Yes we can, Obama!

Re: # 274
semi-beduin32....
Pokhran was not meant for Pakiland. It was for China...but then again china used Pakiland to....

Farruk...
You high breeeders are like pest in India. We, Indians will like you guys to migrate to your promised land...bloody parasites...

tahmed,

I have not been following the mind-numbing details of multivariate birth rates. But I should point out that you have indeed displayed tendencies to belittle, even demonize, others over disagreements. I say this based on my interactions with you over a range of topics.

At times you are too close to your Islam to rationally see flaws in your logic. And when these flaws are pointed out, you tend to get unduly upset, resorting, perhaps unwittingly, to coarse behavior.

As for Naqshbandi venerating dead men, note that Quran itself tells believers to venerate dead men from thousands of years ago; it calls them “prophets�. And so what if Naqsh prays at the graves of pirs and babas. BFD! Entire Christian world prays to a dead man. So what?

As for lamenting the lost innocent lives, you may want to revisit your fervent, blind support for a certain war … where, as you later admitted, the wrong country was attacked. It is easy to adopt the high road and blame others; it is difficult to identify the same demons in ones own self.

As I pointed out, at times you are too attached to your viewpoint to see flaws in your own reasoning. But this should not translate to belittling others.

tahmed32:

No offense taken. But if I indeed used bogus studies and statistics to malign Muslims, then I would indeed be a Muslim hater.

#304: i dont prophesize. and i dont ban. at least run up a tree and fetch a coconut while you are gibbering - that way you wont be a total waste.

prophetboy...enough wity the charade...go ahead and ban me already...

i see mr arjun is working hard to shamelessly re-register for the 39th time on chowk, having no other life. good job, i have tried to help you by flagging your posts so chowk staff can take notice.

#300 DM: You are right. Sometimes I find it useful, for purposes of clarity, to summarize in a word or two what I see an individual's posts indicate about the poster's basic views. I try not to unfairly categorize someone though, and that is why I generally provide an explanation of why I am applying (as you say) a label.

I remain aware though that one can never pass judgement on anyone for all time to come since people do change their views over the years.

Let us then simply agree to disagree then, with no personal offense intended and certainly none taken.

#300 Posted by dost_mittar on November 15, 2008 7:09:11 am

prophetboy can do whatever he wants...including ignoring facts and figures...

he can says the american people think better of pakiland than india even though opinion polls show that americans view india favorably and pakiland unfavorably by a 2-1 margin..

prophetboy's high horse is so high and the air so rarefied at that level that he can believe whatever he wants...

tahmed:

Doesn't matter. My point stays - you cannot disagree without labeling people.

Fortunately, neither I nor the rest of the muslim world need you or any other muslim-hating indian to define Islam for us. And no - I have no respect for those who applaud terrorists or those who stand on its head the fundamental message of islam that all men are equal before God.


prophetboy...I know you are reality challenged...

this is a poll from 2006..

reality is anti-islam...and anti-prophetboy...


Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable.

Forty-five percent of respondents queried April 6 - 9 said they have an unfavorable view of Islam, a rise from 36 percent in February. And the public’s impression of Islam has diminished even more compared with four years ago. In February 2002 – less than six months after the terrorist attacks of September 11 – the country was evenly divided in its impression of Islam.

dm #297 OK. muslim-hating does not describe you. but Islam-hating does.

tahmed32:

"Fortunately, neither I nor the rest of the muslim world need you or any other muslim-hating indian to define Islam for us"

Thanks for proving my point by calling me a muslim-hating Indian. You seem to be incapable of disagreeing with someone without labeling them.

tahmedi ji does not treat Urstruly any different than any non-Muslim who agrees with Urstruly or Naqshbandi.

The issue here is the birth rates of Islamic people. That is something we should be able to agree on.

#294 dm sahib: when urstruly applauds terrorists and calls the pakistan army "napaak" for fighting them, then that makes him a terrorist lover. and read up on the naqshbandhi sect and read up naqshabandhis posts littered with veneration of dead men, and you will see i am not off the mark.

Fortunately, neither I nor the rest of the muslim world need you or any other muslim-hating indian to define Islam for us. And no - I have no respect for those who applaud terrorists or those who stand on its head the fundamental message of islam that all men are equal before God. Too many innocent lives have been lost to the hands of terrorists for me to join your politically correct ways of insulting muslims.

tahmedji:

Why do you have to label other people's views with derogatory adjectives of your own and call Urstruly's views "terrorist lover" and that of Naqshbandi's as "dead man worshippers", especially when they merely represent two very well-respected and established schools of subcontinental Islam, Deoband and Bareli? It would be nice if you could respect other people's views the same as you have every right to expect them to respect yours.

#291 DM: I know your views on sunni Islam are the same as those of terrorist-lover Urstruly and dead-man worshipper Naqshbandhi. That is of course just as convenient as Dost Mittar Theory of Muslim Fertility.

kuldip nayyar....

give it up already...dontcha know...reality is biased against pakis? besides, you can't rely on numbers to prove anything...what with the well known pro-hindoo origins of the ZERO...

tahmed32#289:

Okay, sir. I let you have the last word.

And I can assure you that I do not consider Islam to be a source of all evil. In fact, my views of sunni Islam are similar to those of two devout Muslim chowkies, Naqshbandi and Urstruly.

Now have a nice weekend.

che guevara: i called it a day a few posts back. :-)

DM: Like I said, you are welcome to your views: i.e., ceteris paribus, you will have fewer children if you are a hindu than if you are a muslim!! And like I said, you are certainly being consistent in your determination to paint Islam as the source of all evil.

And if this is indeed what the Famous Research Institutes of Planet India are saying, then they are welcome to their views too.

akcheema#287:

Have I ever disagreed with you?

I would have joined the Umma and retired to be a master of some dosheza in my pind in Pakistan, if it were not for the pain involved. In any case, I have increased my meat consumption, all that remains is for my karma to bring me to the Ummah (or Ummat as they probably still say in my pind?) in my next janam.

Re: # 285; dost ji

but of course religion is the major factor in determining the fertility rates ... us muslims have to increase the proportions of the "ummatees" in this planet! ... how else do you suppose we'd win if not by sheer "dhakka shahi"? ... and it goes on everywhere from Palestine to Indonesia, maghrib to mashriq and shamal to junoob! how else do you suggest we'd make our "mumliket-e khudadaad" the fourth largest in the world by 2020?

give us some credit please! this is something we ARE good at .. some people will insist there are other factors but those people are recaptured very quickly!

Tahmed yaar DM is PWNING you quite reluctantly, just give up already call it a day yea?

tahmed32:

I am dishonest? Let us see:

I and others have piled evidence upon evidence that shows that religion is a factor in fertility rates and you refuse to accept this. All you do is use words like "communal garbage", "rinky-dinky" institutes, my Indian sensitivities, etc. I want to discuss issues while you are more interested in dealing with my motivations or the motivations of people doing studies.

You say that I have not dealt with these points before. Let me reproduce my post#113 which made the same point that I made in my post#275, so there is nothing inconsistent in my posts.

"The differences in fertility rates are a multi-variate issue. The biggest factor is education, especially that of female education. Even a country such as Bangladesh has dramatically reduced birth rate because of the empowerment of women by NGOs.
But religion too is a factor, after the effect of other variables is controlled. For example, Kerala Muslims have a much lower birth rate than Muslims in other Indian states, yet Muslim birth rate there is higher than that of Non-Muslism.
I was in India a couple of years ago when the country had launched an intensive campaign against polio vaccine. Many Muslims rejected to be vaccinated as a rumour was spread that it was a Hindu conspiracy to control Muslim population."

You say that I rejected your point about cross-country comparisons by questioning your intelligence. I don't know if I questioned your intelligence or not but I definitely regard such comparisons as absurd. And I never said that India was not on this planet: I am quite willing to compare Muslim/Non-Muslim FTRs in Punjab or in West Bengal, but comparing Indian FTR with that of Bosnia or Turkey would be meaningless.

And why call a study communal garbage because it uses religion as a variable? If you go to the link provided by hamidm, you will find that your favourite white institutes are also discussing the religious implications of demographic changes.

TAhmed Sahib:
Are you really that dense? Every one is saying (including HP) that what DM sahib infers from those studies is probably valid. Why you are not getting this? Some past scores to settle?

"and now you say:" should be "and my comments on what you now say:"

DM sahib #280 "I have dealt with those two points, which are reproduced below"

Please be honest. You did not deal with these points before, and simply rejected them by questioning my intelligence in even mentioning cross-country comparison and instead kept piling on the communal garbage of one "famous indian institute" after another in response, and crowned this approach by reminding me of the flag of india planted on the moon. Please leave such jingoistic form of discussion to lesser individuals than yourself.

And I dont recall your writing what you say you are "reproducing" before in response when I raised these points.

and now you say:

1. rest assured that demographers are well aware of income differentials and other aspects when doing inter-country (and inter-temporal) comparisons. no need for reminders from you on this account.

2. You are just playing games here. i.e. you drop your earlier claims implying india is on a separate planet, and say you agree with the global research. But..then you drag back in your the rubbish dished out by the Hindu School of Demography (i.e. cet. par., hindus have fewer children than muslims) anyway!! '

Lets just drop this here discussion here, DM sahib. Like I said much earlier, you are welcome to keep on believing that being a muslim means having more children and being a hindu means having fewer children. The world (or the moon with the Indian flag) wont stop spinning because "famous Indian institutions" tell them to.

Madani saheb:

Your interacts are always illuminating. But the population of West Pakistan itself was 40 million at the start, not of the whole of Pakistan at that time.

I hope you wake up feeling better.

tahmed#277:

I have dealt with those two points, which are reproduced below:

"I asked you to look at inter-country comparisons of muslim countries vs india on fertility rates and you rejected without presenting any reason for the rejection. I presented to you the by now generally accepted global consensus on the factors underlying demographic transition, and you rejected that by throwing the name of yet another indian "research organization" at me that i am supposed to know of (and no, i never heard of this indian doctor ashit or whatever his name is either)."

I did not present those comparisons because differences in socio-economic and cultural factors make those comparisons devoid of any meaning. For example, it makes no sense to compare total fertility rates between India and Saudi Arabia which has a much higher level of education and income than India. But just for your information, TFR in Saudi Arabia, despite higher income and education, is 3.94 as against 2.8 in India.


As for the global research re underlying factors in birth rates, I have been emphasizing those factors from the very beginning. In India itself, Muslim birth rates in Kerala are lower than Non-Muslim birth rates in UP and Bihar, but not vis-a-vis non-muslims of Kerala. And if in India, Muslim level of education and income ever becomes significantly higher than those of non-muslims, this difference would be neutralised at an All-India level as well.

More numbers is not good sign generally.
Generally top class life maintenance is difficult for human or animals. In jungle rabits and dears have great numbers as they are are not able to protect themselves. But number gives strength and spacies survive.
Even among humans rich people have few children. Indira gandhi had only two children as it is hard to take care when children go to usa , or uk for study or exposure to high life. ZAB had only 4 children , he was like Nabab old rich family with thousnads acres of land. As he had to support 4 rich life styles , heard BB has little MG english two seater. What I want to say they can not afford more children due to have exposure to high life and learn ways of elites and due to security problems they can not do real job and there or in native lands also.
I am sure all servants for ZAB and gandhis have each atleast 10 chilren. That is what nature does.
Like in Jungle lions and tigers, leapards , chttah etc lead rich life not working for anybody but themselves and feasting on dears etc boars and other decdacies.(cats survive in millions)
They need good and lot of food, they need big place and areas so they do not breed like deers or rabits.
But those Dear and rabits take final revenge by numbers, all their predators are on way out while their numbers is on rise.
Of all humans are jews are most talented. Few million jews have done far better for world than billions of poor people
of world. Compared to acievements of few jews exceed all goods done by billions. But people hate better things as he feels depressed.Like all dears hate Lions and tigers etc Only group thjeir blood enemies like arabs or even unrelated impovarised masses of ummah wants to they to be pushed in water. Number in long term decides destiny , like few elephant can destroy millions of ants in few steps in long terms elephants will eaten by trillion of ants. Obama is making mistake and appointing emanuel/ a jew and outraging the Ummah , question is he is doing by commission by ommision, people can tell here.
Good night, today is bad day , not feeling good.

#275 as for the three points you now make, you are entitled to deny yourself the benefits of a century of international cross-country experience by emphasizing (as you do) in India as if India is a separate planet where only the pronouncements of "famous Indian Institutes" are valid. I have nothing more to add in this case.

dm #275 "What have I not responded to?"

See the two things I noted in #252. Do any of these sound like "France" to you??

And talking of your "response" on the french experience of the 19th century that i mentioned - dont you think today's Quebec is a bit different the France of the mid-19th century, n'est pas?

