«

»

Mar ৩১

The Question of ‘Endangered’ or ‘Dying’ Hindus

In 1909, a Hindu communalist by the name of Colonel U.N. Mukherji wrote a pamphlet Hindus: A Dying Race. His projections, based on the study of census data between 1881 and 1901, suggested that Hindu demographic share was declining with every passing decade. Col. Mukherji met Swami Shraddhanand of Arya Samaj at Calcutta in 1911. His novice study prompted Swami Shraddhanand to formulate Shuddhi and Sangathan. It was a project to bring back converted Hindus into their native Hindu fold. The rest is history!

 

In recent years, in analyzing India's religious demography, the authors [all non-demographers] of the book – “Religious Demography of India”, Joshi et al., have explicitly stated that there is much Indian Religionists – a term used as an euphemism for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains – need to fear. They claimed, "The proportion of Indian Religionists in the population of India has declined by 11 percentage points during the period of 110 years … Indian Religionists formed 79.32 per cent of the population in 1881 and 68.03 per cent in 1991 … If the trend … continues, then the proportion of Indian Religionists in India is likely to fall below 50 per cent early in the latter half of the 21st century." As can be seen the authors purposively included Pakistan and Bangladesh in their rhetoric. The sly authors don’t tell their readers that for the present Indian Union, the “decline” has been trivial in the last 100 years (e.g., from 86.64 % in 1901 to 85.09 % in 1991). But who wants to do the math when the politically motivated, chauvinist, non-demographers are doing all the hard work for their mesmerized audience!

Since the publication of this Hindu Mein Kamf of sort, touted as a ‘landmark’ work by former Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, many Hindu communalists and fanatics of the Hindutva have played the religious card too well to drum up support within the broader Hindu community. They claim, like those authors, that "pocket of high Muslim influence seems to be now developing in the northern border belt covering Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and Assam. And a border pocket of even more intense Christian influence has developed in the north-eastern states". Now the issue has become a national one catapulting many obscure, chauvinist political figures to national roles. It won’t be any surprise when the Hindu fundamentalist BJP (a member of the Sangh Parivar) wins the next national election in India and her one-time tea hawker Narendra Modi (now the chief minister of Gujarat) becomes the Prime Minister.   

As I have noted before, these narrow-minded Hindu fanatics are simply oblivious of the various factors that contribute to demographic changes in a landscape – e.g., the fertility and mortality rates, socio-economic conditions, female literacy, urbanization, family planning and migration. In a 2005 paper, “District Level Fertility Estimates for Hindus and Muslims,” Professor S Irudaya Rajan of Center for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India, provided estimates of crude birth rates (CBR) and total fertility rates (TFR) for Hindus and Muslims for 594 districts of India, and assessed the state and district level differentials across the country. It reconfirms that there is a regional variation in fertility in India, with higher fertility in the north than in the southern and western parts, irrespective of religious affiliation.

 

Professor Rajan’s analysis showed that while the difference is narrow or negligible in south and west India, a significantly higher rate of Muslim fertility is observed in eastern and north-eastern India. The difference in Hindu-Muslim fertility is far higher in states like West Bengal, Assam, the north-eastern states and a few northern states. But in other parts of the country, Muslim fertility is falling in line with Hindu fertility as the difference is narrow both at higher and lower levels of fertility. This sharp differential in fertility among Hindus and Muslims in northern and eastern parts of India can be explained by the female literacy differentials by religion in these states rather than any other social-economic variable. As demographers have found out female education always emerges as a major predictor for fertility differentials. Table 1 depicts the differences in total fertility rate (TFR) and female literacy rates (FLR) among Hindus and Muslim in different states and union territories in India. Interestingly, all those states recording much higher Muslim fertility than that for Hindus have very low female literacy levels among Muslims. The largest differential between Hindu-Muslim female literacy is in Haryana, where female literacy among Muslims is as low as 21.5 % compared to 57.1 % among Hindus.

 

Table 1: The differentials in total fertility rate (TFR) and female literary rates (FLR) between Muslims and Hindus in India (by states and Union territories) in 2001

 

Indian States or Union Territories

TFR-delta

FLR-delta

Jammu & Kashmir

0.5

-24.1

Himachal Pradesh

1.5

-21.1

Punjab

1.2

-24.9

Chandigarh

1.9

-17.9

Uttaranchal

2.2

-21.4

Haryana

3.2

-35.6

Delhi

1.6

-16.3

Rajasthan

0.7

-2.4

Uttar Pradesh

0.7

-5.7

Bihar

0.6

-1.9

Sikkim

1.7

-8.5

Arunachal Pradesh

1.6

-7.5

Nagaland

2.6

-32.3

Manipur

2

-23.1

Mizoram

1.9

-23.8

Tripura

1.7

-15.9

Meghalaya

2.2

-25.1

Assam

2.3

-20.9

West Bengal

1.9

-13.3

Jharkhand

1.1

3.5

Orissa

0.7

11.7

Chhattisgarh

-0.4

23.2

Madhya Pradesh

-0.1

11.1

Gujarat

0.2

6.8

Daman & Diu

-0.6

8

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

-0.3

34.2

Maharashtra

0.8

4.9

Andhra Pradesh

0.5

9.9

Karnataka

0.9

7.7

Goa

1.3

-4.2

Lakshadweep

1.7

-16

Kerala

1.1

-1.2

Tamil Nadu

0.3

13.8

Pondicherry

0.1

10.1

Andaman & Nicobar

-0.5

11.7

 

I have analyzed the data statistically and found that there is a strong correlation between the differentials in TFR and FLR:

TFR-delta = 0.823 – 0.0484 FLR-delta

with a R-sq(adj) of 73.1%. However, if the data for Jammu and Kashmir, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Andaman & Nicobar, and Punjab (with high residual errors) are discarded from the analysis, the correlation is much improved with a R-sq(adj) of 88.1%. The corresponding regression equation then becomes:

TFR-delta = 0.908 – 0.0532 FLR-delta.

 

The data strongly corroborate the well-known fact that the two parameters have inverse relationship, i.e., when female literacy rate goes up, the total fertility rate goes down (see Figure 1).

 

Figure 1: Total Fertility Rate as a function of Female Literacy Rate in India (2001)

data-1

 

 

Prof. Rajan’s study also reconfirms regional variation in fertility in India: higher fertility in the north compared to the southern and western parts of India, which is true irrespective of religious affiliation. For instance, the illiterate women in Kerala have fewer children compared to illiterate women in Madhya Pradesh or anywhere else in India.

 

As shown in Table 2, in south and east India, fertility has declined among Muslims and Hindus alike and in states with high fertility both the religious groups show a similar phenomenon. During the 1991-2001 decade, the Hindu growth rate in north-west showed an increase; this was also true for Muslims in the north-east and west.

 

Table 2: % Annual growth rate amongst Hindus and Muslims by region in India in various decades (from 1951 to 2001)

 

 

Region

1951-61

1961-71

1971-81

1981-91

1991-2001

Hindus

South

1.52

1.94

1.97

1.77

1.22

Hindus

North-east

3.22

3.2

2.12

1.78

1.3

Hindus

East

2.09

2.02

1.98

1.95

1.71

Hindus

West

1.89

2.62

2.25

2.23

2

Hindus

North-west

1.87

1.01

2.43

2.23

2.32

Hindus

India

1.87

1.93

2.16

2.04

1.82

Muslims

South

1.66

2.93

2.51

2.37

1.66

Muslims

North-east

3.39

2.21

3.29

2.53

2.63

Muslims

East

2.95

2.68

2.61

2.9

2.67

Muslims

West

2.12

3.58

2.99

2.64

2.86

Muslims

North-west

3.71

2.24

2.67

3.24

2.86

Muslims

India

2.82

2.69

2.7

2.84

2.57

 

[Note that the latest 2011 Indian census data do not provide religion-based information. As such, much of the analysis and discussion that follows below is based on previous census data.]

