Chinese and Soviets.
I don’t know if your ignorance is real or feigned, but it doesn’t work to your advantage. You are repeating the most childish anti-American tropes without a moment’s consideration. From a comedian’s standpoint, it is highly unfortunate that you’re an Iyer…you provide a living rebuttal to all the friendly jokes at the expense of my Iyengar friends 🙂
Kumar is at least making some good points…I suggest you sit this one out and let the A-team finish the game. Tell ya what – you can get in during garbage time at the end…
PMC:
Also, Indians don’t have as much experience with self-governance as Westerners. It’s not surprising that India would make some mistakes over the decades. It is surprising that a nation like India was able to stay a democracy with all the problems the nation has faced in the last 57 years. What major third world nation is comparable to India?
South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore were third world not too long ago…and they’re all doing better now. As for the self-governance thing…IMO that’s a cop out. On the one hand you want to talk about a thousand year long civilization, and on the other you make it seem like “self-governance” only arrived with the Westerners.
Again, didn’t take the South Koreans/Taiwanese/Singaporeans too long to get the hang of it. You could nitpick each individual case (e.g. US troops on Korean peninsula, military guarantees to Taiwan, and British remnants in Singapore), but collectively they are a pretty strong counterexample: three very different countries with very different levels & types of Western influence that all shot out of the third and into the first world in less than 50 years.
India has always been a pacifistic nation that believes in negotiation instead of military action, consulting the U.N. and the international community, and taking action only in self defense.
India believes in the UN? The UN always sides with Pakistan. Can you find me an example of the dozens of Muslim nations siding with India over Pakistan?
As for the pacifism…let’s just say that is another cop-out. Pacifistic nations generally don’t have strong militaries – which was the original point. The one exception is Japan, and their “pacifism” is more like an iron fist beneath a velvet glove. You aren’t going to see much “Nippon Chini bhai bhai” from them.
kumar:
First off, the saffronist dig was not addressed to you, but to Nano Iyer (who is truly illogical). The combination of Indian nationalist sentiment and casual anti-American leftism is very reminiscent of Rediff’s Rajeev S., a saffronist if there ever was one. Something sticks in my craw about that kind of guy working in America while simultaneously bashing it. But anyways…
For the record, while secular libertarianism would be ideal, I’m ok with the BJP (Hinduism beats Marxism as the religion of India any day), though I draw the line at the RSS.
As for the rest, let’s go real fast…
1) 1971 India-vs-Pakistan
Ok. Let’s say that this was a war rather than a battle, and that India won decisively. I still think that “decisive victory” would include crushing and remaking Pakistan into a relative non-threat, but for the sake of argument, what does this mean?
It means India won a war against a country 1/6 or 1/7 the size that was embroiled in civil war. Furthermore – and more importantly – it was a brown-on-brown conflict. As such it doesn’t tell us that India is going to be able to militarily take on China, let alone the US, any time soon…and recent history doesn’t lead to optimism on either count.
2) Re: Indian military tradition
I think the point that was being made is that the compliments the Brits extended to these soldiers (to the extent they exist) were like the compliments masters would extend to their slaves…i.e., race-normed, with a lower standard for the subjugated mercenaries.
Now, could India have violently thrown off the British shackles? Almost certainly, and it came close. Did it? No, and for number of reasons (most importantly that it was a collection of warring ethnies rather than a nation until very recently).
That’s my point: India just doesn’t have a martial tradition to speak of. When the chips were down, she lost to a few thousand Brits with a ten-thousand mile supply line. The history of India is being invaded time and time again, from the AIT to the Muslims to the Brits to the lost Chinese border war to others I’ve forgotten. It’s like Grand Central Station for would-be conquerors.
3) In order to do so, you’re simply assuming that the Indian IQ distribution will remain as it is. Given the low levels of nutrition—indeed, malnutrition—and the likely effects of said malnutrition on IQ, I’d argue that agnosticism is better supported.
Well, I think you dismiss those multiple lines of evidence (particularly the Bamshad & Majumder data, which show that there are significant genetic differences). But the key question is what the cognitive level of the dalits and OBC’s will be like if and when they’re properly nourished. That’s the million – or in this case, billion – dollar question. Probably the best test-bed is Singapore – there you have a multimodal Indian population which has a significant component of dalits. The Indians there generally do better (in income, education, etc.) than the Malays and worse than the Chinese, but the intra-Indian distribution is uncertain, though I’ve looked.
If you could find data on the caste distro there (as well as correlates like income, etc.) or in the UAE, that would be instructive. Till then, I think that some degree of agnosticism is warranted, but I am highly doubtful that the dalits will be internationally competitive even with Powerbars and Quizno’s on every block. Who knows – maybe the un-PC hypothesis on caste & IQ happens to also be incorrect. It’s an empirical question, and we’ll find out soon enough.
