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.

Defend Minority Rights - Liberal Style

How a society treats its poorest and most helpless citizens, often a minority group, is indicative of its strength. While this statement has been ‘Indianised’ to refer only to minorities, its righteous rhetoric cannot be ignored.

Since the protection and furtherance of all minority ‘causes’ is the life defining mission of our ‘liberals’, it is quite surprising to see that rather than protecting, they have ganged up against one of the most vulnerable minorities in India – the Vegetarians!

Contrary to the image of India being a vegetarian land, the vast majority of Indians consume meat. In 2004, as per the Anthropological Survey of India (as against a pop survey by CNN-IBN), barely 220 million Indians out of 1028 million (2001 census) were vegetarians. Even within traditional vegetarian communities, more and more families are taking up meat and fowl consumption. Hence, not only are the vegetarians a minority; horror of horrors, they are a declining minority in dire need of state protection to shore up their numbers and way of life! Without adequate safeguards, it is likely that they will be overwhelmed and consumed by the majoritarian meat-eaters in the country. What a travesty that would be? A beautiful strand of Indian diversity getting subsumed by that anaconda of majoritism! Even the die-hard meat eater will agree that an India sans vegetarians will militate against the very ‘Idea of India’, whosoever’s it is.

Then why, why is this hapless minority the butt of ridicule and attacks from the very people who are supposed to protect them?

The resident agony aunt of ‘secularists’ in India, the venerable Outlook ran a story of how Jains (a very small minority) are terrorizing the palate of Muslims by insisting that their sacred town, Patilana, be declared vegetarian. Soon after, the relapsed Open The Magazine ran another story on Vegetarian Terrorism, bemoaning how the evangelical vegetarians want all to survive on grass and yet again coming down on the Jain minority for seeking to protect, practice and propagate their religious beliefs. But, how could they? Jains, being vegetarians and numerically much smaller than Muslims are a huge (sic) minority. Then, should not the weaker minority be supported in the clash of two minorities?

It must be quite a lapse of judgement for the venerable Outlook to agitate against a sect which is double-minority and granting of minority status for whom, it celebrated only months back. After all, isn’t respect for minority practices a cornerstone of ‘liberal’ activism? Not only do these liberals need to stop protesting against these minorities, they should launch a campaign to protect those vegetarian property owners from those majoritarian meat-eaters who insist on becoming their tenants. The issue is of course not whether an individual’s right of ownership. It is simply religious identity. How can the majoritarian meat-eaters force minority vegetarians to dance to their tunes? Taking the campaign ahead, these liberals should fight for the right of those vegetarian run establishments who do not want meat to be cooked / warmed in their premises. As a next step ‘liberals’ need to get a hate law passed to protect the hapless vegetarian against jibes of her meat eating acquaintance, who asks with mock concern ‘ how do you survive on grass?’, ‘but what do you eat other than paneer in restaurants?’ ‘why don’t you try chicken/mutton/fish?’ This done, ‘liberals’ must pressurise the Government to legislate tough laws on the lines of dalit and women protection laws, to prevent harassment and intimidation of this vanishing minority.

As in the case of sexual orientation, vegetarianism is both a choice and a result of conditioning. So, why should the paternal protection sought for one not be offered to the other group?

Who exactly is a minority in India? The answer is a little complex. For the layperson, any individual or group, which is less than 50% of the total group of people, comprises a minority. However, in the Indian ‘secular’ parlance, the minorities are a broad spectrum group comprising of Muslims, women, tribals, dalits etc. Now, if some 90% of the population gets identified as minorities, how can a mere 10% of the population be considered a majority?

Very clearly, the assumption that minority must equal helplessness, weakness is flawed. After all, a handful of British ruled over India’s teeming millions. And, isn’t it the numerically insignificant tiger, which sits at the apex of the food chain, even when the jungle is full of herbivores?
 

But, paradoxically, for Indian ‘secularists’, some groups remain ‘minorities’ irrespective of absence of any weaknesses attributable to their being a ‘minority’. Hence, an Allahabad High Court judgement pronouncing that Muslims were not a minority (owing to their history, size and political influence) was treated with derision with many ‘secularists’ offering to teach basic arithmetic to the learned judge of the court. So, in India, the matter is settled. Any person who is not a Hindutvawadi, preferably an ‘upper’ caste, Hindu male, is a minority. Hindu here specifically excludes followers of Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism and for some, followers of Kashmiri Shaivism and the Lingayats.

So, any action by any person who belongs to this abominable group, if against any member of the numerous ‘minorities’ populating India, becomes a communal act. Hence, the crass actions of a Shiv Sena MP becomes an attack on Indian secularism only because the person who was at the receiving end of this ‘religious persecution’ happened to be a Muslim, who was fasting even at night! Wonder why non-Muslim students being denied mid-day meals or being forced to have lunch in school toilets in some North Kerala districts are not seen as worthy of concern, particularly when they too are minorities in those Muslim-majority lands?