When it comes to fertility rate, socio-economic condition does matter. This well-known fact is reflected in the Indian census data. Even in the demographically developed state of Kerala (which has the highest literacy rate – 94% in India), the population growth rates of Hindu brahmins are much lower than that of Hindu nairs, followed by Hindu ezhavas. Similarly among Christians, Syrian Christians’ growth rates are lower than that of Latin Christians. In the post-partition early decades Kerala’s population growth rate was not only high (above 2% per annum) by its own standards, but also higher than India’s growth rates several decades after independence. During the 1991-2001 decade Kerala’s growth rate was just 0.9 % per annum as against India’s 1.9. Similarly, between 1981-91 and 1991-2001, the Muslim growth rate in India has shown a decrease from 3.2 % per annum to 2.9 % per annum.

 

In the pre- and early British era of colonization of India, Muslims, in general, who were economically more prosperous than other religious groups, had a lower growth rate. As their socio-economic condition deteriorated during the British colonial era and after Indian independence, the growth rate increased. Professor Rajan’s demographic study (see Table 3) also shows that at the beginning of the 20th century, Muslim growth rates were slightly lower than that for Hindus. Since then, Muslims in India registered higher growth rates in comparison to Hindus as well as the total population right through the last 100 years. Even during the influenza decade of 1911-21, India’s growth rate was zero and the Hindus registered a negative growth rate. Muslims registered a minimal growth of just 0.1 % per annum. The defining moment of both the Hindu and Muslim population growth rate was after independence. Muslims registered a negative growth rate of 1.8 % per annum in 1941-1951 resulting from the large-scale movement of people from India to Pakistan. On the other hand, Hindus registered the highest growth rate of close to 2.4 %. As the table 3 and figure below show, the growth rates of Hindus and Muslims in the post-independence decades, Hindu population growth hovered between 2.0-2.2 % per annum whereas Muslims growth was between 2.7-2.8 %. In other words, both groups grew by more than 2 % per annum during 1961-1991.

 

Table 3: % Annual growth rate in India amongst various religious groups (1901-2001)

Decade

Total

Hindus

Muslims

Christians

Sikhs

Jains

Buddhists

Others

1901-11

0.6

0.5

0.3

2.6

2.6

-0.8

1.5

1.2

1911-21

0

-0.1

0.1

1.9

0.6

-0.6

0.7

-0.6

1921-31

1

1

1.4

2.9

2.8

0.7

1.3

-0.5

1931-41

1.1

0.6

1.7

0.4

2.8

1.3

-3.5

7.5

1941-51

1.5

2.4

-1.8

3.7

4.4

1.5

4.1

-11.7

1951-61

2

1.9

2.8

2.5

2.3

2.3

29

-11.1

1961-71

2.2

2.1

2.7

2.8

2.8

2.5

1.5

1.5

1971-81

2.2

2.2

2.7

2.1

2.3

2.1

2.1

0

1981-91

2.1

2

2.8

1.2

2.3

0.4

3

4.9

1991-2001

1.9

1.82

2.57

2

1.6

2.3

2.1

6.6

 

data-2

 

In the post partition era, Muslims as a whole appear to have 0.75 % higher annual growth rate than majority Hindus (e.g., 2.57% compared to 1.82% in 1991-2001). And unless their socio-economic conditions improve significantly with jobs and education, esp. amongst the Muslim females, this trend may continue for a foreseeable future.

 

I share below the size of the population in 15 Indian states (representing approx. 90% of the population) from 1951 to 2011.

Indian State

1951

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

West Bengal

26299980

34926279

44312011

54580647

68077965

80176197

91,276,115

Andhra Pradesh

31095259

35983447

43502708

53551026

66508008

76210007

84,580,777

Assam

8028856

10837329

14625152

18041248

22414322

26655528

31,205,576

Bihar

37782271

46447457

56353369

69914734

64530554

82998509

104,099,452

Gujarat

16262657

20633350

26697475

34085799

41309582

50671017

60,439,692

Haryana

5673614

7590524

10036431

12922119

16463648

21144564

25,351,462

Karnataka

19401956

23586772

29299014

37135714

44977201

52850562

61,095,297

Kerala

13559118

16903715

21347375

25453680

29098518

31841374

33,406,061

Madhya Pradesh

26071637

32372408

41654119

52178844

48566242

60348023

72,626,809

Maharashtra

32002564

39553718

50412235

62782818

78937187

96878627

112,374,333

Orissa

14645946

17548846

21944615

26370271

31659736

36804660

41,974,218

Punjab

9160500

11135069

13551060

16788915

20281969

24358999

27,743,338

Rajasthan

15970774

20155602

25765806

34261862

44005990

56507188

68,548,437

Tamil Nadu

30119047

33686953

41199168

48408077

55858946

62405679

72,147,030

Uttar Pradesh

63219655

73754573

88341521

110862512

132061653

166197921

199,812,341

 

The percentage of majority Hindus and minority Muslims living in these 15 Indian states, as per 2001 Indian census, is shown below.

Indian State

Muslim-2001

% Muslim

Hindu-2001

% Hindu

West Bengal

20240543

25.2%

58104835

72.5%

Andhra Pradesh

6986856

9.2%

67836651

89.0%

Assam

8240611

30.9%

17296455

64.9%

Bihar

13722048

16.5%

69076919

83.2%

Gujarat

4592854

9.1%

45143074

89.1%

Haryana

1222916

5.8%

18655925

88.2%

Karnataka

6463127

12.2%

44321279

83.9%

Kerala

7863842

24.7%

17883449

56.2%

Madhya Pradesh

3841449

6.4%

55004675

91.1%

Maharashtra

10270485

10.6%

77859385

80.4%

Orissa

761985

2.1%

34726129

94.4%

Punjab

382045

1.6%

8997942

36.9%

Rajasthan

4788227

8.5%

50151452

88.8%

Tamil Nadu

3470647

5.6%

54985079

88.1%

Uttar Pradesh

30740158

18.5%

133979263

80.6%

Total

   123,587,793

13.3%

   754,022,512

81.4%

 

As can be seen, in the 2001 census, only the five bigger states (Uttar Pradesh – 18.5 %, Bihar – 16.5 %, Assam – 30.9 %, Kerala – 24.7 % and West Bengal – 25.2 %), two smaller states (Jammu and Kashmir – 67 % and Jharkland – 13.8 %; not shown in the table above) and one union territory (Lakshadweep – 95.5 %; not shown in the table above) had a proportion of Muslims above the national average of 13.3 %. Professor Rajan’s study showed that among the above eight states/union territories, five of them reported their Muslim growth rates as below the national growth rate of 2.57 %; in fact, two states reported below the national average of 2.03 %.

 

The Table below shows the % annual growth rate in 15 major Indian states from 1951 to 2011.