GC’s method of argument comprises assigning labels to people and then attacking the labels. The Cold War was as much a War as Home Science is a Science. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a war? How many shots were fired? How many soldiers were killed?
By your argument, Imperialist America now extends into Iraq and will be wiped out once they are forced to leave.
I had to read twice before I could believe that gc is basing arguments on choke IQ tests.
Nano Iyer: A war is another word for conflict. A conflict can be characterized by many different ways of confrontation. Diplotmatic, posturing, covert, outright war, etc. Using the word “war” is a generalization rather than specifically hinting to armed conflict.
The Cold War, Cuban Missle Crisis, India’s stand off with Pakistan can all be lumped into a general “war” category. The nature of the conflict has armed implications.
Agree or not, GC atleast has been able to put forth arguments that are logical. You sir should read up a bit more facts and books before you make absurd claims.
With respect to human rights violations, plenty of prisoners have died in Indian Military captivity. Also international monitors that reprimanded the US on the Abu Gharaib situation (a minority in the US military) have also pointed to India’s military and paramilitary forces abuses in Kashmir.
I would also suggest reading a more wide variety of material to gain a better understanding of current world issues. Read a leftist paper, right wing one, american, british, indian, etc. and you will probably be a more well informed person not making blatantly ignorant comments and stubbing your toe.
The Cuban Missle Crisis is a valid example. The US objected to Soviet missles, enacted a blockade, and the missles were removed. Several months later, the US removed its missiles from Turkey. But there was a problem, then a threat of force to solve the problem.
Now, the Indian parliament is attacked in 2001. India demands an end to all infiltration across the LOC, and mobilizes several thousand troops to stress its point. Pakistan responds in kind. The face off continues for several months. After awhile, realizing that the buildup is not having the desired effect, and Paksitan making public statements that it will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons, India begins a climbdown. The only thing India got out of it was a statement by Bush in 2002 that the onus of responsibility lay with Musharraff.
While both scenarios demonstrates the threat of force – only one shows that the aims were achieved.
Comparing the Indian and American militiaries is like comparing an Ambassador to a Ford F-150 pickup. They are functional – but one is currently of a better quality than the other.
But the two country miliaties are also designed for different jobs. India’s is mainly for self-defense. The one time it tried independent peace-keeping in Sri Lanka ended in disaster. America’s is good for war-fighting over great distances, but peace-keeping is a different task, for which it really hasn’t demonstrated a tremendous amount of skill.
A conflict is not a war. Any damn fool knows that. Why don’t you?
‘The nature of conflict has armed implications’ is gibberish. The Soviet Union collapsed not because it was inferior militarily to America (nuclear weapons being the great leveller), but on account of several other things. If you don’t agree with that, I have to question your intelligence.
I note that you know the difference between ‘military’ and ‘paramilitary’ in the Indian context.
Anybody who talks about IQ and race in the same context should be accompanied to the nearest lunatic asylum.
One more thing, India balked at sending troops to Iraq because the US was not going to give New Delhi a say in rebuilding Iraq, or a party to any political setup. The Sri Lanka debacle taught India to never send troops anywhere unless you are also involved in the political reconstruction process. There, both Colombo and the LTTE kept New Delhi out of the loop and their troops were caught in the crossfire.
“The Soviet Union collapsed not because it was inferior militarily to America (nuclear weapons being the great leveller), but on account of several other things. If you don’t agree with that, I have to question your intelligence.”
By that logic – Pakistan is an equal of India. And that would make North Korea militarily superior to Japan and South Korea.
Look, the Soviet Union could not continue to keep it military modern and efficient because it lacked an economy that was modern and efficient. The US consciously chose to engage in an arms race that the USSR could not win.
India’s economic reforms will have the beneficial effect of helping to modernize its military. That is qualitatively different from saying that India’s military IS modern. Even China’s military realizes it has a far way to go before to equals Japan.
And that would make North Korea militarily superior to Japan and South Korea.
Indeed. This is the reason Japan has been reconsidering its non-nuclear status (at least there have been speculation).
Of course Pakistan is militarily equal to India. A war between the two will end in defeat for both on account of mutual assured destruction. The same equation between CCCP and USA.
If I have a gun that fires 90 rounds a second and you have one that fires 900 rounds a second, and we’re having a duel, your superior gun gives you no advantage.
Do you think it’s a coincidence that America attacked Iraq and not North Korea? After WTC, Bush was itching for a fight, any fight. Iraq had no nucular weapons. It’s a safe country to invade.
A good example of the word WAR being used in a non-armed conflixt context is “Trade Wars”. This term is often used when nations are arguing over perceived trade imbalances.
Of course the Soveit Union collapsed internally. The NATO strategy for conventional conflict was always smaller but more efficent numbers and an effective counterstrike VS. the Soviets massive numerical advantage. However, the Cold war was simply a massive exercise in patience and letting the other collapse while keeping up the ideological pressure/propoganda.
