Census 2011: Demographic Changes in India

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.

Take a stand Uddhav

But for the recent pre-election intrigues at Maharashtra, the BJP had over the years, perfected the art of being ‘ditched’ by its so-called allies. So strong was BJP’s sense of self-flagellation that multiple kicks by Mayawati in UP, Mamata in Bengal and Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu only heightened the urge of its leaders to be once again held in embrace by these parties, even when fully knowing the fate that would follow such alliances. Before Nitish, guided by the delusion of ruling India in 2014 itself, pulled out from the NDA, the BJP had begged, groveled, crawled, swallowed all indignities, parted with Lok Sabha seats, Rajya Sabha berths, in short, continued to act like a traditional Indian wife in an abusive marriage before the inevitable happened. Yet, all those snubs fall short of the divorce masterstroke played by Naveen Patnaik just before 2009 elections. While the BJP continued to press for its original share of seats, Naveen kept up the charade of bargaining to increase his seat share, as in his words – the BJD had gained strength owing to which ground realities had changed’, before pulling out of the alliance just days before the elections. To say that the BJP was nettled would be an understatement. Smug in its belief that the BJD would need its support in the post-election scenario, the BJP unleashed a vituperative campaign, even alleging Naveen’s involvement in the barbaric assassination of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati the year earlier, with some leaders even proclaiming in public rallies that the soul of departed saint would ensure that 2009 is Naveen’s Waterloo.

Well, the electorate thought otherwise. Naveen won a large majority single handedly and the BJP was reduced to single digits in the assembly, a situation which has only marginally improved even 5 years later. So clinically successful was Naveen’s severance in 2009 that even now the secularists celebrate it while the BJP continues to nurse a deep grudge against Naveen and even Pyari Mohan Mahapatro, the then architect of that divorce.

Given its experiences, it was quite ironical to see the BJP adopting Naveen’s book while shrugging off Shiv Sena as an inconvenient partner. The similar claims of higher seat share, the same sham of negotiations, the same last minute desertion, similar poaching of candidates from other parties, wholesale intake of office bearers across constituencies where the BJP’s presence was weak, (though not on a scale as big as Naveen). What was additional was confabulations with the enemy – Sharad Pawar, who seems to end up holding some or the other aces in all elections. It will be foolhardy to dismiss the likelihood that BJP dumped the Sena only after Pawar assured that it would do the same with Congress. Just notice how both the alliances came apart within hours of each other and even post election, NCP barely took time to declare its support to the BJP. Further, it is difficult to visualise that people as canny as Amit Shah and Narendra Modi would have run the risk of running a solo campaign against a Congress-NCP alliance, which even in its most discredited state, together command a vote share higher than that BJP.

Anyway, like Orissa 2009, Maharashtra 2014 too proved that people are hardly bothered with esoteric ideas like ‘betrayal’. So, even though it did not win an outright majority, it won enough to prove that it had indeed become decisively bigger than its erstwhile partner.

The similarities stop here. Unlike the BJP in Orissa, Sena was not decimated in Maharashtra. Not only did it protect most of its strongholds, it gained vote-share and seats to emerge as the second largest entity in Maharashtra. Further, while it is difficult to visualise Naveen seeking Congress support (and Congress reciprocating) had he fallen short, the BJP had no qualms in visibly embracing support of a party which large segments of Maharashtrians see as epitome of corruption and misrule. Add to that the reaction of BJP supporters. Those very people who had nothing but the choicest abuses for Naveen see no wrong in similar acts getting committed against its oldest ally. Lastly, while the angry BJP reconciled itself to an opposition role in Orissa, the Shiv Sena, is acting like the BJP would, when Maya, Mamata and Jaya were concerned. Probably it has something to do with the Hindu Nationalistic DNA of both the parties that make them act thus. Yet, the cringe-inducing behaviour of Sena has only succeeded in lowering its prestige in the eyes of the world.