Generally poor people produce more people as they can not support most so after 5 to 6 children they just loose count as upper waalh ka gift if he gives he must have some plan. World wide govts subsidide more children as poor numbers are big and increasing always. If you look at news from poor area person blasted by Talibs generally he or she is aroung 38 years old, with 6 children and one on way.Generally subsidies are successful 200%. Now benzir card will make sure we have always people who need that card. There is psycological problem is that for some no guilt think people think we responsible for for poverty of poor breeding every 18 months. This similar to a White man from USA even poor white unemployed man is made to feel guilty blacks are poor and there is other problem of notion is poor man is more miserable but has lots of virtues etc. That precludes the sensible way of telling poors to stop poverty programs. Only China country is going to do better as they do not tolerate nonsense. If some body gets extra child they punish man through out life and all govt help is with drawn and kicked of all govt help.China has done best is they even do not pay lip service to democracy etc and that protects them from more foolish people controling wise people by sheer brutes numbers. This trend was started by Indian movies as poverty as virtues. Like all heros are poor and good hearted and all rich people evil. Then it reaches height of stupidity as even dark skin colored gets virtue that dark people may be dark but their heart is more soft and good. They do not think brain is given on head to wear cap to protect from sun. They sing songs like "hum hay kale fir bhi dilwale ( we are coal dark but we are good).
Only all govts can do good if in general they help poor but ask in return to stop producing too many children.Now our country is going get some money from IMF and will will gone in no time back to same people , That is not program. IMF should money and tell pakistan to control exploding population as there is no point in putting water in leaking sea and expect level to rise. This like addiction you are providing beer to person as he is addict to alcohol it does not work. At stroke of indepedence country with 40 million actually it may be only 20 million at start for new cut to size of west pakistan has population of 174 million most feel it is 200 million. So in 60 years it is about 8.5 times. With majority of population in child bearing age this will be exploding up.I just calculated with 20 million base to present 170 million growth rate is 3.65% in 60 years. Now population will more go up as people are betting all medicines developed by white man so we live long. White man has not done this good but he wants we to be miserable. He controls his population and gets samall but allows colored people to multiply but does not want him to come to white countries. So if same trend continues in next 10 years population will reach 242 Million. Generally is world phenemenon when there is strife when people are dieing population goes up even faster. Iran and Iraq in their their recent arab persian race war killed about 1.2 million people does it reduced population growth ? No the both countries made up losses and added excess people. So many iranians just after islamic revolution of Imam Khomaeni population doubled and misery has exploded. Iran govt is so afraid of they defied ethos ( Koran say more you produce allah will be pleased) and they want smaller population and help families to family of reasonable size. When excess population is there anxity leads to illogcal thinking. Some fanatic Persian Nationalist are lamenting while persians are limiting population, Kurds in Mahabad and Arabs in Kuzestan are increasing numbers. That tells even potential rich countries but poor country like iran have to control size.
Nothing is going to succeed as population grows and worst the population growth takes place of people who least afford every where. Poor have got licence and objective condition to be irresponsible. Poor has very high throshould of pain compared to well to do so he is at advantage always. By producing more children he establishes facts on ground. Unfortunately we had good white rulers who could have told us to do right things have just tired and left for their white countries. The had power to to be harsh and whip natives but now nobody is there to improve. English civil service people left leaving us to mercis of Babus and we still Ghulam in our country. Most reasonable people in country do not pay taxes as they feel wrong to waste money. Desi elites feels if my brother gets 5 children that is not his responsibility to help that breeding pair. He does not understand why he should be in business of forced charity when he does not have obligation even to help his stupid relative. This is reason I do not like do gooder civil activists they blackmail with guilt trip on us.But they never tell their clients to that poverty is not virtue, they have doctors dilemma. They want misery so they can lead glamamour life of helping poor. Poors may not need but this askals need to have poor. And for them it is lucrative carriers.
Any way due to overpopulation as worlds elits help so naturally populations do not implode and numbers reduced but they help to increase which explodes in Jihadi wars so they should suffer. Jehidi problem is hard to tackle as once jehidi then you are Jehadi, it has no relation to economics is thing of heart like religion. Jehadi can be bit down but jshadi will wait for jehad and after some time if Jehad does come then he will seach for jehad. As water falls from sky it travels from mountains, makes little straems , through plains tributaries in rivers but finally to Sea same all Jehadi are coming to Tribal areas and will end up in Peshavar it appears. Same way finally OBL will take final rest in tribal areas will defeat army of Obama. Elites have all loose but jehadi gains by loosing. Is is appaering like last decades of roman empire ? when German tribals were surrounding Roman and famous armies avoiding to come out and fight, finally imploded.
Yes obama can be in usa but OBL or his buddies have edge in Peshavar, quetta and mind of urban elites and salvates his Revolutionary Romanticsm in Cafes, universities and colleges of Punjab and sindh is truth.

I have tried bring discussion on line of title of "Yes We can Obama".

tahmed32:

Your way of "debate" astonishes me.

What have I not responded to?

You asked about responding to your observation about France. I gave my response in #223. You have never challenged any of the statistics and studies that I referred to but only tried to pooh-pooh and tarnish the reputation of those who conducted them while admitting that you know nothing about those institutions except that they are Indians [talk about prejudice?].

"btw, your arrogance reflects the same hubris that Indians like you had after Pokharan when Indians merely copied decades old technology and assumed that Pakistanis would be unable to do the same - and the BJP leaders you talk about wet their dhotis in 1998 when Pakistan gave them a fitting reply just days after they were crowing about the Indian nuclear explosions. Try some humility instead - you might learn a few things."

What kind of nonsense is this? Did I say anything about Pakistan? Did I say that Pakistan will not be able to replicate what India has done?

Let me repeat the issues that we are discussing:

1. Demographic changes are slow but have a far reaching impact.

2. In India, birth rates are influenced by many factors, such as rural/urban, literacy and other socio-economic factors, as well as religion.

3. Religion remains a factor after other measurable factors are accounted for, with Muslims having the highest birth rate and Parsees and Jains with the lowest birth rate.

Let me add [my interpretation] that it makes sense to use religion as a factor. If people believe [regardless of what the true religion says] that using contraceptive is sin, they are less likely to use it. [does not mean that they won't use it].

Now, I will appreciate it if you can find it within you to restrict the debate to these points and without using too many adjectives. It would be perfectly okay for you to say that you do not know anything about the Indian situation and would like to discuss only the international aspects of demography

#271 Dost Mittar: I realize your tender Indian nationalist feelings are hurt when I say I never heard of those "famous Indian Institutes" you kept referring me to as a substitute for a reasoned discussion. But I was simply conveying a fact (and you can take it as my lack of enlightenment).

Your shifting from tossing names of "famous Indian Institutes" to the Chandrayaan project (of which I have heard, of course) simply means you are digging yourself deeper in the same hole. Arrogance is not a substitute for reasoned argument.

btw, your arrogance reflects the same hubris that Indians like you had after Pokharan when Indians merely copied decades old technology and assumed that Pakistanis would be unable to do the same - and the BJP leaders you talk about wet their dhotis in 1998 when Pakistan gave them a fitting reply just days after they were crowing about the Indian nuclear explosions. Try some humility instead - you might learn a few things.

Majumdar:

"But the impact of religion on fertility would be far lower than socio-economic factors."

That could be so. The google only brought up abstracts of the studies which did not give the beta coefficients, so I do not know the relative significance of the religion variable. As regards to the Hindu article, it too did not give relative significance; it was an agenda driven analysis of other studies in response to other agenda driven analyses by people with the opposite agendas. I would suggest that one should look at the primary results and do one's own interpretation.

re : dost-mittar#270
"with the amount of meat I eat, my karma might bring me back as a Muslim in the next birth."

I see a lot of Muslims turning vegetarian due to health reasons, will their karma make them hindus in their next birth? and you will be a Muslim....

Regards,

Faruk

tahmed32:

Let me introduce you to another rinky dinky Indian institute: Its name is ISRO, famously infested by Hindutva freaks, one of whom was selected as India's President by the BJP. It has just announced that it has planted the Indian flag on the moon.

Of course, you will wait until the results are verified by the Luxemburg Space Agency.

Faruk#259:

"I don't know if the Hindu's get scared but I know for a fact that a lot of Indian Muslims get really scared when they think about the shining examples of human achievement to our east and west. That's the reason the issue of high birthrate among Indian Muslims is confined to dost-mittar's imagination."

I did not say that I am scared; but the higher birth rate of Muslims and the galcial importance of demographic changes are a fact.

Why am I not scared? Because it is very hazardous to project past trends into the future. A lot can happen between now and the next 300 years for the trends to change and, who knows, with the amount of meat I eat, my karma might bring me back as a Muslim in the next birth.

re: hamidm2 #264,265,266
I don't know if the Hindu's get scared but I know for a fact that a lot of Indian Muslims get really scared when they think about the shining examples of human achievement to our east and west. That's the reason the issue of high birthrate among Indian Muslims is confined to dost-mittar's imagination.


I read that you have decided to risk another trip to the homeland. Stay safe..


Regards,

Faruk

Re: # 266
hamidm2...
..sorry for any alarm the 7.9 number might have caused among the vegetarians ..."
bihari/up vegetarians are far efficient breeders than lot of carnivores....you should give up your prejudice...

Re: # 266
hamidm2...
i was told that, saddam hussein used to award each israeli arabs with handsome amount for addition of each child in their family and the award used to be much higher for suicide bombers. after toppling of saddam hussein, the supply line dried up and suicide bombing has almost stopped...
that may be the reason for reduction of birthrate among israeli arabs....

correction .......

..... i am sorry, those numbers were from 1996 .... since then the gazans have cut back on procreative sex and according to the cia world factbook the average suicider's mom produced 5.19 children in 2008 ........ sorry for any alarm the 7.9 number might have caused among the vegetarians ...

hindoos, beware !

.... do you want this to happen in hyderabad ???


Gaza has the highest total fertility rate (TFR).

Gaza's TFR is 7.9, meaning the average woman in Gaza will have a total of 7.9 children in the course of her lifetime, given current birthrates. The only figures near that fertility rate anywhere in the Middle East are 7.8 in Oman, 7.6 in Yemen and 7.1 in Syria. By contrast, the West Bank TFR is 5.7, a figure closer to countries at the low end of the scale like Israel with 2.9, Turkey with 3.6, Lebanon with 3.7, Egypt with 3.9 and Bahrain with 4.2.

Re: # 262

majumdar mian,

.... demographics is the ultimate (and only) weapon the hapless ummah has to overwhelm the infidel and it is being applied selectively ..... you might want to check out the birth rate in gaza and the west bank where they are producing an army of potential suicide bombers ...... if i were a hindoo (thank god i am not) i wouldn't be lulled into complacency ......... one day you migh wake up in the morning and find out that all the spots on the railroad track are taken by moslems ....... what will you do then ?

Re: # 262
majumder...
people here are discussing effect of islam on breeding pattern...for almost all variety of people (indians of various state, african,european...) moslems outbreed their non moslem counterpart due to strange culture and definitive agenda...now, if you try to compare a moslem in east europe (cold climatic condition) with a hispanic in tropical weather, then you are bringing lot many parameters and trying to create confusion...
Now, do islamic practise enhance performance of organs related to human reproduction? I am sure (if any) has (shouting 5 times and banging head, if anything will have minimal effect (Indian ayurveda and yoga is most effective in most of physical matters) on body and mind...

DM sahib,

Religion may be a factor which explains why Muslims have more children as compared to non-Muslims with very similar social indices, but the difference if any would hardly be very large, although I wud be willing to look at data which suggests to the contrary. But the impact of religion on fertility would be far lower than socio-economic factors. As Tahmed sahib's data and the article quoted by Kaal bhai brings out.

Regards

Re: # 251
shah2..
"Regarding alarmed rraised by hindutva the larger figure for muslim was due to inclusion of Kashmir in the cnsus for the first time..."
do you know how much kashmir population is contributing to the larger picture of india?
why, irrespective of state ( maharashtra, karnataka, tamilnadu...) common indians feels same about moslems (un controlled breeders)? it is from common observation...

Re: # 181
HP...
"Planning in India but the Muslim women who end up in hospitals after a few births go for snip,snip and in some cases w/o telling their husbands...."
Actualy The Calf (Sanjay Gandhi) intiated that procedure. But Congress lost moslem votebank for forcing family planning (during emergency) and reverted its policy.
In our Sub Divitional hospital one moslem female ( in mid 40s) had come for ligation. She had already delivered 19 to-be-criminals at her home and while she was facing acute financial problem, came for ligation to collect Govt. assistance (INR400 + nutrient)....this is the actual scenario...

Re: # 110
beduinoid32...
minorities are attacked in india, but they too attack indians...in pakiland, minorities are vanishing and unlike creating special protection laws for minorities, pakis created laws like huddod, blashphemy etc. to intimidate them...that is THE core difference and that is why ISAF drones are attacking Pakiland not the forests of Kandhamal...don't bring stupid logic like donkey pee and humans also pee, so humans is donkeys (no offense to donkeys by comparing them with pakis)....

