December 24, 2010

India, Again

A continuing theme here at iSteve over the years has been the future of India. 

As I first noticed back in 1981 when I was at UCLA, there sure are a lot of smart Indians in America. About a decade later, India's economic growth started to come more in line with that observation. By now, it is a cliche of spokesmen for the conventional wisdom, such as Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Thomas Friedman, that India itself is full of superstudents to whom America's lagging masses of youth must somehow try to catch up ...  although what objective evidence that does exist suggests that eventuality has not fully gone through the formality of taking place yet. On the other other hand, evidence from places like Trinidad, South Africa, and Fiji suggests that pretty ordinary Indians do pretty well for themselves once they are free of Mother India.

To have a clue about India's future, it helps to know something about India's present and past. But that is inordinately complicated. Moreover, since Indians think about their society's human capital potential in terms of only partial exogenous extended families (i.e., racial groups, dozens and dozens of racial groups), Americans have a hard time grasping what they are talking about. All this Indian talk about race and IQ, well, if Americans didn't know that Indians are diverse and therefore, by definition, can't be racist, well, they just wouldn't know what to think.
A reader who calls himself Andy, writes to clear up matters about the intellectual structure of modern Indian life.

"Most of this information is passed through word of mouth from elders to youngsters and it would be hard to find this kind of detail in books. So enjoy!"

I'll put Andy's description of the different categories of South Asians and their rough IQ levels below the fold:

Rec1Man's (I cannot guess who he might be) model is fundamentally flawed. It is true that North experienced lot more slaughter of elites and lower classes than south, but it also led to more challenge and response (Toynbee), and in many parts of Northern India (mainly Rajasthan), self immolation to keep ethnic purity high was routinely performed if the natives lost against the invaders. 

Marwaris (and Brahmins) also migrated a lot throughout India, founding large business empires (much like Jews spread in Europe). There is a deep resentment among Indians against Marwari and Brahmin success, and policies are enacted or pushed to shove these groups aside and make space for less "fortunate".

The gradation levels by Rec1man are also very rudimentary and do not go into enough detail. I want to fill in some details and you can add these to your model if you like, but do not mention my name (Jeez!) due to obvious reasons ...  I also feel that his model might not achieve what it hopes, and a large scale IQ exam (at least 5 exams given over a period of one week to at least 1000-10,000 exam takers per caste/social/ethnic group) is the only way to solve the Indian Subcontinent IQ puzzle. I would say look at the results of IIT/AIIMS/IIM exams and sort by surnames for input data to use his model.  For disclosure, my dad, uncles, many cousins all cracked the IITs or IIMs.

1. Muslim gradations:  Muslims in India are not just Dalit and Non-Dalit, or forward and backward castes. It is a lot finer than that.  Muslim gradations are as follows:

a) Ashraf :Upper castes (Brahmins, Merchants (including Marwaris) and Samurai class (Thakurs, Rajputs). Within Ashraf, there are four subclasses

i) Sayyads: Sayyads are at the top of the pyramid. These are mainly mixtures of Prophet Mohammed's tribe's elite descendants, local Indian merchants, and elite Brahmins. Mohammed's tribe itself was of Merchant caste.  Pakistani Dictator Pervez Musharraf's ancestors were Sayyads (sometimes spelled as Sayid, Sayed or Said) and his ancestral mansion is [not all that far from] my ancestral mansion in ... Delhi.

ii) Ashraf proper: These are mainly either Brahmin converts or descendants of Oghuz/Chagatai Turkic elite or some Persian Nobility who settled in India and mixed with other Brahmin converts.  The richest Indian muslim, Azim Premji of Gujarat, owner of WIPRO IT giant is an Ashraf. Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani is also an Ashraf, his ancestry being from Persian Nobility. 

iii) Mughals: These are rank and file Turkic soldier settlers, descendants of Turkic elite who mixed with local women irrespective of caste, or products of royal harems. Mughal elite used to impregnate thousands of women in their harems so there is a large population of Mughals in India.

iv) Pathans: These are Pashtun tribes from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia who joined their Oghuz or Chagatai Turkic superiors to subjugate India and became large landed nobility. However, they are at fourth level since they were/are considered barbarians, essentially muscle guys who had good fighting skills but not much else.

