Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Dayal Baba]

So what are your fears and in what way and what time frame do you think they may materialise?

was that question for me?

I dont know ... but i will tell you what my fear is.

about 60 years ago a community decided to split the nation on the basis of religion. and religion only! Millions were massacred. Punjabis and Bengalis really saw the brunt of this issue ... since they had borders with pakistan.

Yes. It would only be fair to add here that people were massacred on both sides.

One of those nations almost completely wiped out the minority population. Other nation had *hiji!

And thank god for the latter. Look at where the respective nations are today. Do you really want to benchmark India with Pakistan?

and nothing to be said about the former! some silly logic from you. it is like removing the bad phase in a batsman's career and taking the average in the good phase as the career average.

The only Muslim majority state in India wants to secede to pakistan.

On what basis do you say this?

How do you explain the 64% voter turnout (higher than most other states) in the recent elections despite a call by separatists to boycott the polls?

How do you explain the complete rout of the leading separatist leader (Sajjad Leone) who contested in the Indian general elections?

How do you explain the rout of the more fundamental political party (PDP) in the same elections?

doesn't this state insist on special status enshrined in the hideous article 370? that our jawans can die while maintaining law and order there, but cannot buy land there! as an added bonus you have the same abdullah family in power which oversaw the ethnic cleansing of dirty idolators to keep the state nice and pure!

The muslim population in India which was 5% of the overall population is now 13% of population and counting.

So? I see it as a matter of pride that my country provides an environment that allows such minorities to thrive. I dont want to benchmark with basket case states such as Pakistan.

i see it as a matter of shame that we continue to refer a population of 150 million as a minority!

[keep-it-cool]

At 5% what do you call them?

Anyway, 150m out of 1.2 / 1.3 bn is less than 15%!

[Dayal Baba]

At 5% what do you call them?

Anyway, 150m out of 1.2 / 1.3 bn is less than 15%!

do we refer to marathis, shopkeepers, teenagers as minorities?
a minority is a group which has been subordinated by a dominant majority to the extent where it can have no political power. like, say, the gay community.
the trace hindu population in an islamic country like pakistan can be called a minority.
since india is a secular country, there should be no question of minorities on the basis of religion.

[WicketView]

At 5% what do you call them?

Anyway, 150m out of 1.2 / 1.3 bn is less than 15%!

do we refer to marathis, shopkeepers, teenagers as minorities?
a minority is a group which has been subordinated by a dominant majority to the extent where it can have no political power. like, say, the gay community.
the trace hindu population in an islamic country like pakistan can be called a minority.
since india is a secular country, there should be no question of minorities on the basis of religion.

While we are secular, it is hard to deny that there has been a religious rift ... the history of communal disturbances are proof of that. And so are the posts on this thread, by all of us that show that this is a division that clearly exists in our minds.

[keep-it-cool]

Exactly. We do not live in an ideal world and, therefore, there will be religious minorities for some time to come - rightly so.

[Cover Point]

Wanted to add a couple of things to a post I mostly agree with:

One of those nations almost completely wiped out the minority population. Other nation had *hiji!

...
And thank god for the latter.

It is bad enough that so many people lost so much near the borders, or in the other countries. Are we not glad that some sense of sanity prevailed in our country?

yes we are glad. but that does not change the fact that some .... specifically people around the two borders in india ...lost a lot more ... and have a closer sense of reality. have seen the hatred first hand.

i am glad the sense of sanity prevailed. but i am not sure .... and here i am truly not sure ....  as in can be convinced either way .... that we are better off as a secular country. Would we have been better off as a tolerant non secular country with a clear separation of church and state? I dont know.

The only Muslim majority state in India wants to secede to pakistan.

On what basis do you say this?

How do you explain the 64% voter turnout (higher than most other states) in the recent elections despite a call by separatists to boycott the polls?

How do you explain the complete rout of the leading separatist leader (Sajjad Leone) who contested in the Indian general elections?

How do you explain the rout of the more fundamental political party (PDP) in the same elections?

Does this mean that CP suggests that we are holding onto Kashmir inspite of the people of the state wanting otherwise?

yes.