Re: # 188
bull....

so the world will be filled with cockroaches and all the prophetic predictions (including (if anything is there) from that famous french, nostr....)....

Kal, even bull is agreeing with puranic prediction ( Kali yug)...
An evil creature will take birth in the pradesh (country) of mushal (Arabia) and will have such influence, that people will kill each other without any justification...and humanity will go back to stone age....

bull...
"of the three large monetheistic religions, one will have nearly disappeared demographically - judaism.....one will stay even or go down - christianity.....and one will be booming and will become the largest, overtaking christianity - islam......."

are you sure? christians are growing rapidly in africa and south america and the evangelists are now targetting india...let us see...
but if any jihad/crusade is fought now ( like that of the time of mo or later), 2/3 nukes in pakiland and bd- moslems will be down 1/3rd....that calculation, you need to keep in mind, at least keeping in mind the story of vietnam....

Re: # 55
akcheema...
"Israel is where it was always meant to be ... with Jerusalem as its capital!..."
Unfortunately, Pakland is not where it supposed to be- it should be very close to arab deserts. BTW, is there any revealition from arabic moon god on the future of promised land for moslems of the east? something similar to splitting of moon. Pakis deserve the reward- staying closest to temple of Kaaba (such that they can perform pilgrimage without VISA etc....)....

Re: # 218
bull...
Islam is growing in India mostly due to high breeding ( my sister's colegue used to tell- these creatures grow like hyacinth in pond) and migration from BD...conversion is absolute no...moslems try to use caste division to bring some people in their fold bu bluffing ( murag beg type), but when it comes to riots, the low caste people beats moslas by taking money from baniyas....


Majumder, Bull....
The history of Parsee migration from their native land is almost similar to that of jews. Both the groups spit on Islam...

Parsees do have their home land, eyeSlumic republic of eyeRun(Islamic Republic of Iran) and there is no controversy regarding this (moslas claim the current day jews are descendents of europeans than people of old Judea) so far....

While evading islamic barbarism, Parsees opted for East and landed up in India ( at that time India was better option than Europe). On the contrary, most of the jews migrated to europe ( few in western coast of India- both Malabar and Konkan)...
Jews have contributed very less to european enlightement. Rather, they have benefitted from it and started shining during and after 19th century. The jews, who are living in India, lead life of typical local population Marathi, Gomantak and Malayali. No high funda industry, high achievements.......

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=82

kaalchakra #224 no, it would not be OK to talk about Catholicism either. At least not until you address the question I had asked you in my post about how come France, a Catholic nation, was the first one in the 19th century to have undergone a drop in fertility rates.

Anil: I went back and read your posts #138-150 that you had been good enough to refer to me. Your posts are on the mark, and indeed reflect my own understanding of what is now the general consensus on the fertility rates. Urbanization and the growth of the middle classes are indeed considered to be the two driving forces behind the drop in fertility rates. This has been seen in one nation after another.

I recall in the 1960's a common joke about Bengalis we used to have was that they produce lots of babies. Our next door neighbor was a Bengali, and they had 6 children, so that confirmed to me this belief as well back then. However, fertility rates dropped in Bangladesh as an unexpected but welcome result of the empowerment of women brought about by the micro-credit schemes in that country. And so, in a poetic justice, Bangladesh now has a lower fertility rate than Pakistan (where the demographic transition to lower rates came much later). I had the pleasure of finding this for myself when visiting Bangladesh in the 1990's and doing some informal checks with women groups - hardly any woman had more than 2 or 3 children, and their children were all going to school.

dost mittar #223 I asked you to look at inter-country comparisons of muslim countries vs india on fertility rates and you rejected without presenting any reason for the rejection. I presented to you the by now generally accepted global consensus on the factors underlying demographic transition, and you rejected that by throwing the name of yet another indian "research organization" at me that i am supposed to know of (and no, i never heard of this indian doctor ashit or whatever his name is either).

So, i am through trying to convince you. You are welcome to your made-in-india beliefs. At least you are consistent in your view of islam as being the source of problems.

Re: # 248

You do amit there is Gendr selection and infanticide going on as also discouraging attitude for female inOunjab northern idia and may be other.

If those babies survived the ratio of women innonmuslim would be greater if it is SAME Now .Its not rstio i am interested inbut absolute numbr particularly female non muslims

Regarding alarmed rraised by hindutva the larger figure for muslim was due to inclusion of Kashmir in the cnsus for the first time



How can it be that the census, whose life and job it is to produce accurate numbers, could have sensationally published the growth rate of the population of various religious groups in India without controlling for the fact that the previous census (1991) did not include Jammu and Kashmir?

"It took non-specialist journalists to point out this simple error. For Muslims, this error is huge -- without J&K, the Muslim population growth rate is 2.6 per cent per annum 1991-2001, compared to a growth rate of 1.8 per cent for Hindus; with J&K in 2001 (and not in 1991) the Muslim population growth rate is 3.1 per cent per annum.

Shah2:

I think that one cannot say that two or less is better in all circumstances. For example, Japan, Russia, Italy and other countries should have now a policy or two or more as their birth rates are not even equal to population replacement rate, which I believe is 2.1 for most developed societies.

But in most countries of South Asia and Africa, the countries' resources and infrastructures cannot support a high birth rate.

Re: # 246

D.M. sb that does not answer my question Why is it lesser the better .

Why two kids or less is sophisticated and larger family backward ?

In some ways it compaensates for those highly educated given to carrer and not interested in Kids .Even without that only criteria for as large a family possible is if it is prctical & feasible

Shah2:

While the low sex ratio in Punjab and Haryana is well publicised, I do not know if there is a significant difference between Hindus and Muslims at an All India level.

But one should note that while greater sex ratio may lead to more births, it does not affect total fertility rate which is the average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime.

anil:

In Quebec, nationalism and irreligiosity have both happened alongside Quebec's so-called Quiet revolution, as has its lower birth date. The trend towards lower birth rate seems to have started in 1960s.

Despite what some people say, very few Muslims have larger families because they want to overtake the Hindus; they are simply individuals making individual choices, in which what they believe is a sin may be one of the factors. I am simply pointing out empirical facts.

Faruk:

The Muslim as well as Non-Muslim birth rate is significantly impacted by various factors, such as rural/urban divide, income and, most importantly, female literacy rate. However, if you go back to my earlier posts, you would see reference to studies that show that birth rates for Muslims remains higher after the effects of other variables is accounted for.

Yes, for poor families children are considered an asset [there is a popular Indian saying that when God gives one mouth, He also gives two hands to feed], so poor families do tend to have more children among both Hindus and Muslims.

And I have not seen any studies [I haven't seen many recent years] which use "religiosity" as a factor, only religion]. However, we all know that in some religions, using contraceptive is a sin, Gandhi thought so anyway.

Re: # 237

Kaal bhai is your enquiry specific to relation of religion to populationgrowth or of religion devoid of geography

For e,g Saudie may be considered as unadulterated Muslim population than anty other place the following is part of C.I.A report


Median age: total: 21.5 years
male: 22.9 years
female: 19.8 years (2008 est.)
Population growth rate: 1.954% (2008 est.)



Birth rate: 28.85 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)




Death rate: 2.49 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Net migration rate: -6.82 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Sex ratio: at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.3 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.08 male(s)/female
total population: 1.19 male(s)/female (2008


Taking this as yardstik u can ompare with Jews Christians or any other group

Re: # 236

Faruk, my apologies, I wrongly wrote Feroz.

re:KaalChakra #239
That's a lifestyle choice. Take a look a the number of DINK's in the Indian Metros. That too has nothing to do with religion.


Faruk

re: shah2
The sex ratio in Punjab as per the 2001 census is 876 women per 1000 men. The situation is so bad that they are importing brides from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Regards,

Faruk

I dont undertand why more than two kids is considered obnoxious .In India family planning slogan was hum do hamare do.in Indiras time one form of birth control was Vasectomy . I did that in hundreds .there many complicatins and Politicians pushed it because SA pushed for it with AID .Many rickshaw pulers were forced and govt employee were threayened to ne ired if they did not full fill there qota.

Now the concept of two kids is American ,What i learnt after coming that it ws only a prosperous face of usa that was presented If both husband wife is highly educated both work full time contributr thousands in Taxes that exactly USA wanted from young professional given visa generously .

Since i think America has misslead asia by insisting on there model be followed or practicing eugenics ...that is suck up all the good genes i.e. intelegentsia of third world enriching itself while leave the host country to rot .
I see American White with 6 /9 kids living little away from metro .How do they manage and there life is as comfortable thanks to social services to pair of Indian doctors both working having hard time raisng even one child b/c of busy life .We have been had by USA

re KaalChakra#237
"Religion works by affecting such other factors as willingness to marry, age of marriage, willingness to divorce, use of contraceptives etc etc."

I am not sure what influence religion has on the things you mentioned. But I see a difference in birth rate in rural and urban India within the same faith, there is a difference in birth rate between the rich and the poor within the same faith.



Regards,

Faruk

Exactly, shah ji.

Let me give another exmaple of how religion plays a role in 'increasing fertility rates' in more advanced countries.

In the West, a lot of couples might stay together without marrying. It is unlikely they would care to have children during this period. So they have no children during their most fertile years. Marriage gets delayed in 'non-religious' groups, as does total fertility rate.

So religious folks are not outbreeding anyone. Irreligiuos folks simply are withdrawing from the fertility business for other goals.

Re: # 226

Kaal bhai
you bring an excellent point we missed

"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 ..."

One reaso nmay be abortion after ultrasound new development and infanticide Recently i read there only 300 women to 1000 men some where in Punjab

Faruk

I think sometimes we represent the effect of religion as some sort of grand conspiracy! It is not. It certainly is not about one group determinedly 'outbreeding' another.

Religion works by affecting such other factors as willingness to marry, age of marriage, willingness to divorce, use of contraceptives etc etc.

Even the idea that Muslims take better care of their children and have lower mortality rates may be true, and would show up as higher growth rates in populations. So a whole lot of factors go into shaping these things, not any conspiracy or desire to take over a country!

But since we don't study these things for fear of offending others and ourselves, we don't even try to seriously understand the underlying dynamics. At least I think that is what happens, and that is a loss for all of us.

Feroz:

I am talking of increasing upward mobility and seed the factors that influence and you will see the change. Now come to think of it, Black Muslim example comes to my mind.

re: Anil #231
Majority of middle class folks generally have just one child in India. We are talking about the poor. India's population is growing only in that strata of the society irrespective of faith. The poor are better off if they have more children, you change that India's population will stop growing.

Regards,

Faruk

re: KaalChara #228
I don't think that example applies to India. Most people in urban India other than the jhuggies have one child irrespective of faith.
Most Muslims in the economic strata that has more children are more concerned about more important things like dinner than changing the demographics of the nation.

Regards,

Faruk

Kaal:

I have participated in the review of case study which showed in Philedelphia neighborhood the impact of Black Muslim was very positive. It reduced family sizes, single parenthood and unemployment. Business community and Black Muslims formed a partnership.

anil ji, there have been studies in Africa, in the Middle East (Egypt), in South America, in addition to just the US and Europe. The effect of religion shows up repeatedly.

Now, I don't have the references because this is not my area of interest. I have just seen those studies far too often.

Re: # 229

Faruk:

There have been studies carried out that point to strong correlation between rates of growth (upward mobility) of middle class and fertility rates. I guess this answers your question if within a communnity what factors influence fertility rate.

Re: # 223

Dost sahib:

I think you are pointing the highest due to religion, and the lowest dues to irreligion in Quebec.

The shift away from Quebec nationalism and even lesser feeling of isolated culture in North America among others probably are more dominant causes for this shift.

Although, I must say that there have been studies done by WHO (or similar U.N. organization), if Tahmed sahib wants to research on this subject. These studies were conducted in El Salvador and other Central American countries. The reports certainly pointed to Catholic churches and priests who actively preached against abortion and contraception as reasons for high fertility rates in there and ensuing poverty. There have been reports about stand offs between social angencies and Catholic churches there.

However, these are homogenous (religion wise) societies, and we must be careful when we apply their findings to India, where new ground realities drive changes (good and bad). As I mentioned it earlier, you cannot make equality in fertitilty rate in Kerala an acid test of neutrality of religion.

Even if there is a connection, then how relevant it is in Indian context?

What can be achieved in Quebec in one generation, should give optimism, if no number of priests in one family are not counted, instead may be number (for example) of cell phones are counted. At least these indicators / variables point toward a solution.

re: dm various

Is the birth rare for Muslims any different in the economic strata they belong to?

Does it have any correlation to the fact that six year old's are allowed to add to the family income in India.

Regards,

Faruk

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...