Indian State

1951

2011

% annual growth (1951-2011)

% annual growth (2001-2011)

West Bengal

            26,299,980

            91,276,115

2.1%

1.3%

Andhra Pradesh

            31,095,259

            84,580,777

1.7%

1.0%

Assam

              8,028,856

            31,205,576

2.3%

1.6%

Bihar

            37,782,271

           104,099,452

1.7%

2.3%

Gujarat

            16,262,657

            60,439,692

2.2%

1.8%

Haryana

              5,673,614

            25,351,462

2.5%

1.8%

Karnataka

            19,401,956

            61,095,297

1.9%

1.5%

Kerala

            13,559,118

            33,406,061

1.5%

0.5%

Madhya Pradesh

            26,071,637

            72,626,809

1.7%

1.9%

Maharashtra

            32,002,564

           112,374,333

2.1%

1.5%

Orissa

            14,645,946

            41,974,218

1.8%

1.3%

Punjab

              9,160,500

            27,743,338

1.9%

1.3%

Rajasthan

            15,970,774

            68,548,437

2.5%

2.0%

Tamil Nadu

            30,119,047

            72,147,030

1.5%

1.5%

Uttar Pradesh

            63,219,655

           199,812,341

1.9%

1.9%

Total in 15 states

          349,293,834

        1,086,680,938

1.9%

1.6%

Overall population

 

        1,210,193,422

 

1.6%

 

The census data of 2011 show that Bangladesh’s neighboring state West Bengal had an overall annual growth rate that was lower than the national average of 1.6%, and even the data for the state of Assam is at par with the national average. As such, the Hindutvadi claims about Bangladeshi Muslims inflating the growth rate appear to be just hogwash and unsubstantial.

In the context of India, as rightly noted by Prof. Rajan, despite higher growth rates amongst Muslims, “the population projections by religion indicates that Muslims will add fewer people in absolute numbers, compared to Hindus in the next 50 years, owing to their smaller population base.”

So, why all this hocus pocus around ‘endangered’ Hindu community, not just in ‘Islamic’ Bangladesh but also in ‘mother’ India? Who gains from such exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims of groups like HRCBM – a pro-Indian Hindu advocacy group that has hitherto collaborated with anti-Bangladesh and anti-Muslim hate groups like Hindu Samhati, Mukta-mona and CRIBR? What are they aiming for – further polarization of the people along religious lines? Are they aiming for Indian hegemony in territories lost during the Partition of India? Rather than making mountains out of moles why not they work towards breaking the wall of monumental hatred that they espouse against non-Hindus? Why not they create opportunities for education and job amongst the downtrodden so that with upward mobility the latter would have less fertility rate, and therefore, unable to change the very demography that they are so mindful of protecting?

Contrary to the claims made by HRCBM, Bangladeshi Hindus (who comprise less than 9% of the population) are more prosperous than fellow Muslims and are well placed in every sector in spite of the fact that many have chosen to settle overseas. That preference for the educated folks to live in more prosperous countries is nothing new and has been the trend throughout history. The cultural ties and religious affiliation with vast majority of Hindus living next door in India have also gravitated some Bangladeshi Hindus to retiring in India while they made money inside Bangladesh. Such traits are in human DNA. It is no surprise, therefore, that their proportion inside Bangladesh has shrunk comparatively.

The influx of persecuted Muslims from India and Burma into Bangladesh, on the other hand, has resulted in widening this proportion between Hindus and Muslims. Not to be ignored in this context, as shown above, is the fact that population growth rate amongst poor Muslims have been greater than more prosperous Hindus. So, when Hindu activists like Trivedi complain that their proportion has been on the decline since 1941, it is no brainer to understand the root causes.

It is utterly irresponsible and disingenuous of such activists to link the gap with so-called persecution and discrimination of Hindus. Such false claims play into the hands of Hindu extremists inside India who exploit those to execute their fascist plan of depopulating Muslims out of India, and create fertile grounds for xenophobia, intolerance and bigotry.

As noted by Swapan Dasgupta in India Today, the British were very zealous with their demographic studies in India – all to maximize the ‘divide and rule’ policy. Before 1881, very few Indians knew about the religious divide so carefully crafted by the new imperial masters. The realization that Muslims made up a majority in undivided Bengal gave a stimulus to cultural separatism. Bengali Hindus subsequently did not want to remain a minority in Joint Bengal and created the very conditions that helped the creation of Pakistan via Partition of India in 1947.

If the Hindus of today want to repeat the same mistakes of yesteryears, neither Narendra Modi nor Tapan Ghosh can save India’s fragmentation. 

 

 

১৭ comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 11
    সদালাপ কর্তৃপক্ষ

    Any published blog is open for discussion. One may not dictate, be it a commentator, or the author, not to discuss a public post.

    In Bengali culture and tradition, the seniors receive respect while the juniors receive affection. Mr. Kumar, please note that it is appalling to see someone calling someone “you dirty old bastard”.

    Mr. Ahmed may kindly note that in the absence of Mr. Kumar, it becomes your duty to protect his mother and sister’s honour, and most probably you will do that. Then, why is this loss of patience?

    I kindly request both Mr. Kumar and Mr. Ahmed to defeat our one common enemy ‘anger’ and focus discussions on the blog content alone.  Sincerely, Editor, Shodalap.          

  2. 10
    kumar mondol

    Ahmad,

    “Have I done anything to your mother or sister, that you know of, to qualify this?”

    “Can it be that, as many Hindus hold that Muslims rulers were rapists, your family could have been the result of the bastardy?]”

    Your comment: True nature of a perverted muslim. Even living in UK for forty years can not cure your pervert nature.

    You are a retarded person, no question about that. You are beneath the human dignity, you are a sub-human living being, worse than even an animal.

  3. 9
    kumar mondol

    Mr. Najrul,

    I googled but could not find those references. I thought I must have missed somehow so asked him  to provide me with the refernces. He could not and this is the problem. You can write your own opinion(you have every right)  but can not make up the references.

    Thank you for your comments.

  4. 8
    kumar mondol

    Mr. Ahmad,  You have come here in support of Mr. Siddiqui. In this write up,  Mr. Siddiqui has made some observations about the increase of Muslim population in West Bengal, opposing the view of some Bengali guys whom he has  addressed as communals. He conducted a simple regression analysis based on Indian Census data to infer that high growth rate of Muslim population may be explained  by high fertility rate of Muslim female as they have lower literacy rate. He has used statistical inferences using R-square and other statistics. I did not agree with his assertion, so suggested to him to do the causality test to verify his hypothesis.  He also made reference to  comments of “Swapan  Dasgupta in India today “ in support of his hypothesis and I asked him to provide me with the actual reference.   In this context he also mentioned that Indian textbooks in history spread  malicious rumor and falsehood about Islamic rule and religin in  Indiaw, and this makes Indian youths to view Islamic religion and Muslims negatively.  Again I asked him to cite actual examples of  such textbooks  (used in high school, College or University) where actual Indian History has been distorted to malign the Islamic rule and the Muslims. He could not answer these and you came into picture  supporting his comments and completely ignoring  my points and also made derogatory remark about me. This is the problem with Mr. Siddiqui and people like you.

    You pretend to be intellectual and write intellectual commentaries in blogs and in other places, but when confronted to provide actual evidences in support of your commentaries you resort to insults and obfuscation. In  this case, you have referred   to your earlier blog write up  and explained that decline of Hindu population  in Bangladesh and Pakistan is voluntary because desertion of Hindu people may be caused by many factors: (Among many other things, the may include prejudice, racism, class or simply finding comfort in being with the same kind)”.  But question is then why the Muslim population West Bengal is not declining, rather increasing at a significant rate. So, we should infer from your writings that Muslims are treated better in India than the Hindus are treated in Bangladesh?  Your reasoning may be true for your own case.  You left Bangladesh in 1975, and I am pretty sure it was voluntary, not forced upon you. I have not read any newspapers or news channels reporting large scale burning and destroying Muslim houses and Mosque by Hindus in 1974 and 1975.  But we read about destruction of Hindu houses, temples in Bangladesh (regularly) many many times, in the nineties, in the beginning of the last decade after BNP came to power and again last year and this year before the elections In Bangladesh. Whom you are kidding?  You know what is funny?  Sitting in the U.K. you are preaching about political and religious environment and harmony in Bangladesh and commending how tolerant is Islam and how good Muslims in Bangladesh are to other people. In that case, why do not you go back and stay there.  You are one of the biggest hypocrites, I can say.  For me, since Mr. Siddiqui, could not produce the references as he mentioned in his write up, these references do not exist?  In that event Mr. Siddiqui has made it up and his whole write up is suspect.