[keep-it-cool]

Well, how do you then explain the defeat of the separatists and the record turnout for polls despite calls for a boycott?

[Cover Point]

Well, how do you then explain the defeat of the separatists and the record turnout for polls despite calls for a boycott?

one election result does not prove anything. did the congress backed government not win in early 90's

[keep-it-cool]

And they are still winning

Anyway, forget the result. What about the turnout? It has been higher than in most "hindu majority" states. And it has been rising with each successive election. These are hardly signs of people who want to separate. I think you are talking about things as they were decades back. People now just want to be left alone in peace to carry on with their lives. The "terrorist" is Kashmir is no longer the home grown one, he is a mercenary. I am not saying that there is no local support ...just that whatever support is there is more driven by factors such as greed, fear, brainwashing rather than borne out of any grand vision for a seccession to Pak or a separate Kashmiri nation.

[dextrous]

I'm confused as to how over-population is a good thing and unsure about this Kashmir discussion.

[keep-it-cool]

Over population is not a good thing. But to assign the whole (or large part of) blame for that to a sub 15% section of the population is silly.

The Kashmir discussion is a tangential one.

[dextrous]

Over population is not a good thing. But to assign the whole (or large part of) blame for that to a sub 15% section of the population is silly.

Much like Catholics in America reproduce at a much higher rate than protestants, muslims reproduce at a higher rate than Hindus due to religious reasons.

Let's not dispute facts.

The problem is the political will to introduce sex education and promote the use of birth control among Muslims as India is suffering far more from over-population issues than the US. The government needs to assure that parents are able to take care of the children they're producing--much like child services ensures that children are not just left to fend for themselves in many Western countries.

[keep-it-cool]

Over population is not a good thing. But to assign the whole (or large part of) blame for that to a sub 15% section of the population is silly.

Much like Catholics in America reproduce at a much higher rate than protestants, muslims reproduce at a higher rate than Hindus due to religious reasons.

Let's not dispute facts.

The problem is the political will to introduce sex education and promote the use of birth control among Muslims as India is suffering far more from over-population issues than the US. The government needs to assure that parents are able to take care of the children they're producing--much like child services ensures that children are not just left to fend for themselves in many Western countries.

What I am saying is that even if Muslims as a section stop growing or growth rate tends down to the Hindu growth rate, it will not be the end to our population woes. Their share of our population may have grown but they are still less than 15% of the population.

Let us not oversimplify things.

[flute]

I think those who are concerned about muslim population are confusing two separate issues.

A. Fear of spread of extremism because of growing muslim population.
B. India's problems because of population explosion.

I think myself, KIC and others are talking about B only while others are talking about B but are really concerned about A, as is clearly mentioned by SSL,Ruchir,Dex etc., which is why there is no meeting ground.

If we are not comfortable with muslim population growth, doesn't it follow that we are not comfortable with current muslim population? if we really think about it, A above is really not about muslim population growth rate. It has to do with their alleged fundamentalist/extremist tendencies, their support for terror, their alleged unpatriotic attitude, their alleged refusal to be part of mainstream etc. In such scenario, if those alleged attitudes are corrected or rectified or proved to be myths, we really need not dissect into communal growth rate issues, isn't it? afterall nobody on this DG is concerned with jains growth rates, right?

Coming to these alleged muslim backward looking tendencies not in the interest of the nation etc., we have had long debate on it, din't we? Do we really need to look at A above again?

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely some truth in the allegation that Islam tends to be violent. I will be dishonest if I do not mention that I do share some of the misgivings about A (especially rapid demographic changes leading to civil war etc.) but I refuse to treat Islam as one monolithic entity, just like hindus, Islam has several strains and schools of thought. Unfortunately, India has been a theatre of sorts for the conflict between these two strains, one tolerant and all inclusive strain represented by Akbar,Dara Shukoh while the extremist Wahabism is represented by Aurangazeb and current LeT etc. Come to think of it, if Dara Shukoh won over Aurangazeb, may be, we would never have partitioned the nation in 1947.

[Cover Point]

what can i say ...

flute you have put all the facts down ... and have acknowledged the real issues (your issue A) and then in one sweeping statement swept it under the carpet.