#209 Posted by hamidm2 on

hamidm, you beat me by a couple of seconds (while replying to tahmed's comment) but more importantly and significantly in amount of humour:-)

#209 hamidm: and let me remind you..you are a comedian.
:-)

#207 Posted by tahmed32 on

[[
And no demographer worth his salt would take seriously what DM sahib and the Indian sources he dwells on claim - that it is Islam (or any other religion) that has a major (or even significant) impact on fertility rates.
]]

But we can ask demographer to be worth his sugar instead and take it as "it is Islam in India which has major influence on muslims in India to keep producing more and more children".

If there are some states that are exception, we can add them to exception list as well. And then if we can get some recordings of Mullahs while they say so, we can add them as move files??


Another option is to do a census of muslims in India (or may be world-wide) to know how many of them are willing to have two children or less only and if they want more why???


But the result will be a protest from muslims against any such census:-)

Re: # 207

tahmed,

... let me remind you, yet again, that you are an idiot and a shameless apologist for islam and other bad things ..... are you saying that mormons and the amish have dozens of kids because they are simply oversexed? ..... what about devout catholics - my next door neighbor had six kids beofore she ran out of space and stopped listening to the pope (or ran out of eggs) .......

.... your cross-country analysis is nonsense .... you have to look at the breeding rate of people of different superstitions in the same country .... mormons vs. protestants in the us, and hindoos vs. mohammedans in india ..... dost-mittar is right ... even here in america, number of children a moslem has is directly proportional to the number of times he prays daily ... before you jump up and hurt your arthritic knees, let me add that the same is true for jews .... on any day of the week you can see the gaggles of kids being herded by the black hatted descendents of abraham at the el-al terminal at jfk headed for the holy land ......

#203 Posted by hamidm2 on November 13, 2008 6:21:25 am

[[
who is flagging my posts and why ?
]]

somebody from your cousin's organization doesn't want non-muslims to know of their plans so early

HP #181 I agree that religion has sometimes been used as a pretext by some mullahs to oppose family planning measures. But, as the cross-country data that I have tried to direct DM sahib's attention to indicates, a number of muslim countries nevertheless have lower birth rates than India or other majority non-muslim countries. And no demographer worth his salt would take seriously what DM sahib and the Indian sources he dwells on claim - that it is Islam (or any other religion) that has a major (or even significant) impact on fertility rates.

This is an example of how ideologues (all stripes, hindu, muslim, christian) are part of the problem humanity faces as it tries to come to grips with serious issues like the demographic transition, the environment and so forth. Even well educated "elite" Indians like DM sahib are so willingly misled by such propaganda. All that the idiotlogues are interested in is "my god can whup your god"!!

#205 DM sahib: So, if the data doesnt support your claim, then it is not relevant. What is this if not the classic approach of an ideologue, whereby you stick to your preconceived notions and reject data that belies these notions?!!

In fact, it is on the basis of cross-country analysis spanning over a century, as I keep reminding you, that demographers have sought to identify the causes underlying high fertility rates and demographic transition!!

tahmed saheb:

I have more respect for your intelligence than to assume that you really think that comparison of fertility rates by religion across countries, for example between Christians of Nigeria and Muslims of Turkey, have any validity.

All I can do is translate a Punjabi expression: You can shake up a sleeping man out of sleep but not the one who is awake.

rabia, some of it may be 'Jihad' but most of it may simply be an outcome of how societies are structured, a byproduct of practices and beliefs - which may apparently have nothing directly relatd to waging a population jihad.

But the label may not be as important as you, I, and everyone else recognizing a major phenomenon, and its absolute importance for the future.

Is religion-based population control or sterilization fair - that will depend upon people's personal values. See, there is a real world out there. How people choose to respond to it is upto them.

But howsoever they respond, or choose not to respond at all, it is never helpful to close one's eyes and pretend the world deosn't exist.

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

Ha Ha, hamdim, why would one think badly of your family?!

It's only on chowk that these things appear 'shocking' or 'uncomfortable' to some of us.

who is flagging my posts and why ?

Re: # 198

kaal mian,

..... you hindoos deserve to be extinct ... first you stood by idly when my grandpa gopinath dropped his potohari dhoti and went through ritual bloodletting to satisfy a bedouin deity ..... then you wrung your hands and cried foul when my other grandpa, ahmed shah abdali, ransacked delhi and agra ..... when are you guys going to wake up ? ... for more than a thousand years you have been bending over for invaders from the north and the west ...... now you are in danger of being run over by the progeny of these invaders who have been festering inside your society ..... get a spine !

p.s. i have a cousin who is the autor of many books and a karta dharta with the largest terrorist organization in pakistan (no, not al-qaed, it is the jamat-i-islami which also has its indian branch and controls simi from mansoora in pakistani punjab) ..... anyway, he is a big proponent of the demographic weapon of mass destruction which, according to him, will wipe out the hindoos in 163 years (i don't understand the math, it is too complicated) .... in case you start thinking badly about my family, i also have a cousin who runs a gambling den in quetta and runs liquor across the indian border and plans to run for the provincial assembly ..........

And I can add only this...


It is not just imagination or assumption, i know of at least one large gathering in north india (more than 5000 to 10000 muslims don't remember if it was for some festival or what)in which my brother went along with his muslim friend and clerics were telling people that only way to defeat Hindus is to produce more muslims and have as many children as possible. My brother always teases his muslim friend for this.

#198
since all of us on this board have recognized the problem, it's time for you to start talking about the next step. If a community within your country (not immigrants) is waging a demographic jihad, what is a good response? Religion based population control or sterilization seems pretty fair.

#194 Posted by hamidm2 on
ha ha:-), good question..


In the end nobody loses, imagin all people become muslims and have fun as per Islam:-) I mean if there are no hindus left who will be unhappy then:-)

So hamidm, while it may look bad imagining it now that everybody has become muslim and is living as per God's wish (written in Kuran:-)), it may not look that bad when everybody is actually muslim... (times between now and then will be more troublesome... and we have to suffer it as God ordained so:-))

It is muslim identity that wishes so, assuming that they are really muslims and not something beyond it!

hamidm bhai, hope this discussion is not about stopping anything, but about not deliberately blinding ourselves to its reality, or ignoring it altogether. :)

Shah bhai, it's hard to know what those reasons are. One reason we overlook (which may be true sometimes and places but not others) is the number of converts into Islam being higher than the number of converts out of Islam. Hindus in India have pretty high birth-rates too, so overall, differences with Hindus in India may be small.

But whether in India or in other countries, these ARE glacial changes. Imperceptible during any one year, but one should be able to tell the difference every 50 years. The same holds true for those whose numbers go down as well. If you see the relative numbers of Hindus in Bangladesh or Pakistan, or of Parsis or Jews, you will see alarming (for these groups) changes over 50 years. These things have significant impact over how society sees itself adn functions.

Mutliple marriages and such nonsense are only ways for some people to dramatize phenomena that is never dramatic at any one moment (leaving aside cataclysmic events). Most of the times change is like watching a tree grow.

Tracking that is boring, one can't 'see it.' But the tree - sometimes a giant one that will remove all others - is getting ready.

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

See, the problem with numbers is that people see what they wish to see, but change occurs, mostly slowly.

Think about it. There are a billion people in India.

1% change means a difference of about 100000000 poeple. A difference of 0.1% means a difference about 10000000 people.

That's a LOT of difference. Now put it goether over the years, decade after decade you will see the tree growing.

Even a tree can sometimes take decades to grow. This one is bigger tree than them all. :)

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

Hope someone will check those zeros! I think I got them right, but one can never be too confident of these things.

Re: # 190

kaalchakri mian,

... you are beginning to scare me! .... is there nothing you hindoos can do about this problem? .... look, we successfully eradicated pagans and parsis from the maghreb to malaysia and we took a good swipe at hindoos and managed to cleanse large parts of northern india ....... why can't you guys stop the moslem hordes from overruning your ancient religion and culture ....... it must be the vegetarian diet .... or is it the fact that it is easier to laugh off a god with an elephant nose than an invisible goon in the sky who constantly threatens you with fire and brimstone .........

.... hindoos! wake up before you become extinct like the kuffar of mecca

Among indian who are most likely to be unmarierd or remain so i have seen Bengali higher cate b/c they are married to books !

The ordinary bengali family population is proverbialy large

beywakoof bulleya,

"of the three large monetheistic religions, one will have nearly disappeared demographically - judaism.....one will stay even or go down - christianity.....and one will be booming and will become the largest, overtaking christianity - islam......."

..... so what is there to rejoice about ? ....... this is like saying that the common cold will be eliminated and aids/hiv will be booming ...... i know misery loves company, but why would you wish such a horrible fate for mankind?

...And the culture of Early Ans MUST marriage is in hindu business community ALSO
like Jain marwari communities who dont fret about lengthy education ....

Addendum


i.e. rate of growth total india ....not forgetting 97 %of Muslims are ...where they are more than million


lower in rate ..29 % in 91/2001

from higher ......32 %in 88/91

Kaal Bhai


i have not followed what has led to your query .About non shrinking numbers in muslims

marriage is extremely important among them ,In my opinion it is so important that boys have to accomadate it by certain age even if there education or carreer is compromised so in other words marriasge is THE most important duty .

Similarly success of women is not in terms of whether she is Doctor or IAS officer ,The only important answer ppl want to know is she married or not

Now i dont know any other society treat marriage as may be 6th pillar of islam I may be wrong .But the rate of Hindus marriage and children are comparable .Aside from proaganda of 4 marriages and intentional large family Other social reasons like poverty is common factor to both hindu & muslims .The data for india i have seen there might be .2 % difference in RATE of growth ....Is that significant ?

Romair, population growth figures are exceptionally important. I respectfully disagree with those, who for whatever reasons deny the importance of these data. No one in their right mind will argue that other factors don't have their effects. But numbers impose their own impact.

Now there are two different issues here.

One - sheer physical numbers of humans. These numbers create both opportunities (necessary for creation of services, goods, ideas etc) and challenges (imperative of feeding, educating, clothing, housing them). These can be linked to poverty, growth, environmental decay, and pressures for human migration - in and out of countries.

Second issue is of ideological commitments and perceived (socio-political) identities of these raw numbers of humans. This is where religion becomes most important and cannot be avoided. It cannot be avoided also because, call it coincidence, ideology, or God's plan, the religious numbers that are growing everywhere are also, among major groups, of those who have the strongest group identities - Muslims.

(If there is any country in which the numbers of Muslims either in absolute terms or in relative terms is shrinking, I would be gladly corrected. People may disagree on what the reasons or the implications are).

..ironically, the future of europe is, now, dependent on the willingness of chinese, africans and south asians to migrate to europe....much like the present day of middle east is dependent on south asian immigrants.....if all south asians disappeared from the middle east, uae, saudi arabia, qatar, etc. will collapse immediately....

if these three regions show economic progress, then their citizens may not migrate.....in which case, europe will run out of manpower.....not sure how it would handle that, with an aging population.....on the other hand if it does allow them, its white citizens will face the same situation as israel.....

.....usa should be fine, for a while, even with no hispanic migration.......but it probably will not be able to grow....

canada is already heavily depenedent on chinese and south asian immigrants for its growth (with montreal, to some extent, on african arabs)......

israel (and jews in general), europe, russia (part of europe) and japan are in big trouble, demographically, in the next 50 years.......they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.....

oil-rich middle east countries would be in the most trouble.....however, they are forming economic unions, and should have enough arabs to rotate through each country, from poor arab countries....and muslims from pakistan and bangladesh and india, to maintain their identities......

current total population of tworld: 6.7 billion
current total population of saarc: 1.5 billion
current total population of china: 1.3 billion

- so, south asia and china are 41% of the world's population (this % is higher if you count their diaspora)

expected world population in 2050: 9.1 billion
expected south asian population in 2050: 2.25 billion
expected chinese population in 2050: 1.5 billion

- south asia and china will remain 41% of the world's population by 2050 (this % is higher if you count their diaspora and this will be higher if infant mortality rates go down in these regions)

- europe constituted 21.7% of the world's population 50 years ago.....it constitutes 12.8% now.......it will constitute only 6.8% in 2050!......africa is going in the other direction.....it is going from 8.9 to 12.7 today, to 21.8 in 2050......exactly the opposite of europe......

- the growth in population of the different regions from 2000 to 2005 shows that 325 million out of the total 383 million people added to the world were asians and africans (much of those added outside these places were due to migrations of these people)....

in 40 years, south asia, china and africa will be 63% of the world's population!......while europe will be down to 6.8% (many of whom will, actually, be south asian and african).....they will be the complete work force of the world!

....the only westernized country that will be able to keep pace is usa....which will grow from 300 million today to 400 million.....however, most of this growth will be hispanic, as well as due to hardworking immigrants like urstruly and hamidm mian.......by this time white americans will be less than 50% of the population.....