While there are many reasons why Balasaheb and his bunch of Sainiks came to occupy a special place in the hearts of Maharashtrians, one aspect which defined Balasaheb, and by extension, the Sena, was his bravado backed by stubborn adherence to stands once taken, howsoever, politically incorrect they would be. Sena under Balasaheb was akin that neighbourhood toughie, who even with all his vices, is loved because the toughie is a man of his word, of conviction, is available on call and protects the neighbourhood in his own not-so-civil ways. Today, even though Uddhav has managed to score a victory of sorts, having held on to his forts and decisively reclaiming his father’s legacy from his usurper cousin, he is a much diminished leader. He is seen at most like a Maratha sardar of the olden days, who would swallow every indignity to curry some favours from the Delhi Sultanate. Why should people be blamed if they think so – is not the party of late Balasaheb reduced to a pathetic state of begging for invitations to oath taking ceremonies, of beseeching all influencers to gain a foothold in the state government, of any number of inconsequential ministries? This is a party where while at one time, Chhagan Bhujbal, the strongest strongman Sena has known, had to go virtually underground to escape Sainik’s wrath for deserting the party. Today, a political featherweight like Suresh Prabhu can join the central ministry, ostensibly on the Sena’s quota, without as much as a hello, thank you, from Uddhav!

Just what prevented Uddhav from pulling out of the NDA when the BJP so unceremoniously dumped it? What is it that keeps Uddhav hoping that the BJP would finally agree to take him in? Even if it does, will it be worth the immense harm it has already inflicted and will further inflict on the Sena’s image? Just what does it want? Play the role of an effective opposition or continue with its pusillanimity, hoping for crumbs from the BJP?

Let’s not think even for a moment that having tasted power on its own strength, the BJP would ever be willing to sup with Sena as even equal partners ever. They don’t need to. People have spoken. Yet, since both the Sena and the BJP tap a common voter-base for support, the BJP will try its level best to further shrink Sena, if possible to the point of oblivion or at least, to an inconsequential rump. Currently, the BJP holds the maximum number of MLAs from Mumbai, the heart of Sena. Why would the BJP agree to contest the coming civic elections as a junior partner of Sena? And if they fight even as equal partners, it would be a de jure acceptance of Sena of its diminished role in Maharashtra. As an opposition, the Sena stands a stronger chance of withstanding BJP’s onslaught. Not only will it be immune from the charges of commission and omission which will stick to it even if it supports the BJP from outside, it has potential to occupy more of the opposition space ceded by a receding Congress and those sections of the population which have a strong affinity to Hindutva related politics.

It is a sad commentary on the partisan nature of our politics that forget core BJP supporters, even traditional opponents of the BJP have found nothing objectionable in the NCP-BJP live-in. The BJP has every reason to thank NCP. Had it not been for its corruption, the public mood against the State Government may not have been that strong. Had it not been for Pawar’s assurances, the BJP might not have been able to cut Sena to size. But for its brazen support to its Government, the BJP would still have had to make amends with Shiv Sena. But, an alliance with Pawar, howsoever covert it might be, only damages the BJP’s sheen. An indulgent public may turn the blind eye today. Tomorrow, nothing stops them from declaring it as dyed in corruption as the ‘Naturally Corrupt Party.

Moving from Maharashtra, even though the BJP dumped Kuldeep Bishnoi’s Haryana Janhit Party too, the two dumping instances (Sena and HJC) are very different from each other. While agreements need to be honoured, they are entered into with an underlying assumption of the partner’s strenght. HJC even though bouyed by the Modi wave, miserably failed to display any strength in the Lok Sabha polls, with Bishnoi too losing his seat. Add to that HJC’s flirting with other parties (including Congress) tenuous connect with the NDA and a proclivity to run an independent campaign, BJP can be little faulted in parting ways from a vacuous, unreliable ally. The Sena’s case is different. Not only was the alliance old, it was based on a clear understanding of role of the larger party getting swapped in assembly and parliamentary elections. Even more, the Sena performed credibly well in the Lok Sabha elections too, proving that it was a worthy partner as far as electoral stakes were concerned.

Anyway, all analysis are passe. Uddhav has to decide – whether to uphold the Sena legacy and continue a tough, solitary struggle or get reduced to a political cipher in its thirst for immediate fruits of office.