Iraq was invaded because it has to do with the greatest US interests and the surrounding neigbours really don’t have much to offer Militarily. NK is surrounded by heavyweights that include China, Japan, Russia and SK (which has a very capbable military of its own). Does the nuclear factor make it harder? Of course, simple logic. One would want to move before such an occurance to gain the upper hand.
I could believe that gc is basing arguments on choke IQ tests.
Yeah, I know. So ignorant, huh? I mean, it’s not like IQ can be predicted from brain measurements, right?
It’s not like the cover of Nature Neuroscience was dedicated to the heritability of gray matter in twins and the corresponding brain-IQ correlations, right?
It’s also not as if Nature Neuroscience Reviews published an invited review by Paul Thompson and Jeremy Gray that cites dozens of studies on multiple physiological correlates of IQ (brain glucose utilization, fMRI/PET differences in high vs. low IQ brains, reaction time, Alzheimer’s susceptibility, etc.), with a full 3D voxel-by-voxel map of heritability.
Oh wait…all three of those things DID happen. “choke IQ tests” indeed…
Nano, you got any more tee balls for me to hit out? Perhaps you should rename yourself “femto” or “atto”, to even more accurately describe the extent of your knowledge.
GC: …1971….Ok. Let’s say that this was a war rather than a battle, and that India won decisively. I still think that “decisive victory” would include crushing and remaking Pakistan into a relative non-threat…..
Good to see you emerge from your terminological thicket, GC, even if only tenatively. You’re right that victory over Pakistan in ’71 wasn’t decisive in your sense. But that war was, nonetheless, a strategically impt. win for India: It ended a two-front threat from Pakistan, an immensely impt. gain by any military’s standard. It suggests that your disdain for the competence of the Indian military is unwarranted.
GC: It means India won a war against a country 1/6 or 1/7 the size…embroiled in civil war. …it was a brown-on-brown conflict. As such it doesn’t tell us that India is going to be able to militarily take on China, let alone the US….
No doubt the U.S. would ultimately defeat India in any head-to-head contest, but it would be quite costly. I’m not so sure that China would manage even a pyrrhic victory. The ’71 war is actually quite instructive. The Indian army, as relatively poorly equipped as it is, mounted a sophisticated campaign against Pakistan. The rapid advance of the Indian army owed much to the integration of an air and land campaign against E. Pakistan, ending in the largest single surrender of men post-WWII (approx. 100,000). The Chinese armed forces are simply not capable of that sort of campaign, even now. Certainly, their ability to mount an integrated campaign is recognized to be inferior to India’s.
GC:….the compliments the Brits extended to these soldiers (to the extent they exist) were like the compliments masters would extend to their slaves…i.e., race-normed, with a lower standard for the subjugated mercenaries.
I was simply pointing out that your disdain for the physical ability of Indian soldiers is unwarranted. And I drew on accounts dating back to the 18th century. Again, I’m not talking of those under British suzerainty–they were not on the British payroll! These were soldiers in the independent kingdoms of the 18th century. These are reports of British observers, who wrote that pound-for-pound, the Indian soldiers were quite physically impressive.
There was no ‘master-slave’ dynamic at work, since the Brits hadn’t fully built up their empire yet! No race-norming, just the reports of non-official Brits who were quite free in expressing their contempt for the ‘natives’ on other subjects. These reports should be taken at face-value.
GC: ….India just doesn’t have a martial tradition to speak of. When the chips were down, she lost to a few thousand Brits with a ten-thousand mile supply line. The history of India is being invaded time and time again, from the AIT to the Muslims to the Brits to the lost Chinese border war to others I’ve forgotten. It’s like Grand Central Station for would-be conquerors.
A common-place observation, but it doesnÂ’t prove much. It’s rather like suggesting that batters in baseball are decisively better than pitchers, given all the singles and home runs! But, as you know, pitchers hold the upper-hand, since a good batter hits—at best–roughly one-third of the pitches.
In other words, GC, you have to show that the ratio of successful invasions to attempted invasions of India is unusually high, compared to other regions. Of course, you’ll also have to take into account the varying extent of ‘India’ over time.
My suspicion is that the results will not show ‘India’ to be qualitatively different in this respect from other nations. If that turns out to be the case, I think one can equally well argue the exact opposite of your thesis. That is, since India has historically been politically fragmented, India’s strong martial traditions are the reason for the relative lack of success of invaders.
GC: Well, I think you dismiss those multiple lines of evidence (particularly the Bamshad & Majumder data, which show that there are significant genetic differences).
These studies document extant differences. ThatÂ’s not enough, of course. This data doesnÂ’t tell us what the IQ distribution will be like in the future in India. ThatÂ’s why you attempt to supplement them with data on the caste-breakdown of high-IQ occupations and the achievements (& caste breakdown) of various Indian diasporas.
