Atheists in India

Although atheists aren't exactly popular in the U.S., we have it pretty good compared to many countries. I came across an interesting article on the growth of atheism in India.

Spurred by online social networks, atheist and "free thinker" support groups are mushrooming in India's major cities.

However,

as a recent survey reveals, the Western perception of India's benign, hippie spirituality is a fantasy. Despite 60 years of democracy, India remains one of the world's most repressive societies, according to a global study published in Science last week. And even as political groups routinely use religion to stoke hatred and provoke deadly riots, the constitution and the law seem bent on intertwining — rather than separating — religion and the state.

The article goes on to note that Indian atheists face intense family pressure to conform to religious norms, and that open unbelief is the province of only a tiny fraction of India's huge population. Check it out.

Not Much Has Changed in 2500 Years

I came across a fascinating article concerning an exchange between a skeptic and a holy man in the religious scriptures of ancient India. The skeptic does not belief in dualism, reincarnation and karma. The skeptic's non-belief is dismissed as "an evil view of things." And then the holy man asks him to prove the non-existence of dualism, reincarnation and karma. That sounds awfully familiar doesn't it? Over two millennia later, religious believers still refuse to accept that their extraordinary assertions are what require proof, not skepticism. And there is more. Check out the article. It's amazing how religious types are still using the same type of logically-challenged dismissals against skeptics to this day.

Another Major Defense Deal With India

The U.S. is set to sign a record $2.2 billion defense deal with India, for the purchase of 10 10 C-17 Globemaster-III aircraft. The U.S. is beating out European competition and is in the running for a massive $10.4 billion project for multi-role combat aircraft.

It's nice to see large arms deals going to a country that we don't really have to worry about, and is a natural ally. All to often big defense exports go to states that are temporary friends, where we have to worry about the future use of our systems. But arms sales to India are a win-win situation. American firms make money. We help strengthen an ally. And we promote greater cooperation between India and the U.S. 

Indian Quick Strike Strategy

I just noticed an article at the Times of India detailing Indian war doctrine, which underwent a shift following the 2001 terrorist attack on parliament. In the aftermath, India concluded that its mobilization was too slow, allowing the enemy (Pakistan) time to react, and opening up a window for international intervention to forestall Indian military action. According to the article, current Indian doctrine calls for rapid mobilization, and overwhelming offensive action. It's described as "`pro-active' war strategy to mobilise fast and strike hard to pulverise the enemy," from a "cold start."

The plan now is to launch self-contained and highly-mobile `battle groups', with Russian-origin T-90S tanks and upgraded T-72 M1 tanks at their core, adequately backed by air cover and artillery fire assaults, for rapid thrusts into enemy territory within 96 hours.

Although it makes sense from a military perspective, you have to wonder if such a strategy might make war more likely. If a major terrorist act tied to Pakistan strikes India, will India launch a rapid attack before all the details are in? Obviously it didn't happen after the Mumbai terrorist attack, but the next time could be different. At any event, the article is an interesting glimpse of Indian strategic thinking.

Church & State in India

India's supreme court has issued an interim decree banning new construction of "places of worship" in public places. A blog at the Times of India had an interesting response. The writer, Rajesh Kalra, argues that religion already interferes so drastically with public life in India that the supreme court directive will have little impact.  

When wedding processions block the entire thoroughfare, causing immense hardship to the common man, they flout the rules. When I am subjected to loud music and noise throughout the night because some people are trying to make their prayers heard by organising a "jagrata" (overnight music sessions to please gods and goddesses), it intrudes into public space, thus flouts the rules. When the administration shuts down the national highway that links Delhi to Haridwar because the "kanwarias" - devotees of Shiva who walk on foot from Haridwar with Ganga water to their hometowns hundreds of kilometres away - are on their annual pilgrimage and are also scared that they would end up in a spat with motorists, it flouts the rules. This list goes on. It seems any part of the country can be turned into a religious place at will, so why bother constructing!

And he asks an excellent question, which some religious people ignore.

We all have the freedom to follow our religion, but does it have to happen in a way that it creates hardship to others?

The problem is that many people following their religious practices are only worried about themselves and their fellow believers. The thought that they might be greatly inconveniencing others probably doesn't even occur to them, or if it does, they think they should be accommodated. Religion is big on demanding accommodation, but usually resistant to making similar allowances for those of different or no faiths.

India Joins Nuclear Sub Club

Today India became only the sixth country to launch it's own nuclear-powered submarine, joining an exclusive club alongside the U.S., Russia, China, France and the UK.  INS Arihant (which means "Destroyer of Enemy") is the first of a planned class of five vessels. Armament will include 12 nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, dramatically increasing India's nuclear deterrent capability and ability to retaliate after a first-strike.

Obama Administration Does Something Right

There's been plenty to bash the administration for lately, but it deserves credit for advancing U.S.-India relations. Secretary of State Clinton's visit has paid off. India & the U.S. today announced a new agreement that will "pave the way for greater defence cooperation." The Indian Prime Minister is now scheduled to make a state visit to the U.S. in November.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the new deal "could bring American defense contractors and power companies billions of dollars in business." Despite failure to agree on climate change measures, and assorted details, the Obama administration in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, should be commended for pushing forward and securing an important agreement with India. There was some fear that the Obama administration would neglect India in its focus on Pakistan. It's good to see that hasn't happened.

