All Indians are outsiders

Yesterday, I went through the chapter on India in David Reich’s wave-making book Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the new science of the human past. I’m listing a few thoughts here.

Until now, archeology and anthropology were the key disciplines that helped us decode our past. But now, DNA studies have matured and are adding new, explosive insights. And these studies have a lot to say about ancestry of Indians.

First, Indian bigots of all garden varieties will find the conclusion of the chapter on India deeply disturbing. What it essentially says is that nearly all Indians have significant ‘outsider’ ancestry. None of us are exclusively indigenous.

.. We found that West Eurasian-related mixture in India ranges from as low as 20 percent to as high as 80 percent.. No group is unaffected by mixing, neither the highest nor the lowest caste, including the non-Hindu tribal populations living outside the caste system.

There’s large amount of Iranian-related ancestry in all of us, regardless of whether you are from the north or from the south.

Second, this mixing of ancestry happened in the last 4000 years. Which means, the people who lived on this land 4000 years back were completely different from the people who live here today. 

Subsequently, the caste system and resulting endogamy meant that Indians were never truly a single large population like the Han Chinese. Instead, India is composed of a large number of small populations.

People tend to think of India, with its more than 1.3 billion people, as having a tremendously large population, and indeed many Indians as well as foreigners see it that way. But genetically, this is an incorrect way to view the situation. The Han Chinese are truly a large population. They have been mixing freely for thousands of years. In contrast, there are few if any Indian groups that are demographically very large, and the degree of genetic differentiation among Indian jaati groups living side by side in the same village is typically two to three times higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans.

This sustained endogamy over thousands of years makes Indians more susceptible to rare disease-causing mutations. Just one more reason for why endogamy propagated through caste sucks.

So next time someone tells you to ‘go back where you came from’, hold their hand and ask them to join you for a trip to West Eurasia.

And if you’re interested, we have a podcast episode on this chapter on Puliyabaazi.

 

Is the US immigration policy an opportunity for India?

Earlier in the day, we discussed the impact of a tighter US immigration policy regime on India. At the margin, will it lead skilled Indians to return to India? Nitin Pai in The Print gives a conditional yes as an answer.

Even if pay scales were equivalent (say in terms of purchasing power parity), few NRIs would trade the comfort, security and quality of life in a developed country and come back and face the challenges of daily life in India. Despite sentimental links, patriotic feelings and family connections, most NRIs prefer to live abroad. It won’t change because of government schemes, no matter how attractive they are on paper.

This idea can be conceptualised as two forces acting in the opposite direction. One force is a “India” premium — the extra salary that would compensate for the returnee’s lower quality of life in India. A force in the opposite direction is the “motherland” discount — the discount arising out of patriotic and familial considerations, leading people to stay back or return to India. It is the interplay between these two forces that will decide the direction of skilled labour flows.

As of today, the “India” premium is way larger than the “motherland” discount. Closing this gap is necessary to convert US immigration policy into an opportunity for India.

Who made Xi move half-way across the country?

Ananth Krishnan points out that Xi Jinping’s decision to travel halfway across his own country to meet Narendra Modi (who had travelled completely out of his own country) for an informal summit in Wuhan is remarkable, and no one in Beijing expected it. It’s been quite a journey for their India policy, from threatening to order military attacks to perhaps ordering a six pack for a chillout session between the two leaders this month.

Were they really impressed by India’s resolute stance of not backing down at Doklam, of not signing up for the Belt and Road Initiative? Perhaps. What really made Xi travel halfway across his country is a man halfway across the world. A certain Mr Donald Trump. Washington is putting extreme pressure on Beijing on two counts: North Korea, and more importantly on trade.

It took Trump to remind Beijing that their projection of power ultimately relies on their economy, and that in turn relies on the goodwill of China’s trading partners. Most importantly, on the United States. A trade war will not only have unsettling effects on the Chinese economy in the short term, it can take the wind out of China’s economic sails in the longer term. The wise men in Beijing ought to have expected this. If they didn’t, then their wisdom is overrated. If they expected this, then they ought to have cautioned Xi Jinping against getting all on the front foot and antagonising India, Japan and Vietnam all at once. If they did and Xi didn’t heed their advice, then his astuteness is perhaps more limited than is made out to be.

In any case, India must expect that Xi’s front-footedness is China’s long-term strategy. Trump’s mercurial policy positions have caused Beijing to buy time and space by reaching out to India and Japan. The moment the pressure is off — for Trump can as quickly change his mind — it’s likely that Beijing will resume pushing the envelope again. New Delhi can certainly hope that Beijing has learned that it is not a good idea to antagonise your neighbours as you set out to confront your distant adversary. Yet if you were sitting in Beijing you might reckon it’s important to suppress your neighbour’s power to create trouble, before you confront your main adversary.

It is in India’s interests to have better relations with China and the United States than they have with each other. So the chillout at Wuhan is a good thing. Modi, however, must be keenly aware that a China reset in Delhi does not mean a India reset in Beijing. There’s nothing to indicate China’s fundamental approach towards India has changed. Or that it will change. For now all the chilling out is contingent on the extent and duration that the United States maintains pressure on China.

 

India’s China Reset ≠ China’s India Reset

Global Times carried an op-ed on 12th April applauding India’s reported China Reset policy.

With regard to their ties in the past three years, many Indian media outlets and scholars believe New Delhi has gone astray with its China policy. Following a misjudgment of China’s development and the international landscape, the Indian government chose to confront China and consequently damaged India’s own development.

In typical Global Times style, the op-ed didn’t miss a chance to take a dig at India:

The rise of China actually constitutes an opportunity for India instead of posing a threat. China’s GDP is nearly five times that of India, so the two are at different levels of economic development. New Delhi can hardly expect to exert powerful leverage against China. The primary priority for India is mulling over how to take a ride on China’s development and realize its dream of national rejuvenation.

The bluster aside, what should be clear to us is that a China Reset in New Delhi does not imply an India Reset in Beijing. In fact, China’s recent foreign policy conduct shows that the reverse is likely to be true. With every Indian acquiescence to China’s aggression, China will escalate provocations.

Ask Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, if you are still in doubt.