GC:…the key question is what the cognitive level of the dalits and OBC’s will be like if and when they’re properly nourished….Probably the best test-bed is Singapore – there you have a multimodal Indian population which has a significant component of dalits. The Indians there generally do better (in income, education, etc.) than the Malays and worse than the Chinese….
IÂ’ve indicated a few problems with your supplementary data, e.g., the Indian diaspora ought to include the achievements of medieval Indians in SE Asia. But bracketing such issues for the moment, I think the problematic assumption here is that the Indian diasporas are a representative sampling of IndiaÂ’s genetic diversity (governing IQ). Perhaps so, perhaps not.
GC: If you could find data on the caste distro there (as well as correlates like income, etc.) or in the UAE, that would be instructive. Till then, I think that some degree of agnosticism is warranted, but I am highly doubtful that the dalits will be internationally competitive Â…Â… It’s an empirical question, and we’ll find out soon enough.
I think a healthy measure of agnosticism is appropriate, and not just for the reasons I’ve cited above. In addition, if LaGriffe’s theory is correct—a very high-IQ minority may be disproportionately responsible for generating significant and economically fruitful discoveries—then the IQ distribution on the right-end becomes quite impt. This adds another level of uncertainty to your analysis, strengthening the warrant for agnosticism on this issue.
GC: Â….the saffronist dig was not addressed to you. Acknowledged.
Kumar
GC, I missed the bit where race comes into the picture. None of your links talk about race.
We have a word for people who speak about things like ‘cognitive level of dalits and obcs’.
The word is ‘racism’.
Two thousand years ago, Europe was overrun by barbarians. India and China were at the peaks of civilization. If GC had been an Indnan around then to do his ‘analysis’, he would have said that Europeans were a low IQ race.
If GC had been a German in the late 1930s, he would have had theories about shapes of skulls and correlations with race and intelligence.
None of your links talk about race
Again you prove that you are a functional illiterate. Quote from the 2004 Nature Neuroscience Reviews paper by Thompson and Gray:
he would have had theories about shapes of skulls and correlations with race and intelligence.
Yeah, I know. It’s TOTALLY ridiculous to think that the shape of the brain might influence intelligence! After all, it’s not like the head research scientist at the UCLA Brain Mapping Center is interested in that kind of thing:
I suggest you go and picket the director of the UCLA Brain Mapping Center, “Atto”. Here’s his webpage…email him if you wish.
More
Seriously, “Atto”, whenever I think you’ve exhausted your supply of totally unexamined premises…you never fail to disappoint by coming up with yet another.
btw, there is much more where that came from, including the debunking of Franz Boas published in PNAS and the steadily increasing IQ correlations as you move from raw cranial capacity (80’s) to brain volumes (Thompson, others in the 90’s) to voxel-by-voxel volumes (Haier 2004).
With respect to human rights violations, plenty of prisoners have died in Indian Military captivity
And the fact that Pakistan is waging a proxy war in Kashmir by recruiting Jihadis has nothing to do with that, eh ?
Perhaps you should rename yourself “femto” or “atto”, to even more accurately describe the extent of your knowledge
Perhaps ‘Nano Iyer’ is a play on the name Pico Iyer?
Yea, plenty of Jihadis have been waging a proxy war. But that still does not mean that India has not conducted human right violations. I was using that as an example to show that the Republic of India is NOT immune to human right violations. On an average, I have seen plenty more questionable activities there than in the United States.
“South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore were third world not too long ago…and they’re all doing better now.”
“Again, didn’t take the South Koreans/Taiwanese/Singaporeans too long to get the hang of it. You could nitpick each individual case (e.g. US troops on Korean peninsula, military guarantees to Taiwan, and British remnants in Singapore), but collectively they are a pretty strong counterexample: three very different countries with very different levels & types of Western influence that all shot out of the third and into the first world in less than 50 years.”
Singapore has a population of 4 million. Taiwan has a population of 23 million. South Korea has a population of less than 50 million. India has a population of over 1 billion. You can’t fairly compare these relatively small far eastern nations to a nation as massive as India.
Singapore is a one-party state. South Korea and Taiwan only recently became democracies when the rest of the world was embracing democracy. They didn’t immediately embrace democracy like India.
Both Singapore and Taiwan were colonies of economically advanced nations.
Also, all of these nations got substanial military and economic aid from the U.S.
“As for the self-governance thing…IMO that’s a cop out. On the one hand you want to talk about a thousand year long civilization, and on the other you make it seem like “self-governance” only arrived with the Westerners.”
India does have a long history of advanced civilization, but it was divided and ruled by outsiders for many centuries. Indians have only had 57 years to learn how to democratically govern their nation again, but they’ve done very well.
“India believes in the UN? The UN always sides with Pakistan. Can you find me an example of the dozens of Muslim nations siding with India over Pakistan?”
