Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: Afternoon Despatch
& Courier
Date: October 5, 2004
URL: http://www.cybernoon.com/DisplayArticle.asp?section=fromthepress&subsection=editorials&xfile=October2004_mediawatch_standard76&child=mediawatch
This must be the only country in
the entire world where the President is a Muslim, the prime minister is
a Sikh, the party head is a Christian, all of whom are accepted by the
Hindu majority
The controversy over population
growth rates among Hindus and Muslims stirred by the release of certain
census data has died, largely because, as one suspects, no one wants to
face up to facts. The Statesman (10 September) congratulated RSS spokesman
Ram Madhav for 'acting well and with uncharacteristic maturity' for saying
that 'growth rates should be seen in
national perspective and not as
an issue of Hindu-Muslim divide".
The Statesman either does not know
the basis on which Pakistan came into being or the manner in which Hindus
have been driven out of Bangladesh in a slow but ruthless manner.
Growth rate
The Census authorities have been
blamed, The Hindu (Sept. 13) pointedly remarking that "the release of religionwise
growth rates without making elementary adjustments for the exclusion of
Jammu & Kashmir in the 1991 Census speaks poorly of the competence
and professionalism of the Office of the Census Commissioner".
The Hindu also does not like Hindus
and Muslims being treated as 'monolithic groups', claiming that the office
of the Census Commissioner has inexplicably sidelined fundamental socio
economic categories and factors that every demographer knows to be the
key to a study of demographic patterns and change". The paper with more
hope than insight quotes demographers as expecting the population of India
to stabilise soon and the proportion of Muslims in India settling around
14 per cent "as fertility rates for all groups are on the decline".
The Tribune (Sept 15) patted "some
right thinking Muslims" on the back for admitting that growth rates among
Muslims are higher than for any other community and for pointing out that
Islam is not averse to family planning. Said The Tribune: "The example
of Iran is with us, which has zero per cent population growth... The attempt
to apply correctives has to come from within".
Deccan Chronicle (Sept 10) said
that "the alarm raised over the 1.5 per cent increase in the growth rate
of Muslims as constituting the starting point of a population explosion
in that community which could eventually overtake the Hindu majority, is
irrelevant and mischievous".
Deccan Herald (Sept 13) went to
the extent of claiming that "the fall in the growth rate of the Muslim
population was greater than that of the Hindu population at the national
level" while The Statesman pointed out that 'at 29 per cent, the growth
rate in the Muslim community is still higher than in any other community'
and 'there's a clear need for change'. It called upon the All India Muslim
Personal Law Board (Aimplb) not to "shy away from social problems facing
the community". 'Overall population growth,' said the paper, 'is still
unacceptably high for major communities and highest among Muslims'.
The sharpest critic of the Muslim
community Swapan Dasgupta did not mince words in his article in The Free
Press Journal (Sept 20). He wrote : "To Take comfort in the self-serving
belief that the Muslim population has grown by only 29.3 per cent rather
than 36 per cent as was initially hinted, in the period 1991-2001 is absolutely
grotesque.... The face remains that Muslims are growing at a 9.30 per cent
higher rate than Hindus.... It is an act of deceit to believe that the
problem does not exist.... The Muslim growth rate in Assam for 1991-2001
was a staggering 29.30 per cent compared to a Hindu growth rate of 14.95
per cent".
Whether the Census Commissioner
goofed or not, those interested in religious demography of India are advised
to read a book by that same title written by three experts, A. P. Joshi,
M. D. Srinivas and J. K. Bajaj and published by the Centre for Policy Studies,
Chennai last year which deals with demographic changes between 1881 and
1991.
The authors put Hindus, Sikhs, Jains
and Buddhists together under the umbrella description of 'Indian Religionists'.
They say: "The proportion of Indian Religionists in the population of India
has declined by 11 percentage points during the period of 110 years for
which census information is available. Indian Religionists formed 79.32
per cent of the population in 1881 and 68.03 per cent in 1991. This is
an extraordinarily high decline to take place in just about a century....
if the trend continues, then the proportion of the Indian Religionists
in India is likely to fall below 50 per cent in the latter half of the
twenty first century". Anyone is welcome to check this out with the Centre
for Policy Studies in Chennai.
And while we are on the subject
of minorities, has anyone noticed what Siddhartha Reddy wrote about Sonia
Gandhi and Christians in Asian Age (Sept. 14)? To quote Reddy: "Sonia Gandhi
inducted seven Christians in the working committee, not one of whom can
win a Lok Sabha election. Sonia Gandhi has a Christian General Secretary
and two Christian Secretaries.
"Another General Secretary has a
Christian wife. The most powerful General Secretary has a Christian daughter
in law. A Christian is made to head the party's organisational elections.
Then she inducts Christian Governors. In Kerala......she picks another
Christian (as Chief Minister). She has a Christian in the CWC and a Christian
AICC secretary. In Andhra she appointed a Christian Chief Minister. From
Karnataka, she inducts a Christian Union Minister...... A dispensation
led by Sonia- Manmohan duo without reciprocating to the secular feelings
of the majority Hindus will lead the government, the party and the country
to disaster...."
Sonia and Christians
One does not see what's wrong with
having a Christian Chief Minister in a predominantly Hindu state or several
Christians in the Congress working Committee if they do a good job. But
this must be the only country in the entire world where the President is
a Muslim, the prime minister is a Sikh, the party head is a Christian,
all of whom are accepted by the Hindu majority without a murmur.
For a fascist, fundamentalist, saffronite
Hindutva touting party, the BJP is a remarkable silent on this score. Writes
Mr Reddy: "It is now the Congress turn to reciprocate Hindu feelings. Their
secular magnanimity should not be taken for granted. This incredible situation
of locking out the majority population for too long a time from all apex
positions cannot be sustained in any democracy". Stuff and nonsense. Hindus
can take anything. Just think: only Hindus can take a Mani Shankar Aiyer
and an Arjun Singh. Fancy Catholic Italy or Catholic France having a Muslim
President, a Sikh Prime Minister and a Hindu party chief dictating how
the government must run. We may be bad chaps, even fundamentalists and
saffronists, but we are a tolerant people. That is why the Shiv Sena can
truthfully say: garv se bolo hum Hindu hai. For all our shortcomings we
are decent lot.