    1. 8.1
      শাহবাজ নজরুল

      Mr. Kumar,

      Dr. Siddiqui is not an amature writer like you or me -- he mainly is a freelance columnist -- witing in reputed online and print publications. In other words, he is not a cheap blogger, who'd write stuffs w/o having any support behind it. He must either be pissed off with your mean attack on him or  maybe busy with other stuffs and does not have time to reply your questions. 

      By the way, did you try to locate the refs that you are asking for? These days, it should not be hard to find out info -- if you're willing to spend some time on it. But be assured of one thing -- I don't believe that Dr. Siddiqui would write something w/o verifying it beforehand.

      BTW, what if those refs are indeed provided/found? Would you then come out of your ignorence -- or still would choose to live in darkness?

       

    2. 8.2
      এম_আহমদ

      @ Mondol

      Mondol, each time you come to talk to us foolishly, you receive some pounding and these make you say more foolish things at the next occasion you come to talk. I am going to respond to your foolishness, but before, let me say this. If Dr.Siddiquei opposed “the views some Bengali guys” that you found yourself in disagreement with, chiefly for his analytical basis then it is not something that should warrant the silly list of things that threw out notwithstanding dismissive attitudes, calling onto question his education and qualification, and the rest is as noted above. When you step out of your limit foolishly and someone grabs your throat, you start screaming. The next is referencing the text books used in ‘schools, colleges or universities’. People, (I mean learned people) speak here from their academic background, from their experience of the subjects, discourses and textual range. If they are to reference every comment they make, then this is not the appropriate medium and platform. One may have knowledge of Indian history-syllabus, but if one is to document these from the texts of schools, colleges and universities, it would require a long span of time to research again from the vast textual ranges and to put them together. Because are foolish of the means, media and research implications, you ask questions beyond the conversation framework. If one is to receive a question and to respond to it in months or year later, then there is no discussion. Learned people speak from their ‘perception’ and ‘experience’ of the subjects. These two elements are within valid range epistemologically. For our purpose here, with a different note, your attitudes and perception of Muslims and their rule in India provide us with some secondary basis to make judgement on your ‘college text’. You are a product of that education system, you spoke of what you read, you asserted your knowledge on the basis of what you studied in the college texts. One needs not go far.

      Now your gun-shooting at me. Let me address them one by one. You said:

      You pretend to be intellectual and write intellectual commentaries in blogs and in other places, but when confronted to provide actual evidences in support of your commentaries you resort to insults and obfuscation.

      First go here, comment 14.2 and see who run away saying ‘case closed’ and there are others spots of course. And see who comes every time with dismissive attitudes and with patronising statements. Without going too far, the above cases would provide ample evidences. You have a mouth with astounding stupidity. Let me exemplify your point about me pretending to be “intellectual”. Why would I “pretend” to be an “intellectual”? What is “intellectuality?” How is it perceived in the world of academy especially in psychology and sociology and philosophy? Who and who are not intellectuals? You may have a silly perception and value-attachment to this thing that you “perceive” as “intellectuality”, and based on your value-assumption you thought I might be seeking to be what an idiot like you attaches to the word and considers it something to aspire for. Would people of the learned world share the same perception as you hold? Do you understand what I am saying, you silly boy? You have been asking for it, but when you get it, would scream insulting!  Besides, when you yourself assert that I write intellectual commentaries in blogs and other places, then I am not ‘pretending’, am I? Now what else can I say? Let me save some words for the next comment.

      Next:

      In  this case, [which case?] you have referred  to your earlier blog write up  [I did not write any blog on this issue, except a comment in someone else’s blog] and explained that decline of Hindu population  in Bangladesh and Pakistan is voluntary because desertion of Hindu people may be caused by many factors: (Among many other things, they may include prejudice, racism, class or simply finding comfort in being with the same kind)”.  But question is then why the Muslim population West Bengal is not declining, rather increasing at a significant rate. So, we should infer from your writings that Muslims are treated better in India … [stupid]. 

      I haven’t written any essay on this issue, except one or two comments, one of which I linked in the last comment. In it and in my previous comment in this blog, the possible reasons stated were in relation to ‘migration’ and demographic ‘change’. People’s reasons for settlement and migration are different things, silly boy. Your inference is ‘wrong’. What may possibly be inferred from my comment above is that the Muslims of West Bengal do not prejudice against Hindus, they are not holding racist attitudes and, despite the Hindu harassment, they remain put within their own settlement with their own kind and the fact may remain that they may not have a targeted location to migrate like the Hindus of Bangladesh.  

      Your reasoning may be true for your own case [I don’t know what you are talking about].  You left Bangladesh in 1975, and I am pretty sure it was voluntary, not forced upon you. I have not read any newspapers or news channels reporting large scale burning and destroying Muslim houses and Mosque by Hindus in 1974 and 1975.  But we read about destruction of Hindu houses, temples in Bangladesh (regularly) many many times, in the nineties, in the beginning of the last decade after BNP came to power and again last year and this year before the elections In Bangladesh. Whom you are kidding?

      Well, how can you be so sure that there was no force? What about ‘circumstantial force’? What about ‘economic migration’ under adverse social condition?  You don’t seem to know much about Bangladesh, except certain prejudices. You have swallowed the propaganda that BNP is associated with Hindu repression. Read this and see who how situation is perceived through the mainstream media in Bangladesh. Who have been kidded by?

      You know what is funny, [can it be your stupidity]? Sitting in the U.K. you are preaching [am I?] about political and religious environment and harmony in Bangladesh [did I? When and where?] and commending how tolerant is Islam and how good Muslims in Bangladesh are to other people. In that case, why do not you go back and stay there.  You are one of the biggest hypocrites [am I? and of the biggest? Well, at least ‘biggest’ in something! Thank you] , I can say [surely you can say, indeed you have said it, so get ready for the next pounding].   

      Where did I preach about political and religious harmony in Bangladesh? How can you assert such blatant lies? I have been rather writing about the political unrest and intolerance in Bangladesh, more about the needs for the religious and political to create harmony and respect to each other. What have you read of my writing in Shodalap? Which class of Hindu are you Mondal? A Chandal? Read this and this and this and  this  and this. Do these demonstrate Bangladeshi Muslims and the population at large are in harmony with each other? OPEN YOUR EYES. They are in endless quibbles and quarrels with each other and in the thick of the political unrest there is the Hindu manipulation of the Muslims and the Muslims manipulation of Hindus for political ends, not religious. Yet despite this, whereas the Hinds are concerns, their situation is much much better than that of Indian situation in contrast as has been shown in the serious of essays by Dr. Siddique. Make especial note that the religious card is being used for political expediency. In this short blog that I wrote a few months ago, although I do not write much about politics overtly, except in rare cases and the rest only as much as some socio-religious engages political issues.   

      Now it is you who come hurriedly to vindicate India, argue against anyone who charges her with repression, atrocity or malpractices, and all the arguments with you in Shodalap have been along these lines.  As an Indian it is perhaps patriotism on your part, your country is apparently held in esteem to you, yet you are not there! Are you not a Hypocrite then? If not the ‘biggest’, what about being a small one?