....if people want to see the future of the world, the first and foremost factor has to be demographics.....not current power.......

the world in 2050 will consist of indians, chinese, nigerians, indonesians, pakistanis and bangladeshis.....i.e. indians, chinese and muslims.....chinese and south asians.......with a sole western power, usa, starting to be dominated by hispanics......

russia and japan will reduce in population from around 140 million to around 110 million, each.......46 countries will lose population by 2050, many in eastern Europe.....the population of Bulgaria will fall by 35%, Ukraine by 33%, and Belarus, Romania, the Russian Federation, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland by 20% to 30%.......

the proportion of growth in europe will be only of african and south asian immigrants.....i.e. europe will start becoming black, much like usa is starting to become brown.....


of the three large monetheistic religions, one will have nearly disappeared demographically - judaism.....one will stay even or go down - christianity.....and one will be booming and will become the largest, overtaking christianity - islam.......

Correction:

This issue is so basic that one should fully expect religious groups with growing populations and liberals to soon ask that census taking be entirely banned, or religion be not monitored at all.

(1) The FIRST thing to do is to RECOGNIZE that demography - the issue of changing population sizes of different religious groups - is of FUNDAMENTAL importance, as tahmedji said.

This is one data that has to be tracked and publicly monitored and discussed on a regular basis everywhere.

(2) Because demography is so important - the fusion bomb in social relations - ANY discussion related to demographic trends will elicit wildly emotional responses from different people.

Owing to their fundamentally conflicting interests, politically savvy people from different religious groups will never agree on data, anlyses, conclusions, or anything else. Their agreement on population trends of different religious groups would be akin to military establishments from different countries publicly agreeing on who has, and is building in different places, how many nuclear bombs.

That is fine. The objective of tracking such data is never to be convince everyone (or arrive at any kind of consensus among everyone) but to inform oneself.

(3) If religion is a factor, its demographic effects should show up both locally and globally. And those trends should leave its effects on social relations in both ways.

In different ways, we should notice changes in Assam and in Australia.

----------

This issue is so basic that one should fully expect some groups to soon ask that census taking be entirely banned, or religion be not monitored at all (becuase the world is unfair to them, and they cannot trust anyone but themselves.)

Holy Roman Script! LOL

Madani sahib, you are the best. :)

hamidm mian #: "... so you are looking forward to the time when jews will be extinct and the earth will be inhabited by half-witted punjabi retards and imbecilic bedouins ...."

i am, neither, looking forward, nor backwards, nor sideways......i am, simply, stating a statistical fact....

the future of the world belongs to south asian, chinese, hispanics, (and arabs).....they are the cockroaches......while the japanese, russians, white europeans and jews are the dinosaurs.......

you should be happy.......desis are set to rule the world.....they will spread out all over the world, and much of the western world will look like uae....i.e. a small local minority owing national assets, with a large south asian majority doing the work........

Re: # 182; madani sahib

I knew very well what you meant sir

a very good day to you too

# 179 Dr. Sahib it is hoped and understood by yourself just as native writes in Holy script that is not going to impress me.
Just to have clarity of my thinking.
Good day.

#151 Posted by dost_mittar
“According to the 1971 census data, the total marital fertility rate for Muslim women was 11% higher in urban areas and 20% higher in rural areas than the rate for Hindus. Even when education was controlled, the Muslim rate remained higher.�

This new study seems more in line than the other one. I think Tahmed you should read DM’s post #151 carefully and I hope he posts some links to that study. However, I had a chance to look at some data and it is true that Muslims in India or even in Pakistan don’t practice any nussbandi or birth control in general and the reason is primarily religion. I also heard from an Indian Muslim, I know socially, that Muslims still don’t support family Planning in India but the Muslim women who end up in hospitals after a few births go for snip,snip and in some cases w/o telling their husbands.

Now this may not be a rule but there certainly is an element of religion as to why Muslim population in India is on the rise. The religion and education and the lack of it could be two most important factors. It certainly is not a genetic issue.

I don’t know if the religion says something about family planning or not but if it does, Islam must be the most progressive religion of the first millennium CE.
Thanks.

Re: # 179; madani sahib

"the holy Roman script" indeed sir!

Mr. T and D. Mitter.........
I do not have knowledge about population growth etc.
But Genearlly I will not value any thing written by natives and hard to believe they can be objective and right.

Generally if thing is written by white man and in Holy Roman script I take is authentic for reasons too obvious and which are self evident.
Good Day.

jang bhai jan: hindus (or anyone else) in poverty do not make me (or any normal person, i am sure you will agree) happy. this crowing at the real life miseries of people seems to be another bit of the "chowk experience" one is deprived of experiencing otherwise....

anil sahib: thanks for the links to your posts on the subject. i shall look them up.

dost mittar saheb: I asked you to do this: "to get started, just google "fertility rates" and see how many muslim countries have lower fertility rates than india. then come talk to me about how you tell it like you see it."

You come back and tell me this: "the problem is that most of them just give a reference and the article is available only to subscribers."!! Is it really that hard to differentiate between looking up simple facts and articles on some restricted website???

I just googled on the key words ("fertility rates") I suggested you use, and there are 1.3 million links!! The very first one is from wikipedia which gives a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

and also, facts are facts. There are no "desi" vs "vilayati" facts...unless you are dishing out hindutva propaganda under the facade of "scholarship".

tahmed saheb:

I have been googling to find foreign studies to satisfy your "vilayati" tastes; the problem is that most of them just give a reference and the article is available only to subscribers.

But the way you show your hatred for Indian academic institutions by calling them "rinky-dinky" and their studies communal and obscene hindu nationalism, even though they date back to the British time and even though being in the international arena you OUGHT TO KNOW that Indian demographers are some of the most highly respected in the world, I think that nothing that anyone will say would convince those whose minds are made up and who wish to find every opportunity to thank Jinnah. So, please thank Jinnah one more time. I am out of here.

But unlike you, I will keep an open mind and, if you can find any study by even a Pakistani journal which shows that, IN INDIA, there is no relationship between religion and fertility rates, I would be willing to give it an appropriate weight.

oye yar tahmed...here something to make you happy...most hindus are also in poor state of development..only marginally better than muslims in india. sachar commitee tabled it in parliament.

Tahmed sahib:

Other than the ones me sparring with Masadi mian, I exchanged posts with Dost Sahib and Kaal (150, 148, 146, 142, 141, and 138). You might like to read them. There is indeed body of work done which points to lack of empowerment, education and economic opportunities.

tahmed, you want icelandians to do research on indian economy, social issues and economy? they are very busy right now with the banking crisis.

and gokhale was jinas (who you thank every time you feel shadow of a hindu) teacher and mentor

Tahmed sahib:

I know there is a distrust among Pakistanis and Indians about institutions being biased, but hopefully you would agree that Indian problems will be dealt by Indian institutions and Indians in India. I do not know about Pakistani institutions, but Indian instituions have hardly provided any practical solution, and rarely implemented it. It is an undeniable fact that Muslim Indian community has higher fertility rate. Debate seens to be about the root cause. Religion is the easiest to point at, a grave mistake in Indian context, which is very different than Pakistan (and I too thank Jinnah for it).

Religion based dissection of social and political issues is dangerous as it misses root causes, and always gets the easiest and emotional option.

Dost sahib's interpretation, and Indian institutions reports confirms my belief that communities in India must rely on their own to create resources and develop leadership which can deliver unfair advantage in Indian context.

There are successful models in America of what I am saying, while in Canada and in England intitiatives tend to be institutionalized, hence Dost sahib's views based on his experience and professional work. His view may be biased due to solutions that he is used to. We all tend to do this.

further to #169.. and i should add that given the fundamental importance of demographic trends in the world today, it is all the more important to approach it in an objective and scientific manner and not distort it to score some stupid communal points.

anil sahib: i must admit i missed your post on this issue. but glad to see that you agree that it makes no sense to ignore all evidence to the contrary, ignore over a century of studies in demography starting with the demographic transition in france in the 19th century and ending with the demographic transition in south asia that started only a few decades ago.

however, i am not labeling Dost Mittar as anything other than as the fine gentleman he no doubt is. All the more appalling it is for him to so casually accept the communal rubbish propagated by hindu nationalists in india...

Tahmed sahib:

If you have read what I wrote here on religion and fertility rate, then you would know that I do not agree with Dost Sahib's conclusions. However, don't you think that it is a reach to label Dost Sahib?

dost mittar: i am indeed ignorant of arth vijnan. and you forget that indians are foreigners to me too (and thank God and Jinnah for that who was quite right in noting the pervasive and obscene nature of hindu nationalism). i am also ignorant of the gokhale institute too. nor do i intend to waste my time taking seriously indian sources on communal issues.

instead of tossing names of these rinky-dink indian institutes whose main goal seems to be to institutionalize the berating of minority religions in india, why dont you do the obvious thing i just suggested you do - google fertility rates, then come explain to me why so many muslim countries have lower birth rates than india.

tahmed:

I am astonished at your ignorance. Arth Vijnan is probably the oldest academic journal on social sciences in India. It is the official organ of a Pune institute which is perhaps the oldest social science institute on the subcontinent.

However, since His Highness only accepts studies by foreigners, could you please tell us of any study of Indian population on this subject that contradicts these other studies? Tomorrow, you might ask that you will not accept any study of female infanticide in India or of Honour killings in Pakistan unless the study was done by a foreign journal.

Here is a brief write-up on the Gokhale Institute:

"Gokhale Institue of Politics and economics (GIPE) was conceptualized by Shri Rao Bahadur Kale in 1930. it was established on 6th June of the same year. In the present times it has become a premier institution of learning. It can brag of several students as well as faculty members who have left an indelible impression in both national as well as international arena.

Initially conceived as a research center, it was granted the status of a institution for higher studies in Economics and it had the power to award M.A and PhD degrees. GIPE was affiliated to the University of Bombay in the beginning, but with the establishment of the University of Poona in 1949, it became a constituent member of that university.
Noting the contributions of GIPE in the field of Agricultural Economics, the UGC declared GIPE to be a Center for Advanced Studies in Agricultural Economics in 1962. in 1964, GIPE was declared to be a center for Advanced Studies in Economics. Besides this GIPe also houses the Population Research center. Considering the contributions of GIPE in the field of Economics the central Government granted GIPE the status of being a "Deemed University" in 1993.

The Reserve Bank of India, followed by the Ford Foundation and the Planning commission has Instituted chairs in the GIPE in the years 1976, 1989 and 1995 respectively.

Courses Offered: As it is a center of Advanced studies in Economics, academic programs include, M.A in Economics and PhD.

1. M.A : It is a two year program distributed into four semesters. The number of compulsory subjects are six while the number of optional subjects are twelve. Students from varied academic background can opt for this M.A.
Selection: Selection of students is done on the basis of an entrance examination on subjects like,analytical ability, knowledge in basics of economics, knowledge of statistics and mathematics.
Eligibility: Any student who wishes to appear in the examination must have a minimum of 50% marks in his graduation, (45% for SC/ST)
2. PhD: PhD is offered in Economics, Population studies and Sociology.
Eligibility: Any student who wishes to apply for the PhD course needs to have 55% marks in the Master's degree.
The Application form and information brochure can be gathered from the office of GIPE on payment of Rs. 500.

The institute also provides a Certificate Course in Computers for Economic Analysis, for students of M.A and PhD."

Masadi Sahib:

"...Anil mian find another day job rather than follow me around as a chaprasee..."

Poor, Poor, Poor Masadi. In case your visual capabilities are impaired, I was here.

Re: # 129
The card carrying members !

masadi: i am on your side on this issue, you idiot.

dost mittar: you chose to look at the conclusions of some rinky-dink indian journal (elevating it to the status of "famous" in the process) that points to some "research" by indian sources in some indian province to take make broad-brush judgements on the factors underlying high fertility. in doing so, you merely illustrate that it is not just the internet that is littered with hindu propaganda posing as science, history etc. but also paper journals and institutes dishing out this bs in india.

if you are really interested in looking at the facts (rather than quoting studies to support your preconceived anti-muslim biases), then i suggest you do read up from some internationally recognized sources, not just made in india rubbish. look up fertility rates and studies on the demographic transition from some recognized international source like the world bank? to get started, just google "fertility rates" and see how many muslim countries have lower fertility rates than india. then come talk to me about how you tell it like you see it.

dost writes "[but pole climbing at my age is somewhat risky unless I climb on someone's shoulder.:-)]

tahmed would be your perfect partner....

tahmed writes "All the more reason to thank Jinnah"

Jinnah had a part to play in the higher fertility rate by enhancing mortality among Muslims of India due to his shenanigans and ensuring that Pakistan remained dependent on the colonials and therefore underdeveloped.

Have a nice day and go climb a pole,
TNI Masadi

masadi:

I certainly urge the chowk staff to publish your study which would show light on an important subject. [but pole climbing at my age is somewhat risky unless I climb on someone's shoulder.:-)]

anil writes "Poor you, Masadi sahib.."

Anil mian find another day job rather than follow me around as a chaprasee...

