Demographic danger! Why Muslim population growth is alarming

Source: Niticentral.com

Kiran Kumar S

Recently, I had a discussion on the religious demographics in India. One obvious question that came up was why the UPA Government hasn’t made the religious demographics data from 2011 census public yet?

It’s been three years since 2011 census data is available with the Government. Is three years’ time not long enough for any Government to make public; one of the most crucial part of the census? The religious demographics data shows religious populations by proportion. There are lots of theories around as to why this key data is not made public.

This made me curious about reviewing the prior census data more carefully.

This, below, is the only Hindu-Muslim demographics data from 2001 census that I could gather from India’s census website.

The two things which need to be highlighted are:-

» In 2001, 18.7 per cent of the Muslim population was in the 0-6 age-group. By 2014, they will be in their 13-19 age-group. For Hindus, it is 15.6 per cent which means that Muslims, on an average, have three more teenagers than the Hindus for every 100 people in their community. Within a few years, this group will be into their reproductive age.

» Female literacy rate in the Hindus was just 3.1 per cent more than that in the Muslims.

When talking about the number of children in a family, the female literacy rate is very important factor. There is not much difference between female literacy rates in the Hindus and in the Muslims. Then why the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), which is a universal scale to measure growth/decline rate of a particular community, is more in the Muslims than in the Hindus? 2001 census says that the Muslims had a TFR of 4.1, while the Hindus had 3.1. It means that in 2001, an average Muslim woman gave birth to four children and an average Hindu woman gave birth to three. One child more per family means; the Muslims on an average produced 32.26 per cent more children than the Hindus. To keep this article purely based on data, I am not including Sachhar Committee report, Uniform Civil Code, conversions, reservations, food habits and other such topics.

While studying this data, I came across a few more key questions. All data tend to indicate that, clearly, there is a religious reason for the Muslims to produce more children than other religious communities. This is a strong conclusion, but I couldn’t find anything else that can explain such significantly high population growth rate.

Why is Census 2011 silent on religious data?

If you don’t agree with me, and still believe that there is not much of a difference between the Muslim population growth rate and the Hindu population growth rate or if some committees made you believe that this difference is due to their educational or economic reasons, then the following questions are for you.

Key questions on the Hindu-Muslim population growth rate in India:

Q1: Between 1991 and 2001, India’s Muslim population grew at around 36 per cent and that of the Hindus at around 20 per cent. When there is not much difference between literacy rates and per capita incomes of the Hindus and the Muslims, then why there is this big difference in their respective population growth rate?

Q2: What can be the reason as to why the UPA Government has not released religious census details since 2011? Is it mainly because the psychological point of the Hindus constituting 80 per cent of our country’s population would have disappeared?

Q3: Azam Khan with Mulayam Singh Yadav called for a separate Muslim Pradesh in India’s largest State (UP), a few years back. Why do you think he is so confident of even calling for something as unconstitutional as this? Imam Bukhari, Akbaruddin Owaisi and many others keep talking about 20, 25 and 30 crore Muslims. Do they know something that a common man doesn’t know? By the way, the Samajwady Party and the MIM are still considered secular by Indian standards.

Owaisi clan’s provocative speeches

Q4: Two well-known professional demographers, late PN Mari Bhat and AJ Francis Zavier, had concluded that the fertility of the Muslims, which was about 10 per cent higher than that of the Hindus before independence, became 25 to 30 per cent higher than the Hindu rate by the end of 20th century. Taking the analysis further, the current Muslim population could be growing at a rate nearly 35 to 45 percent higher than that of the Hindus. The exact percentage can be contested; but the fact that it is a huge differential compared to the Hindu rate, can’t be snubbed. Why is this big difference?

Q5: Many claim that the higher Muslim fertility rate has been because of their poverty and illiteracy. But, close to 36 per cent of Indian Muslims live in urban areas; while only 26 per cent of Hindus do so. Also, the Muslims have a higher life expectancy at birth than the Hindus. Life expectancy is 68 years for the Muslims as against only 65 years for the Hindus, as revealed by National Family Health Survey (NFHS) of 2005-2006. But despite all this, the fertility rate of the Muslims continues to be higher than that of the Hindus. Why?

Q6: Take Kerala, for example, which is India’s most literate State. According to the National Family Health Survey 2 of 1998-99, the literacy level of the Hindus and the Muslims in Kerala was almost equal. The Muslims, there, are better off than the Hindus economically because of big remittances from Gulf countries. Still, the population growth rate of the Muslims has remained higher than that of the Hindus by 45 per cent. Why?

Q7: In Kerala, in 2001, the TFR for the Hindus was at 1.64 which is below the replacement level of 2.1. The State of Kerala has witnessed a massive increase in the Muslim population which rose from approximately 2375000 in 1951 to 7864000 in 2001. During the same period, the population of the Hindus grew from 8348000 to 1792000, and that of the Christians increased from 2826000 to 6057000. During the same period, the Hindus percentage in Kerala‘s population declined from 61.61 to 56.28, while that of the Muslims increased from 17.53 to 24.70. Interestingly the Christians, another minority group, saw their population percentage decline from 20.86 in 1951 to 19.02 in 2001. There’s a very good chance that in 2014, the population of Kerala’s Hindus (including HINOs – Hindus in Name only) would be below 50 per cent. Why?

