It remains to be seen who is informed and who is obfuscating.
please don't let your strong feelings regarding this issue cloud your judgement. You disappoint me.
My first post on this thread clearly showed the inaccuracies that WN posted.
I clearly posted the correct numbers, where did you get that 29% rate for muslims? din't my post clearly mention 29% for muslims? did you find anything incorrect or wrong in the trends or figures ( with due respect to disclaimers I posted) ?
IF NOT, how can you in your right mind, think that I am ill informed?
By playing with numbers you actually tried to play down the fact that there is 9% difference in Muslim and Hindu growth.
You are again letting your apprehensions/fears regarding muslims get the better of you. The intention behind my paragraph you quoted is to assuage the alarmist tendencies, to establish the fact that hindus are not about to become minority in their own country. I included absolute numbers to establish how difficult it is to overtake hindus. This was made an issue by right wing hindu groups mainly to scare hindus into thinking that it is imminent unless they do something about it. The same congress divide and rule strategy, in a new garb.
This is also in stark contrast to WN's ill informed "hindus are declining while only muslims are multiplying' post. But, Of course, you , in your objective mind think that I am ill informed and obfuscating while WN's is not. anyway, apology accepted.
What do % show? They show a trend. Do you know that Muslim fertility is more than Hindu fertility? That mean one Muslims family will have more kids than a Hindu family. This is probably why WN said Mr. Azad needs to take care of his community.
Let us even take numbers. 687 million hindus in 1991 added 140 million more by 2001. 101 million Muslims in 1991 added 37 million more by 2001. Does it not look clear that the smaller sect of population is actually adding more number relatively to the larger sect? So while the larger sect must be educated to control their growth, it is the fastest growing sect that needs most attention simply because they are growing at the fastest rate!!
sorry not sure what you are trying to say, 9% is 9%, you can say it in thousand words or 10 words, not sure how repeating it in multiple and diverse ways is going to establish whatever it is you are trying to establish. As far as I know, nobody on this thread denied 9% difference.
BTW, 1991 census did not count J&K state. So there may not have been any drop in growth of Mulsims!! This 29% growth figure may actually be something like 31 or 32%!!
is it just your gut feeling or do you have anything more solid, atleast circumstantial evidence of J&K population trends to support this? Did you even stop to think about what numbers it takes to move it from 29% to 32%? Did you think about the proportion of J&K population to entire muslim population and think about what kind of fertility rates J&K people need to have to tilt the whole country's muslim growth rate by 2 or 3 %? oh BTW, there is long standing extremism and high stress terrorism going in that region for a long time now, where scores of people die in case you forgot about it. For your esteemed information, muslim population in entire J&K is around 68 or 70 % (too lazy to go check, so from memory, please don't take this and jump up and down) , muslims are may be around 7 million in 2001. Now, please go ahead and do your math and see what it takes for J&K people to move that 29% to 31 or 32%.
In fact your above quote regarding J&K shows how clouded and biased your opinion is.
I actually hope that they achieve what you are alleging by 2011. They will have to spend so much time in bedrooms that there did be no protest , no terror in that state -:)
In fact 2001 census has shown that 64% of Muslims live in rural area while 74% of Hindus live in rural area. What does that tell you? I tried hard to find figures of Hindus and Muslims actually below poverty line but couldn't (may be you can if you try), so I took the urban / rural figures.
Not sure of your experience, but I found rural muslims to be more integrated and more in tune with rest of the society compared to urban muslims. This is also what I hear from other sources, books etc. Especially in AP, while urban muslims are aggressive and flaunt their identity , rural muslims are impossible to make out until they tell you that they are muslims. Rural muslims speak fluent telugu and in fact more informed about the state culture, traditions, folklore etc.
IMO, Urban muslims are artificially prevented from mainstream integration by vested interests, mullahs, foreign funds, communal parties etc. This keeps them in ghettos perpetually without access modern education or economic propsperity. There is also ample evidence to suggest that mullahs actually encourage this urban muslim constituency to produce more kids in total contravention of national policy. SO, again IMO, eventhough more muslims are in urban areas, they are in fact not benefiting from it because of vested interests, coupled with nature of Islam which is more strict and which has more violent past and present, this results in more extremism in that community. BUT, I am sure , the only answer is education and economic prosperity coupled with strict vigil on anti-national activities and illegal immigration. This is only to integrate them into mainstream. Indian govt. should also keep a close tab on import of extremist variety of Islam i.e Wahabism from Arab countries.
As for population control, any attempt or talk about one specific community is counter productive and ill advised. Health minister of India has no religion. Asking a huge country's health minister to concentrate on his community is not much different from what those mullahs are doing to muslims. It will only lead to race and competition to produce more kids to beat each other. Who suffers as a result? of course, as always INDIA.
AuthorTopic: India's health minister on electrification (Read 1539 times)
July 21, 2006, 10:01:31 PM