I agree that the U.N. is unfavorable to India, but India continues to respect the U.N. It’s opposed to unilateral action and believes it’s important to have the support of the international community before taking action.
“As for the pacifism…let’s just say that is another cop-out. Pacifistic nations generally don’t have strong militaries – which was the original point.”
India isn’t a pacifist nation because it’s weak. India is pacifist nation because Nehru, Gandhi, and other Indian patriots envisioned a nation that would be non-violent and peaceful.
India could’ve destroyed Pakistan many years ago, but chose to be a peaceful nation that wasn’t aggressive with its neighbords.
“The one exception is Japan, and their “pacifism” is more like an iron fist beneath a velvet glove. You aren’t going to see much “Nippon Chini bhai bhai” from them.”
LOL. I agree.
Also, the Hakka are only 7% of the Chinese population of Singapore.
The largest group of Chinese in Singapore are Hokkien. They’re over 40% of the Chinese population. They’re from the trading port of Xiamen in the southern part of the Fujian Province and were mainly traders or merchants. The Hokkien are a very entrapaneurial group of people and dominate trade in much of southeast Asia.
Almost all the other Chinese living in Singapore are descended from immigrants from southeastern China.
The entrapanurial Chinese merchants of Singapore are as represenative of the general Chinese population as the Gujarati trading castes are of the Indian general population.
gc: Just for once can you debate an issue without using all that pseudo-scientific jargon. We all know you can Google and copy/paste.
I.Q. test only show that some people are better than others at taking I.Q. tests. What does intelligence and cognitive level really mean without a corresponding achievement to back it up. How many Mensa members have really done anything worthwhile? I checked out the list and it’s not very impressive at all. I found this funny:
“MARILYN VOS SAVANT: Listed in the Guinness Hall of Fame for having the world’s highest recorded I.Q. (228). She is the wife of Robert Jarvik, inventor of the Jarvik 7 artificial heart. She also writes “Ask Marilyn,” a weekly column that appears nationally in “Parade” magazine.”
So Marilyn with the 228 I.Q. writes an advice column in Parade while her husband whose I.Q. is not worth mentioning invents an artificial heart. Okay, so Marilyn solves puzzles but is that the best she could do?
Shows how ridiculous the whole I.Q. thing is. It’s the same with genetics. Oddly enough, those who claim its validity are also some of the least accomplished people as far as real human endeavor is concerned.
And not surprisingly, proponents of this idea always link themselves (through their heritage or otherwise) into the most desirable genetic group. It’s like an American thinking heÂ’s better than someone in the third world because America is more technologically advanced and has a stronger military than other countries. You had nothing to do with it pal!! You were just lucky to be born here at this time in history.
GC’s point about Pakistan still left ‘standing’ is silly and moot. No one doubts the ability of the Indian armed forces to take over Pakistan in less than a month. During the Kargil war, when India threatened and then actually started a naval blockade of Southern Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif folded in 3 days. Pakistan is not left standing because India cannot bring it down. Pakistan is left standing because India has ‘let’ it stand. In numerous analysis done about the result of a India-Pakistan war both in the US and South Asia, almost every reputable analyst has reached the conclusion that India could easily take over Pakistan by opening a front in two areas along with a naval blockade. Pakistan only has one major port (Karachi) for all its supplies. As I understand they are building a new one. Indian Navy is vastly superior and a naval blockade will completely cripple Pakistan and bring it to its knees.
Its interesting that GC blasts the lack of ‘martial culture in India’ by citing to ‘Muslim invasions’ and then later cites to the Taj as an example of ‘Indian’ technological prowess. His polemics are as consistent as some of the juvenile rants of the Leftist establishment he so loves to loathe.
My man Al!
You write, “Its interesting that GC blasts the lack of ‘martial culture in India’ by citing to ‘Muslim invasions’ and then later cites to the Taj as an example of ‘Indian’ technological prowess.”
One statement does not contradict the other. GC posits that India lacks a “martial culture” (a point I’ll quibble with later). Then he cites the Taj Mahal as an example of Indian techonological prowess. What’s the problem? A person (or culture) can be militarily inept and yet demonstrate skills in other areas like architecture. The Aztecs were quite advanced, but proved helpless against Spanish invaders (and germs). The Persian Empire had a proud martial tradition and rich culture, yet it too succummbed to Muslim invasions.
For all the problems that India has experienced since 1947, and for all the bone-headed moves Nehru took – one thing that did happen is there is now a sense of Indian nationhood that did not exist in the past. Nationalism is still one of the strongest unifying forces around. But nationalism alone is not enough to defend a nation. So India is taking steps, like improving its economy and modernizing its military. But it is still woefully inadequate in general nutrition levels, which will continue to hinder development.
