Earlier
this month, the Government selectively released (unofficially) some census data
on religious demographics in India. While the delay in reporting data is
inexplicable, the data in itself confirmed a couple of trends observed in the last 3 decades. These broad trends are: 1. Rising share of Muslim
Population in India; and 2. Decreasing share of Hindus in overall population.
However,
the reporting mainstream media was, as it is wont to be, heavily skewed. It
primarily highlighted 2 aspects: 1. Falling growth rate of Muslims; and 2. The
‘paltry’ increase of Muslims population share at 0.8%. This, the media votaries
mocked, was a certain proof that all the talk by the Hindu Right of demographic
change was nothing but fear-mongering.
While
many Indians, in their comments to the purported ‘analytical’ news reports
tried to highlight the gross errors in reporting, comments do not make or mar
impressions. Some right-leaning websites did try to draw more realistic
conclusions from the partially released data, but owing to their limited reach,
it is doubtful if they would have even 0.5% of an impact which a Times of India
report declaring ‘All is Well’ can have.
Of
all such notes, the one by Dr JK Bajaj, India’s leading demographer, on
Indiafacts is by far the best. There is hardly any aspect, either historical or
current, which is not covered by Dr Bajaj, who presents and dissects available
data dispassionately.
One
might ask the need of this blogpost if Dr Bajaj’s analysis is so comprehensive.
My humble submission is – while I am ill-equipped to add anything
worthwhile to Dr Bajaj’s analysis, this post could probably make it reach out
to handful of more people, providing key points in brief.
- As per the census data, growth rate of Muslim population in between 2001 and 2011 was 24.4% as against a general growth rate of 17.7%. What most of the mainstream reports did not state that this 17.7% comprises the growth rate of ALL communities and not communities other than Muslims. Unreported was the growth rate of Hindus, which at 14.5% is lower than the Muslim growth rate by 9.9% in absolute terms. When compared to the Hindu rate of growth, Muslim growth rate is higher by a whopping 68.8% (9.9% over 14.5%). Even when taken against the mis-directional National average, it is still 37.9% higher (6.7% over 17.7%)
- Much has been made by MSM on the decline of Muslim growth rate from 29.5% in 2001 to 24.4% now. However, what has hardly been reported is a steeper decline in growth rate of Hindus, i.e., from 20.3% to 14.4%. Yet again, apologists have tried to attribute higher growth rate of Muslims to their supposed poverty and illiteracy. Yet, this does not explain Kerala, where Muslims have risen from 24.7% to 26.6% of the population despite being much better off compared to Hindus, both economically and socially. Even the much poorer Pakistan (20%) and Bangladesh (14%) have lower growth rates. So much so for illiteracy and poverty driving Muslim population growth.
- Now the ‘paltry’ growth of Muslims from 13.4% to 14.2% of the population. For one, Muslims share in population expanded by around 6% over its base (14.2% against 13.4%). In the same period, Hindus share in population dropped by around 2.7% on its base (78.35% against 80.5%). As a result, for the first time since independence, Hindus are less than 80% of the population.
- In the last 60 years, Hindus have dropped by 6.8% on its base (from 84.1% in 1951 to 78.35% in 2011). In the same period, Muslim share in population has grown by a whopping 45% (14.2% in 2011 against 9.8% in 1961). As such, any impression that the Muslim growth rate is ‘paltry’ is simply self delusional. Of even more importance is the fact that Muslims have registered equivalent growth of 0.8% population share in the last 3 censuses consecutively.
- In many states, particularly Assam (34.2% in 2011 against in 30.9% in 2001), Kerala (26.6% in 2011 against in 24.7% in 2001), West Bengal (27% in 2011 against in 25.2% in 2001), Uttarakhand (13.9% in 2011 against 11.9% in 2001), Goa (8.4% in 2011 against 6.8% in 2001), Haryana (7% in 2011 against in 5.8% in 2001) and Delhi (12.9% in 2011 again 11.7% in 2001), share of Muslims in population has risen much faster. It is this demographic growth which has result in de-Hinduisation of villages after villages, in fact, whole of Talukas in Bengal and Assam and disturbingly being seen in pockets of North Kerala now.
- In 1909, UN Mukherjee had authored a book, Hindus, a dying race, based on his study of the continuous decrease of the Hindu’s share of population in undivided India. While the doomsday scenario painted by the author seems fanciful, it is a fact that the in 1881 (when the first census was taken), Muslims accounted for 20% of the Indian population. In 1941, they accounted for 24.3% while in 2011, Muslims comprise around 31.8% of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. For the Hindus, it has meant that from being close to 8 out of 10, they are now only 6 out of every 10 people inhabiting the Indian subcontinent.
Why
are the above figures important? All of us understand the power of compounding
in finances. How can then one assume that compounding would work differently in
population growth? If Pakistan had a growth rate equivalent to Bangladesh, its
population would have been lower by around 5 million. Likewise, if Bangladesh
had a growth rate similar to Pakistan, its population would have been higher by
some six million. A widening gap between Hindu and Muslim growth rates simply
means that the Muslim population share would keep on increasing in a geometric
progression.
And
all this is assuming that the census data is correct. To assume that is again
delusional. Any observer / resident of Andhra, Tamil Nadu and tribal belts of
Orissa, Bengal and Jharkhand would vouch that the Christian population has
increased dramatically. Data submitted by churches themselves indicate that
Christian population in India is closer to 4% rather than the declared 2%. If
we consider data reported by evangelists as authentic, then Christians have an
even higher population share. Plain and simple, currently a Scheduled Caste
person loses reservation benefits if the fact of conversion is reported. So,
while people may get baptized, they may worship and get married in churches,
their official documents record them as Hindus. If, the current Government, in
its urge to prove its secular credentials, does extend reservation benefits to
Dalit Christians, rest assured, the reported Christian population in India is
certain to register an exponential growth.
When
people talk of Bangladeshi infiltration, they miss that infiltration of Hindu
refugees actually pushes up the Hindu population share and growth rate. That it
is still relatively lower only shows the high growth rate of Abrahmic religions
in India. And since it can reasonably be assumed that while Hindus are
converting to Islam (particularly of the Love Jihad variety), the scale of
conversion is very low compared to Christian proselytization. As such, even
when accounting for Muslim Bangladeshis in India, Muslim growth is to a large
extent, is organic in nature.
What
is the cause behind higher growth of Muslims? While cultural and political
factors (including infiltration) certainly contribute, can some blame not be
apportioned to successive governments of India?
Indian
Government has been pushing for population control since decades. While the
message for population control may seem less pervasive now, what is curious is the focus of family planning – exclusively a Hindu face. Of all campaigns run by the Government, hardly any, if at all, advert had
any Muslim character (either in name or appearance) who was facing issues on
account of a large family or to who the message of family planning was being
disseminated. Remember your Doordarshan days and those sundry ads in various
newspapers and hoardings? The woman in question would always be wearing a bindi
and sindoor. Ever remember a woman with a burqua or a hijab? Or a man with a
skull cap or a Muslim beard? Maybe the Government’s efforts were not conscious.
But, subliminally, with Muslims missing from the frame, the message was that it
was the Hindus who needed to stop breeding.
If
only a change in demographics did not mean a change in culture, taboos and
territory, population growth of any community, for its own sake, would have
hardly been of any concern.