Most Bollywood stars are either Ashraf, Mughals or Pathans, and have light skin and hazel/green/occasionally blue eyes and are generally taller.

b) Azlaf: (lower Castes, peasants, Jats (a large farming community in NW India), Ahirs (milkmen, peasants), Gujjars (peasants, much like Jats but lesser rank).

Nikki Haley of South Carolina is from a successful Jat community in India which is spread over Sikh (Punjab State), Hindu (Haryana State) and Muslim (Pakistani Punjab). There is intense rivalry between Sikh and Hindu Jats and that is a major reason why Indian Punjab was split into Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh during 1960s.

c) Arzal:  These are the outcastes or Dalit Muslims who are at the lowest level and find very hard to mix with other muslims. They belong to the janitor, butcher, leather, and menial jobs occupations.  They have the lowest IQs perhaps.

When Arzals and Azlafs either through gaining wealth, power or fame are able to mix with Ashrafs, they consider it a mark of success. Just like Blacks, who crave Germanic blondes, and feel socially superior when they successfully mix with them and have kids.

IQ level is therefore Sayyads > Ashraf proper >> Mughals > Pathans > Azlafs > Arzals

A few notes on Hindus:

1. Brahmins:  Brahmins are further divided into four classes:

i) Saraswat Brahmins: They are at the top of the pyramid. These Brahmins originate between the extinct Saraswati river (recently its bed was identified through satelitte imagery) and the Ganges.  This means they are primarily from the Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Extreme Western Uttar Pradesh and Pakistani Sindh.     Nehru-Gandhi family are Saraswat brahmins (with a little parsi mix). Founder of Arya Samaj, the earliest Hindu nationalist organization was a Saraswat Brahmin from Gujarat state, which is India's most conservative and prosperous state. 

Some of these Saraswat brahmins migrated south to peninsular India.  Infosys, another Indian IT giant's top managment is almost all South Saraswat migrant brahmins.

ii) KanyaKubja brahmins: These are next in the pecking order and these originate mainly from India's largest and most populated state Uttar Pradesh, mainly around Ganges and Yamuna river.  India's first Hindu Nationalist Prime Ministers, AB Vajpayee is a KanyaKubja Brahmin. 

iii) Saryu Parin Brahmins:  These are eastern Brahmins and they have the lowest rank. From Bihar, Orissa, Bengal, Bangladesh, NE India's seven sister states.

iv) Southern Brahmins: Many of these are actually the highest grade Saraswat brahmin migrants from North so its difficult to identify pure southern brahmins. These include Tamil brahmins (Noble laureates, CV Raman and S. Chandrasekhar etc) and fall broadly into Iyers or Iyengars. Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi is a Southern Brahmin. 

There are other classifications of Brahmins, based on their lineage and priestly authority over the 4 Indian Vedas, the 4 books collectively like an Indian Bible. One Veda Lineage groups have their surnames as Vedi, 2 Veda lineage have higher rank and are called Dwi-vedi, 3 Vedas called Tri-vedi or Tri-pathi or Tiwari, and 4 Vedas called Chatur-Vedi. 

But this is not very popular since the first Veda, called Rig Veda is considered the most ancient and divine and if a lineage belongs solely to Rig Veda, then those Brahmins have higher rank than most others.   A mix of geographical and Veda lineage classification is more reliable according to Indian traditions. 

Brahmins were 4.35% according to 1931 British census (includes India, Pak, Bang), but I suspect they are probably less than 4% now due to lower birth rates compared to lower castes.

2) Merchant Castes:  They number about 15 million or 1.5% of India's population and their birth rates are even lower than Brahmins.  Marwaris ~6.5-7 million are the more successful among them.  Among these the Agrawals and Mittals are most numerous, ~5 million, Birlas and Maheshwaris are ~0.5 million, and others are perhaps ~1 million.

Marwaris rival the Parsis in wealth and IQ intensive professions.  In fact Tatas (a leading Parsi family) and Birlas (a leading Marwari family) are considered the Rockefeller and Rothschilds of India.  John Maynard Keynes wrote a book on Marwari/Parsi  Business called "Indian currency and finance". 

3) Samurai Caste: These are primarily the landed nobility from various parts of India, though over half of India's royal families originate from the desert state of Rajasthan.  They are mostly the descendants of Scythians and local mixtures. Like Turks, they have a lot of vital intelligence but due to their reluctance to migrate into Quantitative, Math, Science professions, their mental IQ is perhaps not that high.