      Now as for me, I do not see any relation between hypocrisy and one’s argument for issues and causes. Neither do I see any relation between holding an argument and the justification for migrating to a location or country in whose relation one holds the argument. If one speaks for Timbuktu but hadn’t migrated to it, then the arguer is a hypocrite -that is STUPID. This is what you are Mondal. So, get lost.

       

      1. 8.2.1
        kumar mondol

        Ahmad,

        You wrote a lengthy rebuttal to my comments, but it is completely devoid of any evidence or references that Siddiqui was talking about. You obfuscate my demand for evdience by employing the concept of "pereption". I suppose Siddiqui has gone through the history syllabus or the textbooks used in the secondary and post secondary level education in India and thus acquired this perception. You are indeed a stupid person. Moreover I did not initiate this debate with you, it was with Siddiqui and you just insrted your dirty nose in this debate. You live in England for almost forty years and have not yet learned the basic decency of being a gentlemen. Get lost you dirty old bastard.

      2. এম_আহমদ

        You wrote a lengthy rebuttal [to suite you well] to my comments, but it is completely devoid of any evidence or references that Siddiqui was talking about [You are confusing Dr. Siddiqui’s textual reference once again, but beside, all the rest was pounding to the ground, reducing you to overt swearing, served you well]! You obfuscate [if it was then what did you understand?] my demand for evdience by employing the concept of "pereption". I suppose Siddiqui has gone through the history syllabus or the textbooks used in the secondary and post secondary level education in India [very good] and thus acquired this perception [well done, if admit that he had acquired the perception and experience of the ‘texts’ directly, then the validity question is fully met. He had spoken from his learned ‘perception’, that you accept]. You are indeed a stupid person. [Wow! But, on what ground? If Dr. Siddiqui had presented his idea from his learned ‘perception’ and textual experience, which you admitted, then on what account someone else be accused of, silly boy]? Moreover I did not initiate this debate with you, [No, look above, I rather addressed Dr. Siddique directly, mentioning to him the type of garbage you are and your ‘historical knowledge’ derived from your ‘college-text’ and the idea was to ‘ignore’ you. But it is you who addressed me directly here. And besides, a blog conversation is not ‘private’, anyone can enter and participate. If you are proven a fool, your cry for privacy cannot vindicate you from what you are. Just blame yourself], it was with Siddiqui and you just insrted your dirty nose in this debate. You live in England for almost forty years and have not yet learned the basic decency of being a gentlemen [O yea? You mean hadn’t learned to prejudice other people, hadn’t swallowed some stupid Hindus’ racist historical stupidity, and hadn’t acquired shameless attitudes to speak foolishly?] . Get lost you dirty old bastard. [Bravo! Now, it is coming out in volumes. You have indeed become a “gentleman”! A classic Hindu Gentlemen! Look at yourself! Mondal, you are what you, no words can fully describe your foolishness, and there are other facets to it including ‘age-prejudice’!]

      3. kumar mondol

        Ahmad,

        This is the problem with you. You do not answer the crux of the matter, rather waste time on the peripheral issues. Mr. Siddiqui started the write up this way  “In 1909, a Hindu communalist by the name of Colonel U.N. Mukherji wrote a pamphlet…”  which has a highly negative connotation and it is a pejorative term to describe someone.  It immediately bares his  hidden intention behind  this write up. Then he made unsubstantiated remarks about Indian History  books and an author /Journal. I just asked him to provide the evidences underpinning his assertion. He could not provide any and you jumped in. You started  with a  pejorative remark about my write up.  My  comment  “ I suppose Siddiqui has gone through the history syllabus or the textbooks used in the secondary and post-secondary level education in India and thus acquired this perception” is a sarcastic one and I thought you understood it. I do not believe he has done any study  in this regard.  If that is true,  he should be able to identify at least one textbook  at the secondary or post-secondary level.  But he could not. Secondly,  you opened the floodgate of uncivil behavior. I addressed you as Mr. Ahmad in the beginning, you answered my comment  by addressing me “Mondol”.  It is nothing but tit for tat, you dirty old fool.  You see even after wasting your time and energy you could not corroborate his assertion on the basis of actual evidence. Mr. Siddqui ran a simple regression based on some observations from Indian  census data and made inferences.  Even my undergraduate students use better econometric methodology.

        Do me a favor. If you do not have anything substantial to add to the discussion, do not poke your nose inside here.

      4. এম_আহমদ

        @Mondol

        This is the problem with you [Is it? You have come back to assert your stupidy in different sentence thinking that these will somehow suffice. Braying never suffice.] You do not answer the crux of the matter, [how many time do you have to say the same thing, the problem is rather with you. The crux of the matter is your ignorance, read the comments above, and see if can identify the the manner of your repetitions.] rather waste time on the peripheral issues [yet you come back unashamedly, despite being told off, and to waste some more!]. Mr. Siddiqui started the write up [here you go!] this way  “In 1909, a Hindu communalist by the name of Colonel U.N. Mukherji wrote a pamphlet…”  which has a highly negative connotation [it doesn’t] and it is a pejorative term to describe someone [it is not]. It immediately bares his hidden intention behind [‘hidden intention’? What hidden intention? Don’t be silly. What the compliment ‘communal’ carries is wide open for everyone, what can be hidden there? And how do you know someone’s ‘intention’? Dr. Siddiqui didn’t seem to use the word (communal) for the first time, there are others.  As I googled it quickly, immediately this appeared, Dr. Pradip Kumar Datta. There in the extract Mukherjee appears in the Hindu communalist ideology slot. Again the site of the problem is you. You are ‘communal’, look at this example, “At least Christians or western people came to this country (pre 1947) as a merchant class, not like Islamic people,  who came as warrior to fight, loot, destroy and occupy (Munim Siddiqui’s blog, comment 2)! ” and there are more in your comments and attitudes. Yet you find the use ‘communal’ as pejorative?  To you ‘Once the Muslims are majority, they kill the Hindus. The Muslim world is downtrodden. To you the Muslim rulers are were there ‘to fight, loot, [and] destroy’, you treat Aurangjeb, Mohammad Ghori, Sultan Mamud as barbaric thugs and the list can be tall. Where do these attitudes come from? They come from, as put it, ‘I read them in my high school and college history classes’ [and] You can glance over standard textbooks on Indian ancient history and you will find them.’ Your prejudice, racist attitudes are the examples of your education system. Again, the site of the problem is you, look no further.]

        Then he made unsubstantiated remarks about Indian History books and an author /Journal. I just asked him to provide the evidences underpinning his assertion [you are saying the same thing all over again!  Read above. You are the secondary example of your text. Dr. Siddiqui is not going to spend months to bring text to a donkey] He could not provide any and you jumped in[He is ignoring your silly, arrogant, stupid manner of challenge, asking of qualification, being dismissive as well as showing stupid attitudes] . You started with a pejorative remark about my write up [your comments are unqualified, racist and prejudicial; all comments have been exemplified with quotations and there are more in the comment locations. You say one silly thing to explain another, yet both end up being silly. Now having accepted the point about textual knowledge of the education system, you realised the ‘folly’. And now returned to say you said it in ‘sarcasm’! Get lost! When you get stuck, it’s sarcasm!]