Gay Rights in India

With all the attention to gay rights and gay marriage in the U.S., it's sometimes easy to lose sight of the fact that homosexuals face far worse discrimination and even outright persecution in many other areas of the world. But there was a major advance for gay rights today in India.

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi high court scrapped parts of Section 377, a colonial law that criminalised gay sex – and indeed anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse – in India. Hence, consensual sex involving two adults of the same sex can no longer be a criminal offence.

As the above source points out,

This is the first time that an Indian court has gone on record to say that sexual minorities are not second-class citizens, and that they cannot be discriminated against. Granted, the anti-gay law was seldom used to secure convictions. However, for decades, the police and sometimes society at large used the law as an excuse to persecute gay men and women

Guess who opposes the ruling? That's right, pretty much every major religious organization in India.

Punish Iran?

Dick Morris & Eileen McGann have an op-ed in the New York Post supporting the Sherman-Kirk Amendment, which would

require a cutoff of Export-Import Bank financing for any firm that exports gasoline to Iran or helps it develop new refining capacity.

According to the article, the amendment would target Reliance Industries Limited of India, a major player in Iranian gasoline refining. Morris & McGann also make the following assertion:

President Obama has unilaterally repealed the emphasis on human rights that was President Jimmy Carter's major positive foreign-policy accomplishment. He has replaced it with a value-neutral policy that appeases the forces of dictatorship and cowers in their wake.

First, that's highly doubtful. I'd be willing to bet that President Obama has a similar commitment to promoting human rights as Carter. Second, Carter's overemphasis on human rights was a terrible idea not an accomplishment. The principle concern of a U.S. administration should be the advancement of U.S. interests, not the interests of people in other countries.

The entire op-ed is badly flawed. If we wanted to "punish" Iran, shouldn't we have punished them for supporting terrorism, interfering in Iraq and sponsoring our enemies, and for other actions hostile to the U.S.? Repression of their own people is nothing new -- albeit in less spectacular fashion -- and is the least of the things that should concern us about Iran.

In addition, our relationship with India improved tremendously during the Bush years. U.S.-Indian ties have grown in importance, and India is ultimately a far more important state than Iran. How would India react to a U.S. effort that mainly targets an Indian company with a huge contract for business in Iran? How does the Sherman-Kirk Amendment benefit U.S. interests? The answer to those questions is nowhere to be found in the Morris-McGann op-ed.

India's Elections

India is in the process of holding elections, although you might not know it because there has been so little commentary about them in the U.S. It is amazing how little attention the U.S. pays to India in general. Even though it is one of the largest, most populous countries in the world, a fellow democracy, rapidly developing, and (partly) English-speaking, the U.S. more or less ignores India unless something specific comes up.

Given that we are embroiled in the Afghanistan-Pakistan situation, and that our dealings with Pakistan are of major interest to India, you might think U.S. analysts would be carefully dissecting the Indian elections and weighing-in on how the results might affect relations with America. But if you go to the New York Times website, you have to search to find anything about India. The Wall Street Journal does have a whole section about the Indian elections, but in general they are not big news in the U.S. One of the good things about Bush administration foreign policy was that it payed more attention to India and helped improve relations. Hopefully we will be able to continue tostrengthen ties under the Obama administration.

This Woman Would Be Immune to Pepper-Spray

Yesterday an Indian woman, Anadita Dutta Tamuly, set a new world record by eating 51 bhut jolokia chiles in less than two minutes. The bhut jolokia grows in India and is also known as the "ghost chile." It's rated as the hottest chile in the world at over 1,000,000 scoville units. Tamuly finished off the challenge by rubbing her eyes with the pepper seeds.

I like hot food and have had things with habanero chiles in them. Habaneros are 200-300,000 scovilles. They are flaming hot. I wouldn't eat even one of them raw.  I can't imagine a pepper 3-4 times hotter. Mrs. Tamuly would probably laugh if someone emptied an entire canister of pepper spray into her face.

Pakistan Wants Drones

The Independent interviewed Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. In the interview Zardari talked about U.S. drone strikes, and said he couldn't condone violations of Pakistani sovereignty, even from an ally. Instead, he had a suggestion:

We would much prefer that the US share its intelligence and give us the drones and missiles that will allow us to take care of this problem on our own."

On the surface that sounds plausible. U.S. drone strikes are causing all sorts of political problems for Pakistan, to the point of threatening the stability of the regime, as it tries to walk a fine line between cooperating with the U.S., while keeping a lid on internal elements who sympathize with Islamic extremists. An agreement with Pakistan that provides them with drones, funnels intelligence to Pakistan, and allows them to eliminate the same targets we are currently attacking through cross-border strikes, would alleviate some of the issues. But unfortunately such a strategy has major problems of its own.

Pakistan does not lack for military forces. It has a standing army of 520,000. The problem is inherently political, not military. Providing the country with new weapon systems will not affect its inability to take effective action against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militants. It will not remove Islamist sympathizers from Pakistan's military and intelligence services. And it won't stop Pakistan from making deals with its internal enemies, such as in the Swat valley. Supplying advanced drones to Pakistan will likely provide little benefit, and instead have significant costs to U.S. relations with India. The bulk of Pakistani forces are aligned against India, rather than committed to operations designed to secure the western frontier. U.S. drones in Pakistani hands will inevitably be seen as a potential threat to India.