Yes we can, Obama!

Now, I do find the arguments presented by Mr Reddy to be childish. Here is clearly somone who does not understand statistical anaylsis, but the point is that he is passionate in his beliefs as well.

There is certain fear against recognizing this differential.

--------------

Faruk, that happens. See this extremely interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54700-2004Sep1.html

re: dm #223
If we in India become less religious will it drop the population growth.

Regards,

Faruk

By the way, because this subject is so important, it is also a very sensitive issue in India, and one cannot discuss it without being accused in all sorts of ways (on both sides). Here is an interesting article by someone who rejects the link between religion and birth-rates:

(He also makes a very good point that Muslims seem to look after their children better, resulting in lower infant mortality rates.)

Although it is not an academic paper, it makes interesting argument AGAINST the linkage, so am presenting it in full here:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/mag/2002/11/10/stories/2002111000610300.htm

Religion and fertility behaviour: canards and facts

C. RAMMANOHAR REDDY

A JOURNALIST has to be prepared for both hate mail and informed criticism. In response to an article I recently wrote on the facts behind the so-called "appeasement" of Muslims in India, I received one letter accusing me of ignoring the "hard facts" on the demographic behaviour of Hindus and Muslims. The writer "Laura Kelly" (no address) said "Hindus will become minority (sic) by 2051."

She also enclosed extracts of an article purporting to analyse fertility behaviour in the sub-continent. As in all such demagogy that passes off as an intellectual effort, this article (original publication not mentioned) used statistics very selectively and did not always mention where the data came from.

I had thought that the pseudo-champions of Hinduism had moved on to a far more sophisticated demagogy than talking about Muslims having more children, as part of an effort to whip up anger among the Hindus of an India in which they would soon be reduced to a minority. But as the recent use in public discourse of the obscene saying "Hum panch, hamare pachis (We five, our 25") suggests, the issue continues to be the source of manipulative and combustible politics. Tiresome as it may be to point out the obvious and self-evident as the facts should be, here are the findings of recent research on this subject

On the face of it, yes, Muslim Indians do have more children than Hindu Indians. According to the National Family Health Survey-II — an exhaustive survey conducted by the Mumbai-based International Institute of Population Studies — in 1998-99 the Total Fertility Rate of Hindu women was 2.8 and Muslims 3.6. (The TFR is the average number of children a woman bears during her reproductive life). But two aspects of the fertility behaviour of Hindus and Muslims must be borne in mind before jumping to any conclusion.

The first is that India's Muslim population is concentrated in a few States — 36 per cent reside in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Now fertility levels in these two backward States are in general (among Hindus and Muslims) higher than elsewhere. So the national average for Muslims could be more indicative of their backward economic and social position, rather than of religion determining how many children a woman should have.

K.S. James, a professor at the Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad, points out that in Andhra Pradesh, the TFR for Muslims is not very much higher than for Hindus (2.5 versus 2.2). Others have pointed out an even starker comparison. According to information generated by the census, Muslim women in rural Tamil Nadu and Karnataka had considerably fewer children than Hindu women residing in the rural areas of backward States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan (1978). In some cases the gaps were huge. The Muslim TFR in rural Tamil Nadu was 3.6 while that of a Hindu woman in U.P. was as much as 5.8. There were similar gaps in the towns and cities. Social and economic backwardness, rather than religion, then seems to influence fertility.

It is also a fact that Muslim fertility rates are falling and the gap between the Hindus and Muslims is closing. The TFR among Hindus was 3.3 in 1992-93 (NFH-I); this had declined to 2.8 (1998-99). But the fall among Muslims was even more rapid: from 4.4 to 3.6. A related canard is that Muslims do not practise family planning. The NFHS (and many other surveys and field studies) have shown that they do. Today, there certainly is a gap between contraceptive usage among the two communities — 49 per cent among Hindus and 37 per cent among Muslims — but this too is narrowing and the use of modern practices is increasing.