        Secondly, you opened the floodgate of uncivil behavior. I addressed you as Mr. Ahmad in the beginning, you answered my comment  by addressing me “Mondol”. [In blog conversation does the use not including ‘Mr’ opens uncivil floodgate in your civility? Get lost Modol, you are a time waster. Don’t bring your silly emotion or manner here to further your justification] It is nothing but tit for tat, you dirty old fool [‘dirty’? Have I done anything to your mother or sister, that you know of, to qualify this? ‘Old’? How old am I? Why ageism? Did you say you are a teacher? Wow!  And before, you used ‘bastard’? Can it be that, as many Hindus hold that Muslims rulers were rapists, your family could have been the result of the bastardy?].

        [Now Sarcasm one: ‘I suppose Siddiqui has gone through the history syllabus or the textbooks used in the secondary and post secondary level education in India and thus acquired this perception’. Sarcasm two: I do not believe he has done any study  in this regard.’] You see even after wasting your time and energy you could not corroborate his assertion on the basis of actual evidence. [Is it another of your sarcasm? There isn’t any text-evidence outstanding; your own expressions carry evidences of prejudice and race biases. Read the comment again on validity of learned experience and perception. Dr. Siddiquei doesn’t have to embark on a trail of texts to justify to a donkey? He doesn’t need to engage with you. And you can see you are being ‘ignored’!  Having exposed your personality as it is, one would rather prefer to ignore you as they would to a barking dog] Mr. Siddqui ran a simple regression based on some observations from Indian census data and made inferences. [That was good enough, if an ignorant objects, let it be so, let him produce his own analysis and publish] Even my undergraduate students use better econometric methodology. [O yea, Mondol, don’t mention. We know what you are]

        Do me a favor. [No, I won’t do you a favour, don’t beg of it] If you do not have anything substantial to add [Dr. Siddiqui’s blog has been substantial, and you have ‘substantially’ proven yourself garbage throughout this and other discussions] to the discussion, do not poke your nose inside here. [Again this “inside” is not your private field, you are bringing the same point foolishly. You are not talking to your ‘daddy-man’ to make this cry here. Anyone and everyone WILL poke and participate.  And if you act foolishly they will slap the foolish spot. So get lost.]

  5. 7
    এম_আহমদ

    @ Dr. Siddiqui

     I think you could do well by ignoring K. Mondol. He always seems to look for certain side-space to comment. While the main thrust of this blog appears in relation to demographic changes and how some lunatic Hindus misinterpret them for political ends, he picks a sentence that can lead him to make a statement about Muslim League, Zinnah and Fazllul Haque (as being the ‘ruler’ of Bengal (during and before 1947? [Is the 1937 premiership being extended to 1947?). His conversations failed with other bloggers in the past for the same reason. Munim Siddiquei, having fed-up with this attitude, said at one point, “মিঃ মণ্ডল প্রথমে অনুরোধ করছি ব্লগের কালচার মেনে মন্তব্য প্রতি মন্তব্য করতে।  যে থ্রেডে আপনি কথা বলবেন সেই থ্রেডে সিরিয়াল অন্যসরন করে চললে আপনি কার প্রশ্নে কি জবাব দিচ্ছেন তা পাঠক বুঝতে পারবে। যেমন উদাহর- আপনি আলোচনা শুরু করেছেন তা আমার মূল লেখার উপর নয়” (comment 14.1)

    He speaks, at occasions, instructively in a guru-like manner, presuming superior knowledge which often sounds patronising. Look at the following:

    Mr. Siddiqui, [Munim], Again you are exposing your limitation as an Isalmic supporter, not as an independent observer paying attention to facts only. …  Did you read Bengali history prior Islamic age? There wrere quite a few bengali heroes. Do you know the names Sasanka and his rule,  Gopal, Dharmapal, Devpal and others from the Pal dynasty? I do not know why  Rabindranath glorified Shivaji, but surmise that Shivaji  tried to protect the hindus  and fight the barbaric regime of Aurangjeb are the reasons.  Islamic robbers  invaded India many many times(typical example is Sultan Mamud who invaded  India and Somnath temple 17 times to kill, loot and plunder.) and killed millions of people over time. … In that sense, British rule was good for India, otherwise, it would remain a muslim country and the situation will be just like the one exists in pakistan.  (Comment 15)

    Then this:

    Mr. Siddiqui, [Munim] Again you are exposing your  limitation as an Isalmic supporter, not as an independent observer paying attention to facts only. … Did you read Bengali history prior Islamic age? There wrere quite a few bengali heroes. Do you know the names Sasanka and his rule,  Gopal, Dharmapal, Devpal and others from the Pal dynasty? I do not know why  Rabindranath glorified Shivaji, but surmise that Shivaji  tried to protect the hindus  and fight the barbaric regime of Aurangjeb are the reasons.  Islamic robbers  invaded India many many times(typical example is Sultan Mamud who invaded  India and Somnath temple 17 times to kill, loot and plunder.) and killed millions of people over time.  Mohamamd Ghori invaded India many times and he was defeated six times and let go each time. By the  seventh time he defeated Prithviraj with the  help of Prithviraj's father in law,  but beheaded Prithviraj immediately. And Aurangjeb's regime was specifcally atrocious for the hindus, wheras Shivaji tried to fight him and he was able to create an independent state in Maharastra area. In that sense, British rule was good for India, otherwise, it would remain a muslim country and the situation will be just like the one exists in pakistan. (At Munim Siddiqui, comment 9)

    There are other conversations in Mohiuddin’s blog.  At times he would throw a kind of immature verbal behaviour and when someone would grab his throat he would cry foul. Consider the manner questioning here:  “You have a doctorate?  In what?”  That’s somewhat rude. What is his own qualification and in what subject? Wouldn’t it have been a good idea to supply voluntarily his qualification? And we can consider the teacher-like sounding of comments as in this:  “Another important thing, when you write something and cite some name (book or authors),   give us full reference. Do not hide behind the name. Give me complete reference (Name of the book, page number etc.).” Wow! You are now being required to submit to him the qualification and thesis with full bibliography and references! What bonkers!  OOpps! Consider his definition of ‘data mining’. “If you write a commentary, derive the conclusion from total evidence, not from partial one. It is called data mining.” How silly! And then the imperative, “Stick to total fact!” Only this kind of Indian intellect can say, “Your level of intellect is suitable for Shodalap only, not beyond that ” and then cry of civility!

    All these seem to come from the great learning which as he puts it in his own words, “I read ancient Indian history in high school and in college. I do not have to read Al Beruni to know about Indian history. By the way, Al Beruni was thousand years late. Anyway …”.  (comment 10)! Wow! And this bit that he said to Munim might be of interest, “At least Christians or western people came to this country (pre 1947) as a merchant class, not like Islamic people,  who came as warrior to fight, loot, destroy and occupy (Munim Siddiqui’s blog, comment 2)! ”

        It seems apparent from a conversation with Shams that such of him are the product of prejudicial text they studied in schools and colleges which marginalise and vilify Muslims and Muslim rule in India and glorify British rule as redemptive. It seems that their national curriculum created these marginal attitudes towards Muslims. One can observe their reasoning that if X population in Y location reduced from X year (say 194y) to Y year (say 2012) then undoubtedly there is a case for repression. Such is the naïve simplification.

    I came to the UK in 1975. The location where I settled was full of the indigenous white population. But the more the Asian population (mainly Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) arrived and concentrated in the scene, the more the white population deserted the area. Within a period of some 25/30 years, the majority population became Asian in some locations. Now what meaning can we derive from this change? Does it mean repression, as might some propagandist Hindus would have it over Bangladesh? I said in another comment elsewhere that there can be a number of candidates for demographic changes. Among many other things, the may include prejudice, racism, class or simply finding comfort in being with the same kind. There can be cases of Asian and white people fighting. But would such cases be evidences of Asian persecution on the white? That would be silly. Hindus’ desertion of Bangladesh and Pakistan could be for their hatred, prejudice, racist and ugly narrow minded views held against the Muslims. Like certain incidences of Asians and whites in discord with one another, there can cases of Muslims fighting Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh and so too Muslims and Hindus. But does it mean repression to oust them from the country? Can it be read in this simplistic light? No, yet the propagandists wouldn’t stop.

