08-07-2004, 06:05 AM
India as a civilizational entity
ADVERTISEMENT
This book review which questions the indian civilizational identity
should be of interest to members.
There are two questions: 1. Indian religionists; 2. term 'India'
1. Is it okay to use the term 'Indian religionists' as distinct from
muslims and christians?
2. Is there a problem in identifying a civilizational area and using
the term 'India': "The authors have convinced themselves that India
was a "homogenous civilizational area... ... .anchored in sanatana
dharma" . Their complaint is that "Islamic Rulers consciously and
conscientiously, resisted acculturation into the timeless
civilizational and religious milieu of India". The second problem,
equally serious, is with the term "India". As the authors
say "throughout our analysis, we employ the term `India' for the
geographical and historical India that encompasses the three
countries into which India was partitioned in the course of the 20th
Century. In short, the authors do not accept the Partition of India
but opt for "Akhand Bharat " in 2003. Why could they not use terms
like pre-Partition India and Indian Union or post-Partition India?"
Kalyan
RELIGIOUS DEMOGRAPHY OF INDIA: A.P. Joshi, M.D. Srinivas, J.K.
Bajaj; Centre for Policy Studies, 27, Rajasekharan Street, Chennai-
600004. Rs. 800.
THIS BOOK contains massive data on the religious composition of
India's population, based on census data from 1881 to 1991 (2001
census data on religion are not yet available).
A special feature of this publication is the comprehensive
collection of data on religion for all continents and countries of
the world. It also gives detailed data for India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh. Its focus is on areas of Muslim and Christian
concentration in different regions of India.
There are maps for states giving district wise data on the religious
composition of population. The book does reflect serious and
sustained work in the field of social demography and it would have
been very useful to scholars, planners, policymakers and
administrators but unfortunately, the interpretation of the data and
the methodology of analysis cannot stand close scrutiny.
It seems that the book has a hidden message, which is spelt out at
several places and sometimes hidden in mathematical projections
(which are faulty), graphs and charts. The message, to put it
bluntly is: "Beware of Muslim population growth, otherwise India
will become Pakistan." The importance of religion cannot be ignored.
The Partition of India in 1947 was entirely based on census data on
religion.
There are a few districts in Assam and West Bengal where Muslims are
in a majority (because of the impact of undocumented migration from
Bangladesh). And it is a fact that the practice of family planning
among Muslims is much lower than in other communities. As several
technical demographers have demonstrated, even after controlling
education, occupation, and income, Muslim fertility is higher than
that of non-Muslims. There is no doubt that this differential growth
rate has political ramifications like seats in state assemblies and
demographic characteristics of constituencies. Nevertheless, are
scholars entitled to manipulate census statistics in the way these
unknown scholars from an unknown institute (which is not to be mixed
up with the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi) have done?
The entire classification scheme evolved by the authors is suspect.
In the Indian census, there is no category called "Indian
Religionists" (as the book puts it), apart from the fact
that "religionists" is not an English word. Indian religionists,
according to the authors, comprise "Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist and
Tribal" population . The Indian census uses the term "other
religious persuasions" to include only those minor religions which
are not covered by main religions like Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs,
Christians, Jains but the book under review means by "other
religionists" Muslim, Christian, Parsi and Jewish communities (the
late J.R.D.Tata, would have found it difficult to accept that he was
not a pucca Indian). The only statistical advantage in clubbing
Hindus with allied religions is to jack up the proportion of Hindus,
which we consider totally unnecessary. Over 82 per cent of India's
population is Hindu. And what exactly is the motive in classifying
Muslims and Christians as "other religionists"?. Are Muslims and
Christians not Indian citizens? If some illegal migrants are
Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, find out who they are.
Technical demographers can estimate the extent of migration (legal
or illegal) by detailed analysis of census data for India, Pakistan
and Bangladesh at the district level. Should the ICSSR have given
financial assistance to novices in the field of social demography
for publication of the book? The ICSSR's sponsorship of this book
was unnecessary.
The authors have convinced themselves that India was a "homogenous
civilizational area... ... .anchored in sanatana dharma" . Their
complaint is that "Islamic Rulers consciously and conscientiously,
resisted acculturation into the timeless civilizational and
religious milieu of India".
The second problem, equally serious, is with the term "India". As
the authors say "throughout our analysis, we employ the term `India'
for the geographical and historical India that encompasses the three
countries into which India was partitioned in the course of the 20th
Century.
In short, the authors do not accept the Partition of India but opt
for "Akhand Bharat " in 2003. Why could they not use terms like pre-
Partition India and Indian Union or post-Partition India?
The lay reader of this book will be totally confused by numerous
tables on "Indian religionists" and "other religionists" and
also "India" and "Indian Union". The crucial figure (2.1 per cent
growth trends of Indian and other religionists in India, 1901-2071)
shows that by 2061 the proportion of Muslims and Indian religionists
(read Hindu) will be the same and by 2071 it will be doomsday! But
the figures refer to India (i.e. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh).
Mathematically speaking, one should not be surprised if
predominantly Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh grow faster than the
Hindu population in India. Indian census data since 1951 indicate
that in every decade, there is an increase of only one per cent
point in the Muslim population. If it is 13 per cent in 2001, at
this rate, it should take 370 years for India to become Pakistan!
I would beg to disagree with Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, who
quotes Augustus Comte, a 19th Century French philosopher, to
say "demography is destiny". My footnote is: past trend is not
destiny. I am proud of multi-religious India and the rich cultural
diversity. Muslims and Christians must have the same place as Hindus
in India. We don't want to be Pakistan.