Dear KXB, You completely missed the point. GC is using the example of successful ‘Muslim’ foreign invasions to prove that ‘Indians’ lack a martial culture. Obviously he does not believe that ‘Muslim’ invaders are ‘Indians’ right ? Then he cites the ‘Taj’ as an example of the technological development of ‘Indians’. The ‘Taj’ was made by the same ‘Muslim’ invaders. So in line with the fact that the ‘Muslim’ invaders were not ‘Indians’ how could ‘India’ be given credit for monuments built by the same ‘Muslim’ invaders . Comprende !
The history of India is being invaded time and time again, from the AIT to the Muslims to the Brits to the lost Chinese border war to others ..
Hmm .. but by the same token, AM, he also doesn’t believe that Aryans are authentic Indians.
I am not sure what GC believes. I think he just rants here without actually forming any serious thoughts.
Al,
There is still no inconsistency. At one time, the Muslims at one time were invaders, with a different culture. By the time the Taj was constructed, the Muslims in North India were influenced by the Hindus they ruled, so their practice of Islam would differ from that in the Middle East. By then, those Muslims could be considered Indian. And while some of the chief architects of the Taj were Muslim, the actual construction was mostly by Hindus. So the Hindus of that period showed certain skills at construction and architecture, but not at military matters.
Getting back to the issue at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3736008.stm
Indian Mirage crashes. Again issues related to maintainence, infrastructure, and training cause such issues.
The Hawk AJTs have been a major need for the Airforce for a long time, and only recently a deal has been struck. India has some of the highest accident rates among modern airforces for its aircraft with the older MIG aircrafts leading the way.
It’s a rule of history that all great empires are eventually conquered. It happened to the vaunted Chinese several times, as well as the Greeks, the Romans, the Turks, the Arabs, the English and the Germans.
Why identify with those on the wrong end of the sword? The fact that any of our ancestors surviced the bloodbath that was India’s past proves that we are all the children of some bad ass dudes. The fact that we are chatting on the Internet means that our familes did very well indeed. It’s a fact that we are all of mingled bloodlines, conqueror as well as conquered. Identifying with only the conquered is a narrowminded view of history. From an evolutionary perspective, the triumphant parties had a reproduced disproportionately, so I’m sure we can all claim a bit of martial glory.
Also, I think it’s somewhat comical to think that the Indian army is not tough simply because India did not win enough medals in the Olympics. From a practical level, it seems reasonable that India’s poor performance is due to overall poverty and a lack of state patronage of atheletics. Also, India is genetically diverse and it seems to stretch credibility that our wide ranging phenotypes somehow includes everything but athletic competence. Growing up as an Indian in America, going to middle-class schools, I never felt athletically inferior and didn’t notice that Indians seemed any less inherently athletic than anyone else. True, we did focus more on Calculus than on Football, but that was because our parents would kick our ass if we didn’t.
This discussion has swayed off course. The inital argument was comparing the Military, and how the USAAF learned a few things from some talented Indian Aviators.
Given the same resources, money, and attitude, everyone can achieve the same. The US military is not just “Americans” These folks are of Irish, Italian, Semetic, Russian, East Asian, South Asian heritage who all serve honorably in their respective units.
Again, lets get back on track here and discuss Military facts with a pragmatic tone. This means no “Indian Jawans will kick cocaine sniffin Americans Ass” or “Indians do not have a genetic predesposition to fight” and leave it that. Lets discuss plain facts, numbers, and reality here.
T:
Seems like you’re the one who’s googling and cutting and pasting. In contrast, I cited papers and Pubmed searches. You seem to believe that someone is high IQ if and only if they are a Mensa member, which is a little like thinking that everyone who can bench press 400 pounds is in the WWF.
You omit the fact that there are places – universities, research labs, tech corporations, newspapers, etc. – where the high IQ predominate and actually use their skills for something other than the cosmetic purposes of Mensa. Many guys who bench 400 are actually using their muscles to knock suckaz out in the NFL rather than preening in a WWF ring…just as most high IQ individuals are actually using their IQ in science/literature/etc. rather than preening on a Mensa chatlist.
Btw, I’d consider your statement that “genetics [is ridiculous]” a hell of a lot more “pseudo-scientific” than Nature Neuroscience and the UCLA Brain Mapping Center. Maybe you should take up the fact that they’re publishing “pseudo-science on IQ and genetics” with the editors of one of the most highly cited neuroscience journals in the world.
I’m sure they’ll be delighted to hear your expert opinion.
Al Mujahid:
Great name, by the way. What are you doing on a blog? Shouldn’t you be out beheading people?
As for the substantive topic – the ostensible “paradox” you supposedly caught me in, well, randombrownguy and KXB got it right:
At one time, the Muslims at one time were invaders, with a different culture. By the time the Taj was constructed, the Muslims in North India were influenced by the Hindus they ruled, so their practice of Islam would differ from that in the Middle East.