Kayasthas (Sub group among Samurais) are sometimes considered a mix of Samurai and Merchant class but occasionally they are considered at par with Brahmins. 

India's Aishwarya Rai, the blue/green eyed Miss World is from the Samurai class who migrated to Southern India.  Only 1-2 million from her caste are left, and her ancestors founded the Chola Naval Empire, which takes much credit for transmitting Indian culture and political system to Malay Archipelago.

4) Shudras: Peasant Castes, farmers, iron workers, low skill workers. These are spread more or less evenly throughout India and I don't have much to say any further.

5) Dalits or Outcastes: These are the most unfortunate, although they have made a lot of progress over last 3-4 decades.

I would say in terms of IQ-  Parsis, Saraswat Brahmins, Marwaris > Other Brahmins > Other Merchants >> Samurai Class > Lower classes > Outcastes.

Altogether if you put Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs all communities together from the Indian Subcontinent (1.6 Billion or 25% of Human race), there might be about 70-80 million who might have the median IQs between Shanghai and Japan.  5-6% of India's population.

Also 3 out of top 10 in your PISA chart are city, quasi city state, or city state, (Shanghai, Singapore, HK) so you have to account for that. Metro cities are typically high in IQ compared to regions/countries where IQ varies between cities, towns, rural areas, nether-world and under-world.

I guess that is enough for tonight.

And Merry Christmas!

215 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 215 of 215
Anonymous said...

Regarding caste and race

go to google images and look up

Kanshi Ram - a very caucasian dude, who was a dalit leader

And look up the non-caucasion looking

Swaminathan Venkatraman - a Tamil Brahmin

Anonymous said...

Clarifying the 140IQ
--

IMHO, with nutrition, the upper quintile / upper caste / Indian IQ is 110

The main way of non-family immigration to US was

GRE - F1 Visa - Financial Aid - Green card.

Thousands of upper castes, including lots of SIB took this route.

To get Financial Aid, you needed to score more than 1400 V+M in GRE. This is about 140 IQ

Those who came through this process had therefore a floor IQ of 140.

Per Nsam, the regression to mean in 1 generation is 0.65

Second generation upper caste in US, expected IQ = 110 + 0.35 x ( 140 - 110 ) = 120.

This sort of fits in with Jason Richwines 112IQ for all second generation Indian Americans ( including the 50% non-upper caste )

lesley said...

I never equated light color with high-caste. I have seen too many pictures over the years, and have met too many Indians personally, to make such a simple conjecture. The photos (if labeled correctly) showed light colored peasants with chiseled features, identified by castes I can't recall except that they were not Brahmin, and Brahmins who look "Dravidian." Indira Ghandi's family apparently included a natural red-head, or so I read. They were high-caste, but of a particular type descending more recently from people from the north. There are v. dark South Indian Tamils who have been known for their mathematical ability. But if the west had never barged in on India, what would they have done with those skills that would have caused change and progress? Was India showing any signs of that? I don't see how, with Hinduism. Too fatalistic. Worse than Catholicism in southern Europe after the Renaissance. Almost as bad as Islam. I am no hater of religion, but after the initial burst of creativity, religions seems to petrify a society's progress. High level mathematical achievements by the native inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent were in the extremely distant past. When there have been no innovations, and only stagnancy or regression, you do have to wonder if it has something to do with the population itself, and not just cruel fate. We may be wondering that about ourselves in the not too distant future.

Anonymous said...

hilaire said:
"Ashkenazi achievement is post 1850 or even post 1900."

Does this guy know any European history? The philosopher Spinoza? The Rothschilds? Composer Mendelsohn? British PM Disraeli, advisor to Queen Victoria? All got their start before 1850.

"Dude, Spinoza and Disraeli weren't Ashkenazi."

and that makes exactly what difference in the price of eggs? They were living in European countries. The discussion is about Jewish (born -- Disraeli's father converted to Anglicanism) entry into mainstream European culture. I've never heard of European gentiles concerned about whether said Jews were "Ashkenazi" or not.

A random Indian said...

"
You miss the entire, summarized Raison d'etre of this blog; that being that "poor nutrition, poverty and (lack of) infrastructure are SYMPTOMS of low IQ, not CAUSES."