Thank you kindly,
TNI Masadi

"For example, in predominantly Muslim countries, Hindu minorities tend to have lower fertility than Muslims..."

Those Hindu minorities are usually implants from another society or their numbers are so small so as to defy comparison.

Have a nice day and keep it real
TNI Masadi

Dost writes "11% higher in urban areas and 20% higher"

It was cross national using secondary data. If you can convince chowk staff to publish it on the FP, I will submit it to them otherwise they and you can climb a pole. The higher fertility of an internally oppressed and colonized group will be higher due not to religion but to perceived and actual mortality and other structural causes. Islam has no part to play in this....

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

tahmed:

If analysing trends from census figures and quoting studies from well established scholarly journals is propaganda, then what is calling other people names without refuting that analysis?

Here is the deal tahmed saheb: I believe that religion is a factor, both in population growth as well as discrimination against Muslims in India. My friends on the Right, the Hindutva brigade, will accept that relgion is a factor in population growth but would claim that the inferior performance of Muslims in jobs is due to other factors, such as education; my friends on the Left will say the opposite, namely, that religious discrimination is a factor in jobs but the differences in population growth are solely due to socio-economic factors.

As I said, I am not in agenda-based analysis and will call the shots as I see them, regardless of name calling from either side.

#149 Masadi: For once I agree with you. It is appalling that one of the most mature and sensible indians on chowk - Dost Mittar - so happily falls into this hindu propaganda against religious minorities. All the more reason to thank Jinnah...

HP:

This article was published in Arth Vijnan in September 1984 and was authored by one K. Subramanium. Incidentally, Arth Vijnan is the official journal of the famous Institute of Economics and Politics, Pune.

Masadi#149:

Welcome to the discussion. Could you please tell us a little more about your study? What was the sample population? Where was the study conducted? Who were the non-muslim groups in the study? Any other interesting findings of the study?

HP#145:

I think that you ignored what I said, which was that it was the first article that appeared when I plugged in those words. Well, I tried to plug in the same words and, guess what, this time I got another study as the first article. This one is from a very well established academic journal of India, called "Arth Vijnan", which is perhaps more than a hundred years old. Here, the study is a little more recent but it is based on a much larger data base. Here is the abstract of its findings;

"In India, Hindu and Muslim differentials in fertility were examined using census data and the findings of 11 surveys. An explanation of the fertility differences was offered. The proportion of Muslims in the population increased and the proportion of Hindus decreased, both before and after partition of the country. After partition, and between 1951-71, the proportion of Muslims increased from 9.9%-11.2% while the proportion of Hindus decreased from 84.9%-82.7%. An examination of mortality and migration data suggests that these proportional changes cannot be attributed to differences in migration or mortality; therefore, they must be due to differences in fertility. Census and survey data provide considerable evidence that fertility is higher among Muslims than among Hindus. According to the 1971 census data, the total marital fertility rate for Muslim women was 11% higher in urban areas and 20% higher in rural areas than the rate for Hindus. Even when education was controlled, the Muslim rate remained higher. The findings of 11 demographic surveys consistently revealed higher fertility rates for Muslims compared to Hindus. Several studies demonstrated that these differences narrowed but remained significant when education and socioeconomic factors were controlled. Investigators generally offer 1 of 3 hypotheses to explain the differences. The 1st hypothesis attributes the fertility differences to differences in the background or socioeconomic characteristics of the 2 populations. This explanation is not supported by studies which have introduced socioeconomic controls. The 2nd hypothesis states that minority status itself is a sufficient cause of high fertility. There is considerable evidence with which to refute this hypothesis. For example, in predominantly Muslim countries, Hindu minorities tend to have lower fertility than Muslims. The 3rd hypothesis attributed the fertility differences to religious beliefs concerning reproduction. Both Islam and Hinduism are pronatalist religions; however, the 2 religions differ in regard to their beliefs concerning marriage, reproductive behavior, and fertility control, and these differences may have a different impact on the intermediate variables which influence fertility. These intermediate variables include age at marriage, marriage stability, and contraceptive use. For example, Islamic beliefs, in contrast to Hindu beliefs, support polygamy, allow for easy divorce in case of infertility, and allow widows to remarry. These beliefs tend to increase exposure to the risk of pregnancy for Muslim women. Hindu women are more likely than Muslim women to return to their family of orientation for a period of time following the birth of their 1st and 2nd children, and this practice reduces exposure to the risk of pregnancy for Hindu women. Muslim women are also less receptive to family planning than Hindu women. A national survey indicated that 17% of Hindu women compared to 13% of Muslim women ever used contraception. Sterilization rates are also higher among Hindus than among Muslims. As the modernization process unfolds in India, the impact of religious beliefs on the intermediate variables will decrease, and religious differentials in fertility will decline"

Url: http://www.popline.org/docs/0686/031762.html


As regards to whether they measured how religious women were, I very much doubt that they would have done that. The purpose is solely to measure the effect of nominal religious affiliation and not to measure the effect of religiosity.

Re: # 149

Masadi sahib:

" I did a paper on it much more recently (The Secularization Hypothesis and Muslim Fertility Levels) and religion is not the causation factor..."

Poor you, Masadi sahib had to do a paper on it. You could have just read what I wrote and have gotten more, but then again your comprehension is questionable.

DM writes "The variable that has emerged as the most influential in causing differentials in the fertility performance of these women was religion, which might be primarily responsible for the higher fertility among Muslim women."

That is BS, I did a paper on it much more recently (The Secularization Hypothesis and Muslim Fertility Levels) and religion is not the causation factor.

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

Kaal:

"...very soon fading fast..."

The genie is out. It can slow down, but there is an Indian Dream that cannot vanish. Independence happened too. Obama must have had his down moments too. Taste of success is not easily given up.

Anil ji, education and economic empowerment are of course every important goals. Hopefully, we will be able to create opportunities for all. That is a tough challenge (what with India's hopes of turning into an economic powerhouse very soon fading fast...)

Kaal:

If you really want to see demographic changes, work to empower women from minority communities.

In today's world the new paradigm is "In Knowledge Lies the Power". Large population is not a strength, else Israel, as in the days of Islamic warriors, would have been consigned to Ocean. I can quote numerous other examples, where larger population does not mean larger power. Therefore, only demographic change that matters in today's India is how many have been able to move into the middle class (is middle class growing faster than the GDP), are women empowered or not. I would not worry about religion. It provides enough emotions, to produce its vanguards, rear guards, side guards and whatever else it needs.

#135
Wow! DM has established the fact from a study done in 1976 in one particular area of 994 women. The reference is not complete as there is no breakdown of the muslim hindu proportion.

One thing really stands out. How big was this Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal area of Thana district in Maharashtra State was in 1976.

These kind of studies are done over a period of years and not on one data. This appears to be a typical home developed India data sampling. Congratulations after thirty years the report vindicated Dost Mittar! It has served the purpose.

The first thing needed to establish was whether both groups were equally religious or one group was more religious than other or some weighting. It looks like the analysts assumed that Muslim women were more religious. What crap!

Can we get some authentic data done by some university instead of people whose job was to insert needles for pap smear?

Anil ji, I understand what you are saying. Both you as a person trying to find the truth and DM ji as a statistician must try to study all those variables.

But from my point of view as a Hindu, it doesn't matter which of the myriad factors may be behind demographic changes (if those are taking place), or not.

All that matters is: (1) Is a shift taking place? (2) What implications it might have for different groups over time?

The first is an empirical question. The second completely and totally subjective question, that we have to answer on our own (because people will see things differently, and that is to be expected).

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

See, why, IMO, wasting time on studying 'factors' is useless. Suppose I am a believer in Islam/Hinduism. I firmly believe that Islam/Hinduism is growing in numbers because it is the God's True religion, and God is arranging things/cosmos to bring that demographic shift (and all that that entails) about.

Is there any way to capture that unspecified variable? If not, will we convince anyone? So should we even try?

I would say, no. That is a lost cause. Let me close with four bullet points:

(1) Causality is very hard to establish.
(2) Even if you do 'establish' causality, you will not take into account important unspecified variables - such as True God's role. So your research will lack persuasive power.
(3) Causality does not change ultimate impact.
(4) So all that matters is the trend.

anil:

"Don't you think in today's India other economic and social factors need to be considered? For example, middle class brings nucleus family which has several other factors limited income, housing healthcare"

Of course, these other factors are significant..very significant, in fact. But I am an empiricist and will continue to accept religion also as a legitimate variable until someone can come up with an Indian study that shows that religion was shown not to be a significant factor.

Regarding the Sachar commission article, I think that I did read the Economist article. When someone says that if Indian Muslims had the same birth rate as the Kerala Muslims, the difference would disappear, this just means that the level of education in Kerala is higher than that of Non-Muslims in other states and the differences in Kerala due to religion are neutralised by their higher eduactional levels vis-a-vis non-muslims in rest of India.

Dost sahib:

You might like to google and find the essay that I am talking about. It had been sometime ago that I had read in the Economist article in the aftermath of Sachar Commission report.

Dost sahib:

Regarding a call from clergy against contraceptives. This is the closest you can link religion to fertility rate, but the statement does not establish religion as the root cause for higher fertility rate. I acknowledge that there is a disparity in rates among the communities. Don't you think in today's India other economic and social factors need to be considered? For example, middle class brings nucleus family which has several other factors limited income, housing healthcare.

In fact, a while ago a study was done about Lijjat Papad social enterprise. This is a women owned cooperative (??) and it has all female workers. These workers were not educated, but the job had empowered them, and the study found that their fertility rate was much lower than the national levels.

Kaal: It is not shell shock that may be the cause of missing leadership in my generation muslims in India. It is inabilty to take community based initiatives that has been the root cause.

anil:

Even in Kerala, Muslim birth rate is higher than that of Hindus and Christians.

Kaal:

Yes, causality is very hard to establish. But there are a few factors that can be stated and leave the conclusions to everyone's disposition. These facts are:

1. The proportion of Muslim population has been growing steadily at the rate of nearly 1 percentage point each decade.

2.Muslim birth rates are higher after all other easily measurable exogenous variables [age at marriage, rural/urban, education, income, etc.] have been taken into consideration. Whether or not the remaining factors attributable to religion are a proxy of other variables can not be proved or disproved.

3. Muslim clergy, at least in India, has ruled that using contraceptives is against Islam.

Kaal:

I have read essays which linked rate of growth in urban middle class to the fertility rate. These essays debunked the link of religion to fertility rate, and had pointed out to transpose Kerala numbers to all India numbers based on Sachar Commission report. To me this is more convincing, although on the surface link to religion looks very appealing.

Afterall Salim sahib extends religion to a new level and want to explain puja and sajda to be studied. There is no end if religion is used as the dissection of social problems in India. You and I have talked about it.

dm ji, you are the statistician, I am not, but may be I can make a few points.

Statistics have a hard time establishing causality even in the best of circumstances of data collection, analysis, and interpretation. People have to agree on a LOT before they will agree on any causality.

Whether religion is a factor or the shell shock factor and absence of leadership makes people more or less fertile can be debated until cows happily go to the slaughter houses or pigs appear on every dinner plate in India.

All that matters, for social consequences to follow, is for demographic shift to take place. If it is taking place gradually, we will have one sort of consequences over time. If not, then another.

DM #135 {"The variable that has emerged as the most influential in causing differentials in the fertility performance of these women was religion, which might be primarily responsible for the higher fertility among Muslim women."}

DM Sahib,
One possible explanation could be the religious routines of the women from the two religions. While I have never done Puja (thank you, Jang), I understand that it is a matter of ringing a bell, folding both hands, and paying homage to a statue from among a myriad of gods and possibly waving some flame in one's direction. You must admit, that while very dignified, this routine has no chance to compete with the Muslim practice of Sajda - as far as factors contributing to fertility are concerned. Thank you for listening.

kaal:

It turned out to be easier than I thought. The very first article that came up after plugging "comparison birth rates hindu muslim" was this one. url: http://www.chowk.com/interacts/14953

Here is an excerpt:

Title: A study of fertility differentials among Hindu and Muslim women in Bhiwandi.

POPLINE Document Number: 796569

Author(s):

Srivastava HC

Source citation:

In: Srinivasan K, Mukerji S, Gupta RB, eds. Dynamics of population and family welfare in India. Bombay, India, International Institute for Population Studies, 1979. :284-99.

Abstract:

The data collected during March-May 1976 are based on a representative sample of 994 currently married women drawn from 830 households located in Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal area of Thana district in Maharashtra State, India. The purpose was to analyze the fertility of Hindu and Muslim women and to identify some of the factors causing fertility differentials among the women belonging to these 2 different religions. Crude birthrates for the Hindus and Muslims were 27.8 and 36.2/1000 respectively. The mean number of children even born was 2.99 for the Hindus and 3.89 for the Muslims. Fertility differentials between the Hindus and Muslims when their current age and different variables -- age at effective marriage, education of the wives, monthly income controlled separately, firmly exhibited that the Muslim women had higer fertility as compared with the Hindu women. The relationship between fertility and education of the women has also explained that education has a dominant role in reducing fertility of the women. The variable that has emerged as the most influential in causing differentials in the fertility performance of these women was religion, which might be primarily responsible for the higher fertility among Muslim women. [bold added by me]

Many thanks. DM ji.