Q8: A simple analysis of census 2001 shows that on an average, every Muslim woman is giving birth to at least one more child than a Hindu woman. The NFHS-3 (2005- 06) data shows that the prevalence of modern contraception like sterilisation, pills, IUD and condom is low among the Muslims at 36 per cent usage rate, compared to that in the Hindus at 50 per cent. So, growth rate in the Muslim population, in the next few decades, is likely to increase unless they start family planning. Is there any other reason to explain this significant one child difference between the two communities, other than religious?

Q9: An analysis of the 0-6 year age-group data from 2001 census reveals that out of 35 States and Union Territories, the percentage of the Muslims in that age-group was higher than that of the Hindus in as many as 31 States and Union Territories. While the percentage of the Hindus in that age-group was marginally higher than the Muslims only in two States of Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh and two Union Territories of Daman & Diu, Andaman & Nicobar Islands. It proves that in the coming decades, the Muslim population will grow at a higher rate than that of the Hindus in 31 States and Union Territories of India. Maybe, already it is happening as the data is 14-15 years old. Why there is such alarming difference in 31 out of the 35 States and Union Territories?

Q10: In India, in 2001, 15.6 per cent of the Hindus’ population was in 0-6 age group, while for the Muslims it was much higher at 18.7 per cent. There is a possibility that population of the Muslims in 0-6 age-group can be much higher than reported due to large scale illegal immigration of Bangladeshis to India (which Asom’s CM will deny for obvious political reasons). Hence today, the Muslims, for sure, have more children producing population within their community when compared to other groups. So, you can relatively expect more percentage growth of the Muslims in 2021 and 2031 census.

Q11: Let’s have a look at the States where the Muslims had better literacy rate than that of the Hindus in 2001. As per 2001 census, in Andhra Pradesh, the Hindu male and female literacy rate was 69.5 per cent and 49.2 per cent respectively, while that of the Muslim male and female was 76.5 per cent and 59.1 per cent respectively. But still, in 2001, the Total Fertility Rate for the Muslims was 0.5 higher than that of the Hindus. Why?

Similarly, in Gujarat, the Hindu male and female literacy rate was 79.1 per cent and 56.7 per cent respectively, while that of the Muslim male and female was 84.1 per cent and 71.2 per cent respectively. Even with such lead in literacy rate, the Muslim’s TFR was 0.2 above that of the Hindus. Why?

Q12: If you take a look at a State where Muslim literacy rate is lesser than that of the Hindus, the difference in TFR is alarming. In Haryana, in 2001, the Muslims had 35 per cent less literacy rate than that of the Hindus. But the TFR was 3.2 above that of the Hindus. The Muslims were producing 3 babies per woman more than the Hindus. Why?

Q13: In every region of India, the difference is stark and uniform. According to the 2001 census, in the North East, the Muslims produced more than 5 children on an average in 30 districts whereas the Hindus produced more than 5 children only in 2 districts (Thanks to illegal immigrants from Bangladesh). In Eastern part of India, the Muslims produced more than 5 babies in 35 districts as against the Hindus doing so only in 5 districts. In the west, the Muslims produced more than 5 babies in 8 districts as against the Hindus doing so only in 2 districts. In the North-West, the Muslims produced more than 5 babies in 31 districts as against the Hindus doing so only in 6 districts. In the south, the Muslims produced more than 3 babies per family in 24 districts whereas the Hindus produced more than 3 babies per family only in 5 districts. Overall in India, the Muslims produced more than 5 children on an average in 104 districts whereas the Hindus produced more than 5 children on an average only in just 15 districts.

Also, the Hindus produced less than 2 kids on an average in 79 districts of India whereas Muslims produced less than 2 kids on an average in just 26 districts of India. These differences may be much more striking in 2011 census, considering various factors discussed till now. This alarming difference must be explained. How do you explain this, friends?

Q14: In the year 1900, the Muslims constituted only 12 per cent of the world population; they grew to 18 per cent in 1992-93 (when Huntington published his first thesis on the clash of civilizations). Today, the Muslims constitute nearly 24 per cent of the world population. Don’t you see a pattern across the world, when it comes to relative population growth of all the religious groups?

160 crore Muslims in the world: Dainik Siyasat

Enough questions for now! These questions are just to initiate academic discussions and debates based on facts and figures instead of emotions and ideologies. It looks amply clear that religion is the prime reason because of which the Muslim population in India is growing way faster than that of the Hindus (and other groups). All other reasons look trivial.

But you can prove me wrong. Go ahead!

Anyone, with a correction or a question about the data produced above, is welcome.

PS: I have collated this data from various presentations and graphs that are all available on the internet. Since the numbers are from different researchers such as S Irudaya Rajan, Ram Kumar Ohri, A Surya Prakash and Aariz Mohammed, there might be small differences. You can contest or correct the facts.