|
|
Reviews
Religious Demography Of India
[]
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
© Copyright 2000 - 2003 The Hindu
Response
Dr. J. K. Bajaj
Director
November 12, 2003
The Editor
The Hindu
Chennai
Dear Sir,
Apropos the review of our book entitled “Religious
Demography of India” published in the issue of November 11.
We are indeed flattered that Prof. Ashish Bose, the
undisputed doyen of the current scholarship on Indian
demography, has himself condescended to review a book by
“novice” scholars. We are also pleased to notice that Prof.
Bose acknowledges the validity of the “massive data” on
religious demography collected in the book, and the
“sustained scholarship” displayed in this exercise.
We are, however, disturbed by Prof. Bose’s attempt to sow
confusion about some of the categories used in the book. The
book clearly defines the category of Indian Religionists to
include “adherents of religions of Indian origin” and these
are further explained to encompass Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs
and Jains, besides those who are described as followers of
“other religious persuasions” (ORP) in the censuses. Since,
ORP of the census include Jews and Parsis, they in fact
included amongst the Indian Religionists in our analysis,
contrary to what Prof. Bose states in his review. He may not
like the term Indian Religionists, and it may not be proper
English for him, but it is a clear and well-defined
technical term as far as our study goes. The term “Other
Religionists”, to which Prof. Bose seems so allergic,
appears only once in the book, and that too in a graph;
there it indicates the total population minus the Indian
Religionists. Again contrary to what Prof. Bose imputes, the
detailed tables in the book do not mention “Other
Religionists”; the data presented is for Indian
Religionists, Muslims and Christians. Therefore, there is no
question of the reader getting confused with the
terminology.
The objection of Prof. Bose to the term “India” as used in
the book is even less understandable. “India” is a
well-established historical, geographic, sociological and
civilisational entity. The fact that this entity is now
divided into three political units does not make the
original entity meaningless. In any case, as Prof. Bose
himself pointed out in the course of a discussion on this
book, the borders across these political units are porous
and people across the borders are of similar cultural and
civilisational stock. Therefore, any projection of the
religious demography of India must take into account all the
three entities together. Prof. Bose may find it politically
incorrect, but the procedure is academically sound and
appropriate.
Finally, we must protest the insinuation by Prof. Bose that
the ICSSR has erred in providing support for the publication
of this book. We may be “unknown scholars” in his eyes. But,
the ICSSR while evaluating a piece of academic work is not
supposed to be guided by the fame and renown of the
scholars, which is all too easy to acquire in the small
closed club that established Indian academia is comprised
of, but by the rigour, authenticity and diligence of the
scholarship displayed in the work. On the latter counts,
even Prof. Bose does not find us lacking.
The changing religious profile of India constitutes a
significant sociological phenomenon that the established
demographers have refused to study for too long for fear of
being labelled impolitic. Our study has tried to fill in
this glaring lacuna in Indian demographic and sociological
studies. If the established and known scholars had carried
out the exercise, there would have been no need for us to
stray from our chosen scientific disciplines to undertake
this painstaking work.
The Hindu is in the process of vigorously fighting for and
defending its right to free expression. We hope the paper
shall respect our right to express ourselves on an issue
that directly concerns our work and reputation. We shall be
greatly obliged if the above is published in the letters
columns of your esteemed daily.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
J. K. Bajaj
|