Islamic fundamentalism is a real issue and needs to be addressed. Its a threat to the entire world and India specifically. That is a discussion worth having.

Its almost as big an issue as gangulianism!

[flute]

what can i say ...

flute you have put all the facts down ... and have acknowledged the real issues (your issue A) and then in one sweeping statement swept it under the carpet.

Islamic fundamentalism is a real issue and needs to be addressed. Its a threat to the entire world and India specifically. That is a discussion worth having.

Its almost as big an issue as gangulianism!

CP, you seem to behave like a gangulian in non-cricket related matters 

by your own take, I laid out all the facts..if something is swept somewhere, how can you find it in my post? Anyway, my attampt was to broaden the concern regarding muslim population and discuss it for it really is, instead of shadow boxing around 9% this, 9% that etc.

[dextrous]

Over population is not a good thing. But to assign the whole (or large part of) blame for that to a sub 15% section of the population is silly.

Much like Catholics in America reproduce at a much higher rate than protestants, muslims reproduce at a higher rate than Hindus due to religious reasons.

Let's not dispute facts.

The problem is the political will to introduce sex education and promote the use of birth control among Muslims as India is suffering far more from over-population issues than the US. The government needs to assure that parents are able to take care of the children they're producing--much like child services ensures that children are not just left to fend for themselves in many Western countries.

What I am saying is that even if Muslims as a section stop growing or growth rate tends down to the Hindu growth rate, it will not be the end to our population woes. Their share of our population may have grown but they are still less than 15% of the population.

Let us not oversimplify things.

Are most educated Hindus not down to two children a household? Can you say the same about educated urban Muslims?

I realize some on this thread are talking about extremism, etc. and "blaming" but my point is quite different here--Hindus are cutting down on the population growth but Muslims are not. If Muslims were 1% or 3% of the population, nobody would pay attention, but 16% of a billion does form a large chunk.

Now, overpopulation is not the only problem; a poor family producing multiple children they cannot take care of is only creating cycles of poverty (and no, that's not the only reason for poverty but it surely does not help to have 10 mouths to feed).

[keep-it-cool]

Over population is not a good thing. But to assign the whole (or large part of) blame for that to a sub 15% section of the population is silly.

Much like Catholics in America reproduce at a much higher rate than protestants, muslims reproduce at a higher rate than Hindus due to religious reasons.

Let's not dispute facts.

The problem is the political will to introduce sex education and promote the use of birth control among Muslims as India is suffering far more from over-population issues than the US. The government needs to assure that parents are able to take care of the children they're producing--much like child services ensures that children are not just left to fend for themselves in many Western countries.

What I am saying is that even if Muslims as a section stop growing or growth rate tends down to the Hindu growth rate, it will not be the end to our population woes. Their share of our population may have grown but they are still less than 15% of the population.

Let us not oversimplify things.

Are most educated Hindus not down to two children a household? Can you say the same about educated urban Muslims?

Do you have any data or is this anecdotal? Anecdotally, most urban educated Muslims I know do not have more than two children either.

I realize some on this thread are talking about extremism, etc. and "blaming" but my point is quite different here--Hindus are cutting down on the population growth but Muslims are not. If Muslims were 1% or 3% of the population, nobody would pay attention, but 16% of a billion does form a large chunk.

If your point is only w.r.t. population growth, I dont see any merit in isolating the Muslim component. Hindu population growth rate is 20%. That may be lower than the 29% growth for Muslims & 26% growth for Jains but is not a small number - especially when you consider that the base is so much higher.

Let us do some simple arithmetic. Assume that the Muslim rate of growth (29%) comes off to that of Hindus (20%). The overall rate of population growth will come down from 21% to 20%. Not much difference, is there?

The population problem is not just a Muslim problem - it is across the board.

Now, overpopulation is not the only problem; a poor family producing multiple children they cannot take care of is only creating cycles of poverty (and no, that's not the only reason for poverty but it surely does not help to have 10 mouths to feed).

Poor families (not just Muslims) produce more children in the hope that they will have more earning hands. It is a problem but unless there is some level of social security it is difficult to dissuade people on this front.