You seem to deny that assimilation can take place. I’ve never said that Islam didn’t contribute much to the subcontinent. I have said that the syncretic Indian culture (which variously incorporated the AIT, the Muslim invasion, and later the British invasion) has never been a martial power.
Obviously “India” is a moving target here, not least b/c it’s a unified political entity now and wasn’t over time. But that’s true of any nation or national region, whether it be the UK or Germany (both also multiple warring nationalities at one time) or India.
If I have to spell it out explicitly, the two points being made are these:
1) Armies that originated in the subcontinent are not known for their martial success.
2) There have been a number of technological, cultural, and mathematical discoveries that have come out of the variegated populations present in the subcontinent.
These are hardly exclusive propositions.
But logic probably bores a self-declared holy warrior like yourself, “al-mujahid”. I should notify you that the latest fatwa indicates that 72 virgins will not be forthcoming for martyrdom operations carried out in blog posts…
gc; To paraphrase an old saying, people who can do, doÂ… people who canÂ’t talk about it (or critique and study it). My point is that people who are really smart donÂ’t feel they have to go around proving it.
And if reading my post led you to believe that I think someone has a high I.Q. only if they are a member of Mensa then you need to question your own cognitive ability.
My other point was that it is pretentious to use jargon in a general discussion. If you can’t say it in layperson’s terms than you don’t really understand what you’re saying. If I was interested in reading about neuro sciences this blog is probably not the place I would come to. I’m sure your expert opinion is also very valued at the “highly cited” journals you speak of — which is probably why you hang out here and grace us with your knowledge.
My point is that people who are really smart donÂ’t feel they have to go around proving it.
You seem to have the idea that anyone who is interesting in studying human intelligence or neurogenetics must be interested in proving they’re more intelligent/superior/etc.
For some reason, though, you don’t think that people who proclaim their egalitarian/anti-IQ attitudes to the rooftops are attempting to prove themselves superior.
wonder why?
I’m sure your expert opinion is also very valued at the “highly cited” journals you speak of
You’d be surprised…
(btw, why did you put highly cited in quotes? Do you have any idea how heavily cited Nature and Nature Neuroscience are?)
You seem to have the idea that anyone who is interesting in studying human intelligence or neurogenetics must be interested in proving they’re more intelligent/superior/etc.
No, but I think you are. To study something you need to have an open mind.
For some reason, though, you don’t think that people who proclaim their egalitarian/anti-IQ attitudes to the rooftops are attempting to prove themselves superior.
No we think we are all equal.
No, but I think you are. To study something you need to have an open mind.
Ok, so let me call your bluff. Name a researcher interested in the genetics of human intelligence and/or IQ testing who has an open mind.
In any case, you don’t know anything about the field – as revealed from your comments above – which is why you have an “open mind”. You shouldn’t mistake ignorance for wisdom. If you don’t know what the Navier Stokes equations are, for example, it’s not correct to say that you have an “open mind” on whether turbulence is or is not caused by the nonlinear terms. And if you don’t know that IQ can be predicted from MRI scans of the brain, it’s not correct to say that you have an “open mind” on whether IQ is measuring something real.
It’s much more correct to say “you don’t know what you’re talking about”. And given that you don’t know what you’re talking about – yet seem to get all huffy when I bring up citations that could pierce that cloud of ignorance – you seem to be the guy who doesn’t know, and doesn’t want to know.
Now why could that be? Ah yes, because:
No we think we are all equal.
Right, right. Tell that to Yao Ming or Richard Feynman or Michael Jordan.
Even better, tell me what you think of people who don’t think that everyone is “equal” in every respect. Don’t you feel morally superior to those haters and evildoers who think the geographical distribution of functionally relevant neurological alleles might be nonuniform?
You shouldn’t mistake ignorance for wisdom.
You shouldn’t mistake superficial information for knowledge. Wisdom is probably way beyond your reach at this point.
If you don’t know what the Navier Stokes equations are, for example, it’s not correct to say that you have an "open mind" on whether turbulence is or is not caused by the nonlinear terms. And if you don’t know that IQ can be predicted from MRI scans of the brain, it’s not correct to say that you have an "open mind" on whether IQ is measuring something real.
More jargon. Now you’re mixing them up from different disciplines.
And this is even better:
haters and evildoers who think the geographical distribution of functionally relevant neurological alleles might be nonuniform?
What?? Part Bush and part bull in the same sentence!! My advice for you would be to spend less time in the search of scientific reasons for bigotry and racism and more time with some real people. Who knows, you might even change your views.
What is neede to fight a war is bravery shown by the soldiers which the Indians have always done.The indian soldiers defeated troops from all other countries in some tourney in south africa.The americans are just and pampered kids and the chinese are bloody rougues and traitors.When can they match the Indians who have inherited a legacy of bravery.