LOL, let's not worry about what allegations HP bhai makes.

It seems we have some census data on changing aggregate numbers of different religious groups. I am not sure if birth-rates themselves are of much interest.

But are such data available for India? How do demographic researchers in the US know that birth-rates of Mormons are higher than those of others? They obviously record all births. Do we do something similar in India?

Kaal:

I have seen such studies in the past. I was once a Demography Research Scholar at the Indian Institute of Economic Growth, so I know what I am talking about. But I will try to see if Dr. Google can bring up any scholarly studies on this topic.

HP:

It doesn't matter what hat I wear. The population figures that I have presented are from the Census of India. And since you refuse to provide any reference, I googled at various sources and while their conclusions may be different, they all give the same census figure. Even the Milligazette, a Muslim newspaper whom no one would accuse of right wing Hindu also gives the same figure, as is evident from the following para:

"A glimpse on the findings of the Sachar Committee Report reveals that the Muslims have been marginalized in the employment sector. Even the has sidelined them. On the all India level (a sum of 12 states) Muslims are nearly 15.4 per cent of the total population but their share in government jobs is only 6.4 per cent [The Indian Express, October 27, 2006]"
For the sake of complete accuracy, the Census of India only gives a figure of 13.5 per cent for 2001 and, I guess, the figure of 15.6 per cent must be based on some extrapolation or the difference could be the inclusion of Kashmir in one set of figures and their exclusion in the other. In any case, we are talking here about the trends, so the exact proportion is not that important.

You made a very serious allegation that people in India manufacture census figures; when one makes such serious allegation, one should be able to support it.

DM ji, do we have any real data (non-BJP, non-Muslim League, even if unreliable) on these issues, or is this all just anecdotal stuff?

For instance, in the US, there is we know that Mormons have a higher fertility rate than is the national average. Do we have something similar in India? If not, then we might as well take our chips and go home on this issue. :)

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

Anil, if we have no data on Ys (demographic changes), then there isn't any need to worry about Xs (shell shock factor, leadership, etc).

hamidumdum Sahib
Re #123,
What specifically have you done yourself in advancing the numerical fortitude of our people? Have you contributed your fair share or are you a band baaja type participant who shows up only during victory parades?

Dost sahib:

You state several facts but make wrong conclusion. You give an example of Kerala, and have quoted earlier the disparity from Sachar Commission report too. Why not apply the norm given in Kerala Statistics and Sachar Commission to muslim community in Kerala (you acknowledge to have lower birth rate), and on all India basis. If you do then you will negate your conclusion. This disparity in national birthrates among various communities in India is strongly correlated to the female education and empowerment.

You will find that religion is not even a noise factor. I have maintained that muslim community has failed to produce leadership in India to create unfair advantage for themselves, unlike other communities and regions. Take Parsees, Sikhs and Christians as examples, their community has not relied on government based initiatives. They have very successfully produced inclusive leadership (despite Delhi and Orissa). This initiative, especially in countries like India, must come from withing the community. Sixty years are long enough for partition's shell shock, no one else is going to deliver it on a silver platter.

dm #122 "statistics can only tell associations, causation has to be interpreted." good. next time you think that islam is one of the factors for high fecundity, i suggest you keep this in mind.

and are you seriously unaware of sources other than BJP on demography??!! hindutvas litter the internet with their own version of history, science, demography and so forth just like any other bunch of crapheads. no one who has not already reached his conclusions look towards such idiotlogues for knowledge.

hamidm #123: Should i expose the reason you are visiting Pakistan to DM is that you three wives there (in addition to the fourth in the US), from each of whom you expect a baby a year in order to maintain a constant supply of suicide-bombers??? So dont confuse DM!!

DM,
You can continue with your ridiculous assertions. This is not the first time you have written about the Muslims Birth rate higher meme. I am sure if you go back and check on your own posts from the last 4-5 years you will find them too. Is it some special season in the year that you put on this RSS hat on?

DM Sahib,
You are absolutely right that we Muslims tend to be much more fertile than the average Hindu, Sikh, and Jew. Only Irish Catholics can match our virility.

Also, when a Muslim couple is married, they have to commit to a quota for the number of new Muslims they will bring into this world. This is usually performed by means of an ISTIKHAARA. The process is not very complicated - both the bride and the groom signal a number with the digits of their hands - a number ranging from 1 to 10 EACH! The two numbers are added together and then divided by two to arrive at a quota commitment.

Of course, the lower the number the less popular the couple. So, there is an inherent tendency to commit and produce as many as 10 children per Muslim couple. As you noted, education plays an insignificant factor in this commitment - because the signal is made using both hands' digits and not some sort of a written declaration. It's very much like a cattle auction where people signal with their hands.

I hope this clears up the debate. Thanks.

Re: # 122

dost-mittar ji,

.... don't be fooled by tahmed's deceptive and deceitful arguments ..... he wants to lull you into complacencey while the moslems, breeding like rabbits, overwhelm your people ........ since the moslems have not been able to do diddly in arts, industry, science or business and have had their behinds whipped in conventional warfare, this is the only way we can beat infidels like you ...... it is a good strategy and it is working in bombay, missisagua and manchester ......

tahmed32:

Sorry, statistics can only tell associations, causation has to be interpreted. I gave you the example of Kerala to tell you that there is a difference in birth rates even after accounting for other variables, at least in the Indian context. This does not meant that Muslim birth rates in Turkey or Bosnia cannot be lower than the Hindu birth rates in India where Muslim clergy generally believes that it is unislamic to practice birth control. [Gandhi was also against all methods of birth control for relgious reasons other than coitus interruptus [pre-ejaculation withdrawal]. Fortunately, nobody follows Gandhi in India.

HP:

Do you have a problem in accepting people at face value? When I say that I haven't seen those RSS studies, that means that I haven't seen them, so I am asking you to please give reference to them because you have seen them (and I believe you when you say that).

My understanding of the demographic weapon is that upper caste Indians throw around the 1.1 billion number to establish might, recognition, "world's largest democracy," and a position on th Security Council. But in reality, when it comes to power, living standards, and distribution of wealth, the effective population of India is substantially less than 1.1 billion - once you discount the Dalits, Muslims, Christians, tribals, and other unwanted lower castes.

HP: over to you buddy. it takes a village to educate our BJP-brainwashed indian brothers. :-)

#116 Dost Mittar: You are now merely splitting hairs to reassure your made-in-india religious prejudices.

what you are in effect saying is something like this: an educated indian muslim will have 3 children while an educated indian hindu will have 2 children!! do you see the absurdity in this??? if so, i think you take a deep breath and try to rise above the BJP communal bs.

DM, This thing about the Muslim birth rates are higher has been around for sometime. Some RSS geniuses went on to claim the Muslims would be a Majority in India pretty soon. That was thoroughly debunked but I think the meme never got to you. So you are still going by that theory of the Muslim higher rate of birth. I am not sure feigning ignorance now would help you.

HP:

I have no clue as to what you are talking about. I have never heard of two census reports in India. If such creatures exist, it would be helpful to know references.

tahmed32:
Frankly, I do not know if Bangladesh birth rates for Muslims are any different from that of Non-Muslims. Without that knowledge, I would have to go by the Indian statistics.

I do agree that improvement of female literacy among Indian Muslims would reduce their birth rate but as long as that reduction is less than the reduction in the Hindu birth rate, the demographic factors will remain relevant.

#114 Posted by tahmed32

There are two census reports in India. One is the official one which reportedly has some numbers tossed in there based on the needs. The other is by RSS which is the real census report. DM is referring to that RSS Census report because he thinks that the RSS report is more reliable.

The Indian Muslims on the other hand claim that their numbers are systematically moved up and down based on who is in charge of the census board at some particular time.
If you go by conventional wisdom, there are more uneducated Hindu families by about 80% VS 11% in India. By the sheer numbers alone Hindu rate of birth has to be higher if education is the criterion. But if you go by religion, as DM says the 11% uneducated Muslims would beat the 80% uneducated Hindus and produce more. That is what is called the RSS logic. They have written many widely circulated papers and I think DM is relying on those papers generously.

#113 dost mittar: if you are aware that the "demographic transition" to lower birth rates has taken place in bangladesh, then how can you continue to think that "religion too is a factor"?

tahmed32:

The differences in fertility rates are a multi-variate issue. The biggest factor is education, especially that of female education. Even a country such as Bangladesh has dramatically reduced birth rate because of the empowerment of women by NGOs.

But religion too is a factor, after the effect of other variables is controlled. For example, Kerala Muslims have a much lower birth rate than Muslims in other Indian states, yet Muslim birth rate there is higher than that of Non-Muslism.
I was in India a couple of years ago when the country had launched an intensive campaign against polio vaccine. Many Muslims rejected to be vaccinated as a rumour was spread that it was a Hindu conspiracy to control Muslim population.

#111 dost mittar: and a very predictable response from you too!! That is, you acknowledged the truth on the issue of "gora response", rather than stonewalling as lesser individuals than you on chowk would have done. :-)

on demographic changes - i dont deny what you are saying. in fact, i would then ask the next logical question: Why this difference in fertility rates? Is it

1. because islam makes people have more babies?
2. because less educated people and those living in rural areas tend to not to have the "fertility decline".

The answer is clearly 2, based on a century of demographic experience.

tahmed#2:

A very predictable response.

No, I am not a politically correct Indian. I call the shots and don't care where the chips fall. I will condemn the VHP thugs and criticise the Indian position on Kashmir even if someone calls me Kuldip Nayar or Paki-lover. Similarly, I would point out to the demographic changes even if that brings out the kind of response that you have given.

You are partly right about what I meant about the gora response. Incentives for more children is not the only response I was thinking of. There could be a clampdown on immigration or even an enforcement of China-like birth controls so that groups (immigrants) with higher birth rates do not overwhelm others.

#109 dost mittar: there is nothing funny about the way minorities are attacked in india. and dont drag up irrelevant statistics - minorities are attacked in india like nowhere else, including pakistan. the indian mentality is obvious on chowk - where indians who are NOT obsessed with religious differences are the exception. and if you (with your unduly negative views on islam that we have argued about before) are an example of a "politically correct" indian, then i rest my case.

and it wasnt increased fertility in goras the "solution" you were thinking of that was going to be "not palatable to us non-goras". so please be honest.

tahmed32:

You are doing a pretty good job of scaring politically correct Hindus. They are afraid of doing any factual analysis which would be countered by taunts of "go around murdering minorities, ridiculing and demonizing their religion."

Here are the facts of "glacier changes". The percentage of Muslims in India was about 12% after the partition. Now, they are said to be between 15-20%; you can do the extrapolation yourself of what it means if the same trends continue over the next 100 years. Look at it another way; I read it five years ago that the proportion of Muslims in India was the same as it was in India (excluding Pakistan and Bangladesh) before 1947. In other words, the loss of Muslims from East Punjab, West Bengal, Bihar, Delhi, UP and other places after the Partition has already been made up by the differential growth in populations.

Now, you can go back to taunting me about Modi, Advani and Aydodya.

...And you are wrong about Canada. Quebec recognised this problem nearly 10 years ago and started giving strong incentives for larger families with the result that there has been a significant change in the Quebec birth rate.

#107 dost mittar: please dont worry about white's in North America "realizing" the demographic changes taking place and thus "some solutions which may not be palatable to us non-goras".

unlike indians, the "goras" of north america dont go around murdering minorities, ridiculing and demonizing their religion.

So you are safe in Canada. Dont be afraid.

khurram#105:

Hindus are not facing any threat in the foreseeable future of a demographic nature, except in Assam and, to some extent, in West Bengal.

But when you are talking glacier movements, you are talking in terms of centuries and not years or even decades.

Re: dm #105,
"...Hindus in India as they are totally clueless"

Are hindus in India facing a demographic threat?

Demographic changes are like glaciers. They move very very slowly but, in the long run, their influence is stronger than hurricanes or storms.

So, bulleya and Kaal are right in trying to foresee the long-term consequences, esp. Kaal about the Hindus in India as they are totally clueless. But I am not so sure about the White man. They are quite alive to the long-term danger and will sooner or later come up with some solutions which may not be palatable to us non-goras. I would look to what France [or Quebec in Canada] does as a leading indicator of what other white countries might do.

Kaalchakra: I also hear that you are actually an Ahmedi pretending to be a Hindu pretending to be smitten by angst and self-doubt.

#102 Hamidm: I hear President Hossein is a Shia pretending to be a Sunni who is pretending to be a Christian.

he he, many people believe that, although I might more easily believe or hope so were I a 'Moslem.'