The most absurd fear, which is repeated ad nauseam in the pseudo-Hindu circles, is that soon Muslims will outnumber Hindus in India. What is the real situation? Between 1961 and 1991, there was a small increase in the share of the Muslims in the total population (from 9.8 to 11.7 per cent) and a corresponding decline of the Hindu population (from 84.3 to 82.4 per cent). But these shifts are not of any significance for the relative sizes of the two population groups. The Hindu population grew by 2.1 per cent a year over these three decades, while the Muslim population in India increased by 2.7 per cent. If the population growth rates of these two groups did not change, it would take another 306 years before Muslims outnumber Hindus! In any case that would not happen because we do know that Muslim fertility rates have been falling and will decline further. With that the Muslim population growth rate too will decline. We also know that India's population will stabilise around 2005 at 1.6 billion — long before the Muslim population can even in theory overtake Hindus.

Demagogy always forgets statistics that are uncomfortable. While much is made of the higher fertility of Muslim women, the demagogues never care to mention that the sex ratio (the number of girls for 1,000 boys) among Muslim Indians has been consistently higher than among the Hindu Indians. That is, Muslims do not discriminate against girl children to the same extent that the Hindus do. Second, infant mortality is lower for Muslims than Hindus — 59 versus 77 for every 1,000 births in 1998-99 (NFHS-2). Third, child mortality too was lower among the Muslims than Hindus — 83 versus 107 for every 1,000 children under the age of five. This means that in spite of their lower economic and social status, Muslim Indians look after their children (girls and boys) better than the Hindu Indians. Now, why should that not be cause for concern?




(Unlike my anonymous correspondent, here are references to a few recent studies on this subject: P.M. Kulkarni, "Special Population Groups", Seminar, March 2002; (2) K. Moulasha. and G. Rama Rao, "Religion-Specific Differentials in Fertility and Family Planning", Economic and Political Weekly, Oct 16, 1999 and (3) Roger Jeffery and Patricia Jeffery, Religion and Fertility in India, EPW, August 26, 2000).

E-mail the writer at crr100@india.com

#224 Posted by KaalChakra on

[[
It may be easier if we don't refer to Islam at all, but focus on Mormonism, Catholicism, etc and see that is more acceptable.
]]

It may be easier if we talk to Allaha and ask him to convince muslims??

tahmed ji, we may be speaking of different things.

A link between religion and fertility is widely recognized. But you know how these things are in social sciences. We will always have some people and some researchers who don't agree and have their own interpretations.

I think we might need to tighten the hypotheses here. May be we can say that WITHIN any country, Muslims are likely to have higher than average fertility rates - I am not sure if that would still satisfy you because you reject the link with religion itself.

It may be easier if we don't refer to Islam at all, but focus on Mormonism, Catholicism, etc and see that is more acceptable.

tahmed:

"(ps: my first job after graduation was as demographer, and even published a research paper back then, and have since worked in international agencies with professional demographers with world-wide experience, and i never heard of this "clear link" with religion nonsense that so many august Chowkies take for granted)"

I worked as a Research Fellow in the Institute of Economic Growth after studying at Delhi School of Economics. Since you seem to take some kind of pride about your ignorance about India, let me inform you that these two institutions are known as the breeding grounds of Marxists in India, JNU is a Johny come lately.

I did my research under Dr. Ashis Bose, who is internationally acknowledged as an expert and since you are a demographer, you would know about him. I also did my Master's thesis at Wisconsin on a demographic topic.

And here is what I say: Anyone who says that there is no relationship between a person's religion and fertility rate is indeed following some kind of an agenda, not the ones who are pointing to the simple empirical facts.

You mentioned France. The experience of Quebec is more recent and very similar. Until two generations ago, Quebec, with a predominantly Catholic population, had Canada's highest birth rate; most of my Fremch Canadian colleagues had a family size of five or more. Now, Quebec has the lowest provincial birth rate and the province had to start giving incentives for having more children.