The US has had 200 years to arrive where they are today. Comparisons are already being drawn… albeit laughingly… between the US and India.
Give India 200 years. Then compare. Also, would the US be where it is today if it had hundreds of millions of people to deal with 200 years ago? If you are going to compare or criticize… level the playing field first.
Enough Said GC,
I am an American in US Army (engineering Corp.) You dont know whats going on in the world boy.
Do u think Australia and Italy has better army than India ? You can’t be any wrong.
you can ask any top rated US army personnel, he will tell you how much they respect Indian army, i fully agree they lack in technical superiority but their high moral and easter traditional fighting techniques makes up for all of this.
Now about the next generation, may be Indians are the one who will grow the strongest, look around us here in US, one of every five engineers in top rated US company are Indians (even though indians are only 0.2% of US population)
from super computer to indiginious weapons now they can produce anything they want.
I have nothing more to say, just salute you great peacefull guys
thanks Rob
Hmmm,
I guess American Eagle hit the nail on the head.
Just as an observation, If things go as they are,India and US will step forward together as allies.The interests are so obviously the same.
I think “American Eagle” is obviously an Indian pretending to be American to gain credibility. The combination of fractured syntax and bizarre saffronism is the giveaway.
but their high moral and easter traditional fighting techniques makes up for all of this.
Sure…
The US has had 200 years to arrive where they are today.
Ummm, isn’t the civilization of the subcontinent considerably more than 200 years old? It’s not exactly like India’s millions were airlifted onto virgin soil in 1947. They’d been there for quite a while already.
That said, I agree that socialism has retarded postwar India’s progress. But one need only look at Taiwan/Singapore/South Korea/Hong Kong to see that it need not take 200 years to develop a first world society.
Well read that Hindus ( Indians ) did not have martial tradition ??? Possibly those that say this are not aware of India’s military traditions . The foremost of the martial races of India are the Rajputs ….. they have fought battle after bloody battle with marauding hordes of arab, persian , turkish , mongol, afghan & central asian islamic hordes . They lost simply because there was a lack of knowledge of military technology and astute war-tactics of those times . But they have fought some of the most ferocious and bloody wars in medieval indian history . They were the bulwark of hindu resistance to muslims . They stood their ground in their desert fastness of Rajasthan and they simply were too powerful for the muslims to annhilate completely , so that the mughals had to co-opt them as equals in their empire.Then among the other martial races are the marathas ,hindu jats & dogras of jammu. These 4 races of hindus constitute the bulk of india’s armed forces even today. And too much is made of sikh fighting prowess , few if any died fighting in the heights of kargil , it was mostly hindu jats and rajputs that were killed in some of the bloodiest attritions on the kargil reaches. Even among sikhs its not all sikhs that fight it’s mostly jat-sikhs and ramgaria sikhs , and they constitute only abt 10 – 12 % of the indian armed forces. Even in Pakistan the bulk of their army constitutes of punjabi Muslim rajputs & muslim jats , arains & khokars all formerly hindus before they converted to islam.
I wouldn’t like to comment on the warring prowess of Rajputs vis-a-vis other races.But let me remind you guys that Prithviraj Chauhan had defeated Muhammad Ghauri, 1191 and 1192 AD (yeah the same Ghauri after whom Pakistan’s “indigenous” missile is named) and spared his life before the latter defeated Chauhan, that too by treachery.I know such acts of valour and chivalry don’t cut much ice today, but thought you guys would like to know. Also, even though India would definitely lose a protracted war with USA soldiers’ physiques will have nothing to do with it.Refer to Rifleman Sanjay Kumar, Param Vir Chakra awardee in the recent Kargil war, who was rejected twice by the Army because of his poor constitution.
all i know is india will never give up. no matter what country it is fighting with. india is getting better and better at weapons technolgy. india spend most of its money on weapons system. all i know is india will have really good weapons system in the future.
Dear Mr GC,
You probably didnt read my comments carefully, I said i am an American, not a British, and being an American, I have a born right to f**k with English language. LOL.
Any way few spelling mistakes do not make me less American then I am.
My badge number is 253.BE2.VE6 , for an computer geek (like you) it may not be much different from an IP address. LOL.
The real truth, however is that we are in same situation as the Romans were. Do you know the history pretty well Mr GC ?
Yanks ( I am almost certain that you are one of those yankees, who still thinks that we are the only “ONE”) like you dont realize that we have enemies all over the world. China, Russia, Germany , France are few big ones on the list. As Romans thought that they are far more superior than other puny civilizations, we think the same way. However remember what happened to Romans, they just got their a** whooped.
Anyway, i dont need to explain this to you. Siting on a computer, typing some words in google search engine, you can pretend whatever you want. Our leaders in congress has already relized that we need more friend. Before you die, you will surely see India as a top US ally.
thanks everyone, Heading back to Iraq tomorrow Good Bye