    Well, let me stop now. But before, let me drop two quotes that I like here:

    First:

    So, why all this hocus pocus around ‘endangered’ Hindu community, not just in ‘Islamic’ Bangladesh but also in ‘mother’ India? Who gains from such exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims of groups like HRCBM – a pro-Indian Hindu advocacy group that has hitherto collaborated with anti-Bangladesh and anti-Muslim hate groups like Hindu Samhati, Mukta-mona and CRIBR? What are they aiming for – further polarization of the people along religious lines? Are they aiming for Indian hegemony in territories lost during the Partition of India? Rather than making mountains out of moles why not they work towards breaking the wall of monumental hatred that they espouse against non-Hindus?

    Second:

    Contrary to the claims made by HRCBM, Bangladeshi Hindus (who comprise less than 9% of the population) are more prosperous than fellow Muslims and are well placed in every sector in spite of the fact that many have chosen to settle overseas.

  6. 6
    kumar mondol

    Mr. Siddiqui,

    Let us keep the debate civilized.

    Now you are arguing that correlation does not mean causation. That is is absolutely true.  If you want to establish causation, you could have conducted Granger or Chris Sim’s causality test using enough data over a longer time period.  But in your original writing, you have said that lower literacy rate among muslim women may have caused higher fertility rate,  thus higher growth rate of Muslim population in India.  Now you are saying that, higher literacy rate and lower fertility rate are correlated, but it does not imply causation. That is true. But correlation  may exist because of other reasons too: such as lower fertility rate leads to less number of children, parents can take better care of these  less number of children and they get better education, or higher literacy rates. Thus lower fertility may also lead to higher literacy rate.  But you have taken  anecdotal evidence of five or six observations from Indian census and tried  to explain the disparity of growth rate of population for different religion and the consequent  Hindu paranoia.

    By the way, Bipan Chandra and Stanely Wolpert are  not British era historian. Second , you have not been able to provide me with the references  where Indian history has been distorted to malign the Muslim by spreading  false history. Third, you have not been able to give me the reference of Swapan Dasgupta and India Today.

    You have not answered my questions but  are just beating around the bush.  Forgive me for saying this “ Your level of intellect is suitable for Shodalap only, not beyond that . “

  7. 5
    ডঃ হাবিব সিদ্দিকী

    One can only take pity at Kumar Mondol's diatribe. He seems to suffer from serious psychiatric problem entertaining animosity towards anything Muslim, let alone comprehension in English. Otherwise, anyone reading my above article should have seen that my statistical analysis above on Muslim, Hindu demography and annual % growth rate are based on Indian Census, and not some western country, where I live. He assumes that I am from a country where Islam is the state religion. He also brings the issue of Saudi Arabia. Only a highly disturbed mind would do such a thing to argue irrationally.

    Before commenting on something, an intelligent person ought to do some research. But obviously, we can't wisen a hyper Hindu communalist to whom reputable historian like Dr. Romila Thappar is a leftist, and as such, unreliable. Instead he offers us the names of Hindu communalist writers -- the so-called bhadralok Hindu historians of the British Era whose only contribution to history was a revisionist attempt to revise history at the tune of the British master, which had set the pace for periodization of Indian history -- as more credible historians.

    Apparently, Mondol's education on history is also quite limited, who accepts as Veda Bakya everything that is written in the Wikipedia. With such a fountain of knowledge, one will only make a fool of oneself!

    One would assume that the literary rate amongst Hindus in 1901 in India was lower than 1991 and 2001. However, as one can see from Indian census data, the % annual growth rate was much lower back then compared to today. Why? Does correlation automatically always mean causation? Surely not. Demographic study is more complex than just a simple indicator here and there. However, what demographers have found out is that there seems to be strong correlation between female fertility rate and female literary rate.

    And that is an argument I have been restating based on the published Indian census data of 1991-2001. It is possible that if female literary rate goes up, then they may choose to have less children and, thus, create the environment for lowering the growth rate. There are plenty of examples in our world in this topic to support this analytical finding. And for that we don’t have to go to more literate, prosperous European and North American states.

    Enough said! I don't plan on wasting my time trying to educate a close-minded Hindutvadi person who is obsessed and beyond any repair!

     

  8. 4
    এম_আহমদ

    This is another excellent work in the series of essays which will hopefully contribute towards dispelling some of the Hindu propaganda against Islam and Muslims. However, some insular minded propagandists will always remain entrenched in their hatred and prejudices, for no amount of evidences will deliver them from their bent of mind. Evidently I can see some questions and comments thrown in this platform which have their answers in the previous and current essay. The situation is much like the Quranic phrase, seeing they see not, hearing they hear not.  

    May Allah reward the author for the effort he has expended so far and grant him more of the same to engage in this endeavour.  

  9. 3
    Kumar Mondol

     

     

     

    Mr. Siddiqui,

    This information from Wikipedia answers your condescending advice to me to read about Partition of India.

    “Direct Action Day (16 August 1946), also known as the Great Calcutta Killings, was a day of widespread riot and manslaughter between Hindus and Muslims in the city of Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) in the Bengal province of British India. The day also marked the start of what is known as The Week of the Long Knives. The 'Direct Action' announced by Mohammad Ali Jinnah to achieve the Muslim League's Demand of Pakistan (a separate country for Indian Muslims whom he claimed were a nation on their own as opposed to non-Muslim Indians) resulted in the worst communal riots that British India had seen.

    The Muslim League and the Indian National Congress were the two largest political parties in the Constituent Assembly of India in the 1940s. The 1946 Cabinet Mission to India for planning of the transfer of power from the British Raj to the Indian leadership proposed an initial plan of composition of the new Dominion of India and its government. However, soon an alternative plan to divide the British Raj into a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan was proposed by the Muslim League.”

    This completely destroys your assertion about Bengali Hindu’s role for Indian partition

    Your statement “In today's India, historical revisionism to further polarize majority Hindus against Muslims has official sanction. The text books are altered to make Hindus hate Muslims”. I have not seen any such revisionist history in Indian textbook at high school level at least that I am aware of.  I do not like to hear such assertion without evidence. Could you please cite evidence in support of your assertion.

    Second,   Romilla Thapar is a well known extreme left  leaning  intellectual (whose writings are biased on the border of being  anti Hindu).  She is not the established authority , in the  universe of Indian Historians.  The names  come to mind are R C Majumdar, Bipan Chandra, Stanely  Wolpert etc.  I do not give her much credit as a historian of India.

    Your argument about the relation between fertility rate and female education rate may or may not be true. It depends on the sample that you have selected.  If you choose western country it may be true for over a longer period of time, but may not be true for other countries.  Forget about Pakistan and Bangladesh, take the case of India, your country of ridicule. Undoubtedly,  Muslim females are more educated now than they were in the  pre independence day ( or even just after independence, such as 1951). Let us consider your sample observations for the time period of 1951 to 2001. If your hypothesis is true then the growth of  muslim population should be lower in 2001,  than in the 1950s. That means ,  it should be significantly lower than the range of 2.7to 2.8 that you have in your table for 1951. But the  range of  2.8 to 2.57 in 2011, is not statistically different from the range in 1951. Thus your hypothesis is rejected on the basis of evidence India. Same is  true for the rate of growth of Hindu population also: It was 1.87 in 1951 and 1.82 in 2001. I am sure,  it will be summarily rejected for PAKISTAN as well as for Bangladesh. Thus the major argument for your explanation is faulty.  