ASHISH BOSE
http://www.hindu.com/br/2003/11/11/stories...11100150300.htm
ADVERTISEMENT
This book review which questions the indian civilizational identity
should be of interest to members.
There are two questions: 1. Indian religionists; 2. term 'India'
1. Is it okay to use the term 'Indian religionists' as distinct from
muslims and christians?
2. Is there a problem in identifying a civilizational area and using
the term 'India': "The authors have convinced themselves that India
was a "homogenous civilizational area... ... .anchored in sanatana
dharma" . Their complaint is that "Islamic Rulers consciously and
conscientiously, resisted acculturation into the timeless
civilizational and religious milieu of India". The second problem,
equally serious, is with the term "India". As the authors
say "throughout our analysis, we employ the term `India' for the
geographical and historical India that encompasses the three
countries into which India was partitioned in the course of the 20th
Century. In short, the authors do not accept the Partition of India
but opt for "Akhand Bharat " in 2003. Why could they not use terms
like pre-Partition India and Indian Union or post-Partition India?"
Kalyan
RELIGIOUS DEMOGRAPHY OF INDIA: A.P. Joshi, M.D. Srinivas, J.K.
Bajaj; Centre for Policy Studies, 27, Rajasekharan Street, Chennai-
600004. Rs. 800.
THIS BOOK contains massive data on the religious composition of
India's population, based on census data from 1881 to 1991 (2001
census data on religion are not yet available).
A special feature of this publication is the comprehensive
collection of data on religion for all continents and countries of
the world. It also gives detailed data for India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh. Its focus is on areas of Muslim and Christian
concentration in different regions of India.
There are maps for states giving district wise data on the religious
composition of population. The book does reflect serious and
sustained work in the field of social demography and it would have
been very useful to scholars, planners, policymakers and
administrators but unfortunately, the interpretation of the data and
the methodology of analysis cannot stand close scrutiny.
It seems that the book has a hidden message, which is spelt out at
several places and sometimes hidden in mathematical projections
(which are faulty), graphs and charts. The message, to put it
bluntly is: "Beware of Muslim population growth, otherwise India
will become Pakistan." The importance of religion cannot be ignored.
The Partition of India in 1947 was entirely based on census data on
religion.
There are a few districts in Assam and West Bengal where Muslims are
in a majority (because of the impact of undocumented migration from
Bangladesh). And it is a fact that the practice of family planning
among Muslims is much lower than in other communities. As several
technical demographers have demonstrated, even after controlling
education, occupation, and income, Muslim fertility is higher than
that of non-Muslims. There is no doubt that this differential growth
rate has political ramifications like seats in state assemblies and
demographic characteristics of constituencies. Nevertheless, are
scholars entitled to manipulate census statistics in the way these
unknown scholars from an unknown institute (which is not to be mixed
up with the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi) have done?
The entire classification scheme evolved by the authors is suspect.
In the Indian census, there is no category called "Indian
Religionists" (as the book puts it), apart from the fact
that "religionists" is not an English word. Indian religionists,
according to the authors, comprise "Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist and
Tribal" population . The Indian census uses the term "other
religious persuasions" to include only those minor religions which
are not covered by main religions like Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs,
Christians, Jains but the book under review means by "other
religionists" Muslim, Christian, Parsi and Jewish communities (the
late J.R.D.Tata, would have found it difficult to accept that he was
not a pucca Indian). The only statistical advantage in clubbing
Hindus with allied religions is to jack up the proportion of Hindus,
which we consider totally unnecessary. Over 82 per cent of India's
population is Hindu. And what exactly is the motive in classifying
Muslims and Christians as "other religionists"?. Are Muslims and
Christians not Indian citizens? If some illegal migrants are
Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, find out who they are.
Technical demographers can estimate the extent of migration (legal
or illegal) by detailed analysis of census data for India, Pakistan
and Bangladesh at the district level. Should the ICSSR have given
financial assistance to novices in the field of social demography
for publication of the book? The ICSSR's sponsorship of this book
was unnecessary.
The authors have convinced themselves that India was a "homogenous
civilizational area... ... .anchored in sanatana dharma" . Their
complaint is that "Islamic Rulers consciously and conscientiously,
resisted acculturation into the timeless civilizational and
religious milieu of India".
The second problem, equally serious, is with the term "India". As
the authors say "throughout our analysis, we employ the term `India'
for the geographical and historical India that encompasses the three
countries into which India was partitioned in the course of the 20th
Century.
In short, the authors do not accept the Partition of India but opt
for "Akhand Bharat " in 2003. Why could they not use terms like pre-
Partition India and Indian Union or post-Partition India?
The lay reader of this book will be totally confused by numerous
tables on "Indian religionists" and "other religionists" and
also "India" and "Indian Union". The crucial figure (2.1 per cent
growth trends of Indian and other religionists in India, 1901-2071)
shows that by 2061 the proportion of Muslims and Indian religionists
(read Hindu) will be the same and by 2071 it will be doomsday! But
the figures refer to India (i.e. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh).
Mathematically speaking, one should not be surprised if
predominantly Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh grow faster than the
Hindu population in India. Indian census data since 1951 indicate
that in every decade, there is an increase of only one per cent
point in the Muslim population. If it is 13 per cent in 2001, at
this rate, it should take 370 years for India to become Pakistan!
I would beg to disagree with Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, who
quotes Augustus Comte, a 19th Century French philosopher, to
say "demography is destiny". My footnote is: past trend is not
destiny. I am proud of multi-religious India and the rich cultural
diversity. Muslims and Christians must have the same place as Hindus
in India. We don't want to be Pakistan.
ASHISH BOSE
http://www.hindu.com/br/2003/11/11/stories...11100150300.htm