Does it prove that religion has no influence on fertility? Not at all, it is the opposite. The Quebec society has become from being the most religious to the most irreligious in a generation, Where every family had at least one person becoming a nun or a priest, Quebec now has to import priests and nuns from African and Asian countries. The same irreligiosity happened in France.

#221 and please dont quote me any more "famous Indian institutes" - I have heard enough of that from Dost Mittar sahib, and all it tells me the extent of damage done by hindu nationalism to proper education in India.

kaalchakra bhai #219 "There is a clear link between religion and fertility"

With all due respect, this is true only if you are ignorant of demography. While statistical links can be (and have been!) drawn between the sunspot activity and business cycles, such misuse of data indicates nothing more than the pre-conceived notions or (worse) ideological mindset, of the "statistician". How do you, e.g., explain the fact that France (a Catholic nation) was the first nation to undergo demographic transition in Europe back in the 19th century?? (ps: my first job after graduation was as demographer, and even published a research paper back then, and have since worked in international agencies with professional demographers with world-wide experience, and i never heard of this "clear link" with religion nonsense that so many august Chowkies take for granted).

#216 Hamidm: Like I said, your "facts" are good for comedy and that is all. Perhaps next time there is a demography seminar of some kind, you could be invited as the comedian who keeps the audience laughing before the seminar starts.

Bulleya, I agree. The real variable here is the total population size of different religious groups, and Muslim population, as far as I know, is increasing everywhere, including in India and Israel (which is oddly funny, come to think of it).

Although differential birth-rates themselves are not very important, even that has been studied to death, specially in Europe and United States. There is a clear link between religion and fertility - mormons, catholics, fundamentalist Christians, for instance, tend to have higher birth rates than the rest.

kaalchakra #: i don't know of any country where the muslim population is decreasing.....islam is the fastest growing religion everywhere.....apparently in the usa also.....and in israel and india!......what to talk of pakistan and nigeria.....

it is increasing due to high birth rates and high conversion rates.....and the lack of desire of its followers to leave it.....(even hamidm mian, still, goes to eid prayers and friday prayers)......

...the world will be in the first stages of being totally brown and black in 40 years....with some yellow added in......

after that, it will become totally brown and black (and yellow)....the brown and black world in a few centuries will study, in their history books, about a species known as the, "caucasian white man;" after which they will discuss the woolly mamoth, the dodo bird and (by then) the extinct sperm whale...

they will say that the white man (and woman) ruled the world at one time.....but like the mighty stagosorous could not keep up with demographics....they will then try to crunch the cockroach trying to climb onto the hologram of the dinosaur.....

in 40 years, europe will be 6.8% of the world's population....lets say around 5% or so white.....this means around 425 million....and there will be around 200 million whites in usa (about the same as now).....so a total of around 625 million white men and women left in the total population of around 9 billion, within our lifetimes.....

pakistan and bangladesh, combined, will have about this many people!

then in hundred years from now, it will be even less and so on.....and then one day, hamidm mian will proudly be able to change his name back to hamidm mian from harry, and will be able to talk proudly, in public, in usa, about the legacy of his farting grandpa.....and will no longer be ashamed of wearing his underwear in the country club showers.....

i am neither rejoicing nor complaining.....just trying to highlight how trivial various people's (specifically the proverbial white man) pursuit to power happens to be.......when they are on their way to extinction......

Re: # 211

tahemed,

forget the comedy and focus on the facts ..... are you disputing anything i said in my post ? ..... if not, then just admit that dost-mittar is right and stop trying to obfuscate with silly 'cross-country' demographic comparisons .....

...

#214 and #213 Posted by tahmed32 on
tahmed32 bhai,
this process of enlightment is not going to end in your/mine life time. believe me or not...

pinku/hamidm: bye bye children. daddy has work to do.

pinku: Dost Mittar has already enlightened me on the Hindu School of Demography. And made me all the more grateful to Jinnah as a result...