Like China ?

China is better off than India in those respects, but it isn't any first world Nation, despite far outscoring most of these.

And then there are the oil producing nations with infrastructure etc above their IQs.

Tertiary and secondary factors can influence the result, and I don't see how you can deny that. For India, it was British colonization. Evidently pre-Brit India, with its immense wealth, had decent IQ. What's your take on THAT ? Oh right, nothing.

bruce said...

Steve, here's a humourous article making the 'culture' argument. 'What is the dharma of a doctor.. To make money!'

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/interview_it-s-the-best-time-ever-to-be-a-scamster-in-india_1488195

Consider the fact that different cultures (esp Asian) have a different answer to the question 'What is Truth' which accounts for differing rates of success better than any innate quality (except that enculturation is also innate relative to environment, as brain tests have revealed - Asians see the 'whole' while westerners see the particular).

Anonymous said...

All this talk about India and
China, and yet none about Brazil. Some consider Brazil the brightest star of the Brics, the only that has everything: oil, agriculture, fresh water, a huge industrial capability etc. Brazil's main flaw is lack of Human capital, but India doesen't have that much either. It's just that out of a population of a billion, you will find a considerable intellectual elite. Indians in general are no better than Latin Americans.

Anonymous said...

"To get Financial Aid, you needed to score more than 1400 V+M in GRE. This is about 140 IQ"

Link for the financial aid part?

Go look at a college confidential thread where scores of people have cited their GRE scores and actual IQs. The GRE scores VASTLY overestimate IQ in pretty much every case. More BS reasoning and selective choice of facts insofar as your agenda is satisfied.

- Another SIB.

Anonymous said...

Random Indian said

For India, it was British colonization. Evidently pre-Brit India, with its immense wealth, had decent IQ. What's your take on THAT ? Oh right, nothing.

Suck India dry, are you out of your mind, this kind of nonsense is spread around by Indian nationalists and lefties in the U.K. India before the British came was full of poor people exploited by rich kings. A land where malaria killed millions and it were the British played a part in reducing the problem. The per capita income of India actually increased under British rule. Hong Kong did very well under British Rule and is one of the most prosperous places on Earth while Ethiopia which was never colonised by the British or any European power for that matter is a dump.
You need some education my dear freind
http://www.friesian.com/britis...
http://www.ameinfo.com/16532-m...
http://swaminomics.org/?p=1159
http://swaminomics.org/?p=1316
http://swaminomics.org/?p=1145

Anonymous said...

It might be simpler to think Indian regions have different potential for growth.

This is 2006-2007 data so things have changed but illustrates the large divide.

Coastal states like Gujarat and Southern states like Tamil Nadu had GDP per capita of $955 and $795.

The Northern states are in abject African poverty.
Bihar $211 per capita!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_by_GDP

Parts of India will always be very poor. The Coast and South can become middle income countries (perhaps even upper middle income).

Anonymous said...

I have a request. Steve can you please create a new post for users to compile ALL the IQ studies of Indians. Let's try to make a more educated guess.

Anonymous said...

I am East Indian and know very little about how admixture there was from the Turkish/Iranian/Arab invaders and traders who settled in India.

The two smartest famous Indians of all time (Ramanujan and Vishwanathan Anand) were both Tamil and seem to have little genetic admixture. Anyone care to elaborate where the Tamils fit in? I am not Tamil, but respect their intelligence.

Anonymous said...

You must be out of your mind, ha have you been to the sides of UP? Those people are all violent people, you're crazy, if somebody has low IQ and is docile than how would they eat? Even wild animals would kill them, I've seen tribal Indians and they're leaner and meaner than a phaggot little white boy, I've noticed that white males are the most beta males on the planet, also according to ethnic muse, Indian men have the highest testosterone on the planet, if I can see an Indian man pull a rickshaw with 12 people, which weighs 500 pounds without any food to feed his family, then I can say they're alpha enough compared to white male, I'd say the average indigenous tribal Indian would kick a white boys arrse, if you're so damn tough, then why do white boys move to beta suburbs?

Anonymous said...

Jatts are not low in testosterone since 99% of them are in the military, wrestling, or weightlifting

Anonymous said...

What? That means white males have the lowest testosterone levels because their nations are first world.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 215 of 215   Newer› Newest»