    Second:  you preach that India being a secular country, should not be concerned about religious demography. It  reminds me the story about distribution of assets among the brothers in a joint family where both brothers have assets in their own names in addition to the jointly owned  asset. Brother  A: let us divide total assets(that we own together, A , B and A intersection B)  between us fair and square . Brother B:  No, No,  what I have is mine only , let us divide your and the joint assets fairly and squarely among us. You already have plots of land in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but also want to repossess India in the name of secularism.

     Do you know that there was an agreement between Pope and the king of Saudi Arabia for religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence among Christians and Muslims. They agreed to build a mosque  in or adjacent areas to  Vatican,  and a  Church in  Mecca.  Pope authorized the plot of land and the mosque has been built in due time.  But King never authorized to  give the plot of land  in Mecca, where a church can be built. Check out this.

    So, please please  do not preach to us about communalism, religious tolerance  etc. We are tired of hearing this preaching for a long time from a person who is inhabitant of a country whose state declared religion is Islam.

    Another important thing, when you write something and cite some name(book or authors),   give us full reference. Do not hide behind the name. Give me complete reference (Name of the book, page number etc.)  For example, in the  last write up you talked about Swapan Dsagupta and India Today, and I have asked for reference and you did not or can not  provide one.  And you have a doctorate?  In what?

  10. 2
    ডঃ হাবিব সিদ্দিকী

    The problem with many communalists is when truth bares their hideous selves, they get caught off-guard with their hands in the cookie jar and resort to name calling. No, I am not delusional in my treatment of this very sensitive issue. As I said in the beginning of a series of articles on this topic, discussion on minority issue is always a dicey matter and even one's objectivity would be questioned. As Mondol’s tirade proves I was not mistaken.

    In today's India, historical revisionism to further polarize majority Hindus against Muslims has official sanction. The text books are altered to make Hindus hate Muslims. They may like to educate themselves by reading books by Romilla Thapar and other credible historians, rather than Bimal Pramanik's Hindutvadi make-belief stories about 'dying Hindus'. They can also read my articles on this sensitive issue since at least 2000.

    As I have noted in this series of articles, Hindus had a lower per annum growth rate compared to Muslims in the last 110 years. It is not difficult to understand the reasons. They often marry late. They prefer son to daughter as a child, and thus often abort fetuses if found to be female. They are better educated, esp. their women, which delays marriage. And then they want to have children late in their career, which also reduces their fertility rate considerably. All these activities alone are sufficient to show why Hindu growth rate is lower than those of Muslims. Many Muslims even when they are educated are seriously discriminated in job hunting in India, which also discourages others from pursuing costly education. It won’t take an Einstein to show that if these issues are not tackled objectively, surely Hindu proportion will shrink further.

    If Hindu communalists like Mukherji (perceived an avatar by Hindutvadis today) and Pramanik instead had put their energy into improving the status of Muslims in India in matters of education, job and other socio-economic indicators, they would have seen that the Muslim growth rate, which is perceived as problematic and threatening Hindu majority, was at par with those of the Hindus. Are these communalists aware of conversion of Hindus to Christianity, esp. in north-east part of India? What do such conversions do to Hindu numbers? It is not difficult to comprehend. Why not address those issues which are at the heart of so-called ‘dying’ Hindu demography?

    Instead, these hateful communalists, Hindutvadis raise all sorts of false flags to hide their inane failure to comprehend what is so obvious and scientific. The mere presence of any Muslim living in the neighboring Indian states to Bangladesh is automatically perceived to have been a result of Bangladeshi infiltration. Forgotten in such treatment is the mere fact that Hindus and Muslims have been living on either side of the current border for centuries. And they have migrated when borders were porous and allowed such movement unhindered. These Hindu communalists and fascists don’t tell their ilk that some half a million illegal Indians are living inside Bangladesh who have been remitting billions of dollars to India every year.

    By the way, is not India a secular country? Why should religion matter as to what proportion a particular religious community becomes in such a state, which is not supposed to discriminate in matters of one's religious affiliation? Instead, what we see is Hindu nationalism, which is nothing but fascism and not truly different than what was practiced by the Nazis in Hitler's Germany that has become the symbol of new India.

    By the way, Mondol may like to revisit history to ascertain what caused Hindus outside the Bose Brothers to reject the Cabinet Mission proposal which had proposed Joint Bengal. The so-called Bhadro-lok Hindus of Kolkata simply did not like to be a minority in any formula that would put them a minority and challenge their privileged status, mostly earned through early collaboration with the British after the fall of the Nawabi rule in Bengal, and not just in 1905, but throughout the last hundred plus years. It was all too natural for even Rabi Thakur to object to the establishment of Dhaka University. As Jaswant Singh once again showed it was die-hard Hindu communalists who were real reasons behind Partition of India. Even Jinnah could not make a dent on Hindu attitude of eating the entire pie when he had to ultimately leave the Congress Party. Whom are we kidding, Mondol?

    One has to do some objective study before resorting to unfounded claims and name-calling. And that reading cannot be limited to hateful propaganda, all fascist and anti-Muslim in intent and purpose, fed by guys like Bimal Pramanik and Tapan Kumar Ghosh.

    Kapish?

  11. 1
    kumar mondol

    Interesting  Mr. Siddiqui. The conclusion “Bengali Hindus subsequently did not want to remain a minority in Joint Bengal and created the very conditions that helped the creation of Pakistan via Partition of India in 1947”, have taught me a new lesson about the  history for the partition of India. It has nothing to do with Muslim League’s   direction action in 1946, neither  with Mr. Jinnah. It has happened because of Bengali Hindus. During and before 1947, remember  Fazllul Haque was ruling Bengal and he allowed the direct action to happen when thousands of Hindus got  butchered because Haque did not ask for army to intervene. Only when  the Hindus with the help of the Sikhs started retaliating,  he called the army. My own uncle (still alive) narrated the story to me.  Now you imagine what Hindu in the sane mind will even think of being  ruled by a Muslim majority.  But that is not an issue to you.  Before the British rule,  Muslim used to rule India. A Hindu with a sane mind will never dare to raise the issue of religious discrimination or persecution. So the big stories about How British taught us about the ‘divide and rule’. Imagine a scenario, if British did not come to India, we would be ruled by Muslim. Look at the experience of Pakistan.   Also consider the current evidence of demography.  After partition, in 1947 Hindu percentage of Bangladesh (East Pakistan at that time) was around 22-23%, now it is less than 9%. Same is true for Pakistan. In west Pakistan it was around 22% now it is less than 2%, and you still are preaching the paranoia of Hindu  about the Muslim rule and asking  Hindu to live under the Muslim rule.  You must be delusional.  You raised an important issue, but  gave a phony explanation and draw another  phony conclusion. Any Hindu, in rational mind, will never subscribe to your assertion. With respect to your evidence in west Bengal where I am from, Muslim is now about 24% of the total population (increased from 16%) , much larger than Indian average.  In India itself the percentage of Muslims has increased significantly and you are talking about migration of persecuted Muslims from India to Bangladesh! Give me a break.  If you write a commentary, derive the conclusion from total evidence, not from partial one. It is called data mining.  Stick to total fact.  By the way, why do you call Colonel U.N. Mukherji   communalist, because he has raised an issue regarding hindu that you do not like? Also what is the reference of swapan dasgupta in india today?

Leave a Reply