But (for me) most the issues arise from groups rather than from Individuals. He should be ok, whatever or whoever he is.

Re: # 100

chakri mian,

... no, we did not digress ...... according to many moslems obama secretly prays five times a day - he is a meccan camel and, like the people of troy. the people of this shining city on the hill will regret the day they let him in ......... i tell you, these moslems are really on the march now - first they engineered the credit crisis and then got their man into the white house ..... rascals !

ha ha, hamidm2 there is much in what you say :)

And the best part is, the more one tries to explain the importance of religio-political demographics and identity to normal, traditional Hindus, the more one is convinced of the wisdom inherent in your argument. One would do it if one could.
----------

Rabia, that's NOT true. We should acknowledge this tribe, but beyond that, it is meaningless in everysense of the word. It has no relevance either inside the world of Islam or outside of it. It can influence nothing except make the task of normal Muslims easier or faciliate Islamic processes among non-Muslims.

Cheers, poor Obama. We digressed. :)

Re: # 95

chakri mian,

... you guys are fighting a loosing battle ... why don't you accept the inevitable and convert to islam - it might be a little painful at your age, but it is a small price to pay for eternal bliss surrounded by virgins of your choice ..... besides, biryani is better than bhaji ....

..... but you indian hindoos are a hardy lot - not like those kafirs of mecca or parsis of iran or the hindoos of indonesia who quitely submitted to the arab god and vanished from the scene ...... so you might survive, but is it really worth it? ..... what is so special about the hindoo religion and culture that it merits survival? ..... surely, it is not better than the pagan culture of mecca or persia ....... if i were you i would pronounce the shahada and join the ranks of the faithful - i would be happy to be your mentor ...... there is no point in delaying the inevitable

Look, most muslims on chowk are part of a pretty fast-disappearing demographic (liberal muslims). It's so small that people like you don't even acknowledge it exists! The question is just whether any of us have enough power to change anything (I don't think so). Anyway, didn't mean for this to turn into a long argument.

These choices are forced upon us, rabia :)

Look, born where I was, I can't help prefering Indic culture to Islamic culture, Indic people to Islamic people. Not because Indic culture and people are any better but simply because I have an affinity toward them, based on my own idenity (alone). There are real and psychic relations.

I have not heard of Muslims disappearing from any place (except from Spain, about which we constantly hear every day, everywhere, even now :)), so people with Muslim identities don't have that concern. And that is good for them!

Protecting one's own, or one's own family is not a choice. It is human compulsion. Asking people that they shouldn't or should protect EVERY human equally is and would be the odd choice. :)

My feeling is that we don't disagree.

#95
kaal, you must be aware that your communal priorities about demographic changes require you to abandon certain principles of humanity. While I am willing to understand your concerns, I do not feel able to embrace them, personally (probably because I don't have a stake in the situation). That's the only disagreement that we have. It's not really a disagreement as much as a choice.

rabia, a big part of my focus has been on arguing to Hindus that demographic shifts are EXTREMELY important. And if and when demography shifts in India shifts in favor of Muslims, Hindus would lose a LOT. Demography is the fusion bomb of social relations, and Islam and Muslims have the biggest bomb. I have said that often before. What is there to not say about that?

and in general, it's really dishonest of you to make this into a debate about a totally arbitrary border that most of your countrymen didn't even want to have to begin with.

You might as well admit that you are as concerned with demographic shifts within India. Then we can have a discussion about the ethics of treating a group of humans within your community as an ant colony.

#92:
"(3) Bangladeshis are humans first? So? Must I give them space in India if I can help that? Must everyone?"

Look, you are trying to claim that I am one of those open border types who shout racist at anyone who tries to restrict immigration. that is absolutely not the case. I absolutely think India should enforce its borders. I guess I might have been unclear but my original point was just in terms of individual ethics, I guess. I feel really disgusted at the way Bangladeshi muslims are treated as some kind of human virus.

#90 rabia, yaar, that is the most ridiculous and unintelligent thing you have said on chowk. :)

(1) People die. So does that mean one should not worry about dying early? Or that one might be killed by another?

(2) People die. So you and I should be crying tears over some other nathuram and qasim ali died?

(3) Bangladeshis are humans first? So? Must I give them space in India if I can help that? Must everyone?


By the way, my only objection is to given space to Bangladeshi Muslims. And that is because I consider Bangladeshi Hindus to be my own people, not Bangladeshi Muslims. Is that wrong? Must I consider the whole world's people as my people and offer to help them equally?

Re: # 90; Rabia

that "circle" is alluded to in Hindu mythology very clearly ... it is called the "kaalchakra"!

#88
look there are certain situations in which it seems inevitable that one group of people will be wiped because of demographic changes. This has happened so many times in history that I don't see how anyone get worked up about it. Obviously it is sad for the group that gets wiped but I don't see you and your crowd crying tears for the native americans. This has become so tied up in your hatred for Islam that you forget that Bangladeshi muslims for example, are humans first, even if you consider them inferior to the groups they are wiping out.

Re: # 88

chakri mian,

....how are the mohammedans doing in mother india - any chance they might out breed you guys? ..... you vegetarians better get busy instead of wasting your time on useless endevours like building iit's and trying to get to the moon ....

array rabia, why would you call that pointless?!

Influencing demographic shifts using all kinds of means - from having lots of children to forming marriage alliances to simply forcing people in and out of geographical areas to simply converting locals to one's own group - is a well-recognized politico-religious strategy.

Even the idea that Palestinians will ultimately 'win' because there are more of them and growing faster is a commonplace idea. All these things have a huge impact - no?

You probably mean that there is nothing anyone who stands to lose in these shifts can do? Thanks.

(although the germans seemed pretty nice compared to the taliban)

#85
this is probably what the romans and their loyalists said around 400 AD! And look, the pee-on-their-head northern europeans didn't turn out too badly. Worrying about demographics is as pointless as cheering on the birthrate of palestinian women, sir.

Re: # 81

captain clueless,

... so you are looking forward to the time when jews will be extinct and the earth will be inhabited by half-witted punjabi retards and imbecilic bedouins ..... i have heard this strategy being proposed by the mullahs of mansoora and other fools with the mark of the devil on their forehead ...... like you, these people claim that family planning and polio vaccine is a jewish conspiracy to win this demographic war ...... i asuume you are busy breeding eleven children to do your part in this jihad ......

........ what a bunch of morons! .... you guys prove that darwin was wrong - if there was any truth to the theory of natural selection, your species would have disappeared a long time ago ..... unfortunately there are not enough suicide vests in the world ......

Re: # 83; bulleya

are you implying the Punjabis are the 'cockroaches'?

correction: "punjab (east and west combined) is already larger than most european countries......."

should read,

punjab (east and west combined) is already larger than all european countries, other than russia.....

correction: "punjab (east and west combined) is already larger than most european countries......."

should read,

punjab (east and west combined) is already larger than all european countries, other than russia.....

majumdar/akcheema #: ...if one, truly, wants to study long-term civilizational survival trends......one has to, first and foremost, look at demographic trends; not at the financial, military or scientific power of present-day countries.......the cockroach vs. dinosaur theory.....

...according to research, the world's population will peak at around 9 billion, in 2070.....after which it will start declining......however, the decline will not be uniform....

based on this, one has to figure who is the cockroach and who is the dinosaur......

certain countries are already in a decline.....russians are decreasing.......and may well be on their way to extinction.....japanese aren't doing too well either.....neither are white europeans.....

americans are doing alright at the moment........however, much of that is due to immigration and due to high growth rates of hispanics.....whites will be minority in the usa by 2050 or so.....

white canadians are doing poorly......and jews are doing the worst.......

.......jews are on their way to demographic extinction.....this is recognized by their own scholars.....i don't see how this can be stopped......they will disappear in usa and europe.......with only the ones in israel surviving.......a population of around 5 million or so........and even their birth rates are so low that they may start decreasing.......judaism (and zoarastranism) is well on its way to almost, totally, disappearing as a religion.....there may come a time, when people will need to look at the quran and bible to reference it....

so who will be the cockroaches of the future......chinese and south asians.....2.x out of every five people in the world is already chinese or south asian.......chinese have put a hold on their growth rate.........

this leaves the south asians as the one large group of growing populations in the world.......so in a few decades to centuries, south asians may be running the world (regardless of how stupid they may or may not be)........they will be the only ones left in large numbers......punjab (east and west combined) is already larger than most european countries.......and there are only five countries in the world, which have more people than utter pradesh....

hindi/urdu is the second highest spoken first language in the world (behind mandarin and ahead of english), while bengali is 7th.....more people speak punjabi, tamil, telugu and marathi (individually) than italian......there are more kannada and gujurati speakers than dutch speakers.......

so the world will eventually return back to its historical norm, dominated by chinese and south asian......if for no ohter reason than because many of the other dinosaur races of today are on their way to slow demographic extinction....jews being the first in line.....

interestingly, my favorite show - star trek - never displays this correctly.......even in the 24th century the world seems dominated, demographically, by caucasians.......there is only one south asian character in all the star trek series......

Re: # 79; majumdar
[[PS: I am glad Masadi sahib isnt participating in this debate ]]

this "debate" is no exception sir ... that 'feeling' is always welcome!

now leave it at that please

Romair/Cheema sb

I would strongly recommend a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Regards

PS: I am glad Masadi sahib isnt participating in this debate

majumdar #: "unfortunately around the world (in any culture) the individuals procreating like rabbits are not the most intelligent (alas!) ... humanity would have to get a lot dumber before it WILL recover from this menace (Insha'allah!)"

i am not sure whethere this is accurate......

there is plenty of history of the islamic civilization (and to some extent hindu civilization) being the leaders of the intellectual pack, in their heyday......

this pendulum swings back and forth.......currently, it is the christians (primarily of the western civilization) who are leading this pack......

at a person to person level, it would definitely be the jewish civilization......

however, for a civilization to be successful, it needs to first have the numbers........if a person wins a noble prize, an olympic gold medal and becomes the richest person in the world, it would be great for him/her......and if he/she is the only member of his civilization, then it would make his/her civilization the most successful on a per person basis......but his/her civilization would still be on its way to extinction......

if the jewish civilization is to thrive, its chances of doing so are far higher by having a lot of stupid people than having a few very intelligent ones.......

sooner or later the pendulum swings and the the stupid people end up becoming intelligent......

demogrphics is the ultimate nuclear bomb....cockroaches lived on earth before dinosaurs......and they still survive, while so many much more powerful and intelligent species have become extinct.......

no point in being successful at an individual level, if at a community level, one's decisions lead to the complete communities' extinction......

Cheema sahib,

Why should it be so, as a man of the biological sciences what is your explanation?

other theories include those less fortunate in the 'brain' department eventually evolving separately and in a parallel fashion to the rest ... maybe even branching out into distinct species!

Can you identify the chowkies (those who you are familiar with) into the ones who are likely to follow a divergent evolutionary path?

Regards

Re: # 75; majumdar
[[... nor do they have an independent homeland whose security they have to defend.]]

may be they can pray for an MAJ in their midst!

that tragedy is not confined to jews or parsis ... unfortunately around the world (in any culture) the individuals procreating like rabbits are not the most intelligent (alas!) ... humanity would have to get a lot dumber before it WILL recover from this menace (Insha'allah!)

other theories include those less fortunate in the 'brain' department eventually evolving separately and in a parallel fashion to the rest ... maybe even branching out into distinct species!

Romair,

however, the parsis are not int'l influencers

Parsis are too small in number, their numbers in India is probably in 10,000-50,000 range way down from 1947 numbers, they are not there in USA nor do they have an independent homeland whose security they have to defend.

Regards

majumdar #68: "Well said about the Jewish people. Interestingly, the same thing can be said about India's own Jews- the Parsis- astoundingly brilliant and successful but on way to extinction."

...you are correct.....i was going to reference the parsi community, but decided not to.....

....the parsi community is not only the jewish community - in terms of success - in india, it is the same in pakistan.....a disproportionately high number of them, in relation to their population, are successes in pakistan.....every single one i have met was quite successful.....

.....however, the parsis are not int'l influencers.......their role at the int'l level is next to nill......they are also not in conflict with anyone as far as i know......

......the jewish community, despite its small size, influences int'l affairs hugely.......massively......basically, because it hugely influences us public policy.....

us public policy is based on pressure groups, and not on individual voters......anyone who has the most powerful pressure group, can, influence us policy, disproportionately......

my point was that israel is influencing world policy to its own long term detriment.......as is israel.....

Notice the difference in the attitudes of the mother of a terrorist SON, and the father of the terrorist DAUGHTER!

The difference in attitudes is perceptible, and exemplifies our fear/love of women, whatever they may be upto.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Sadhvi_Pragyas_dad_says_he_wor ships_her _photo/articleshow/3644027.cms

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/my-son-was-a n-antinational-he-deserved-to-die/ 378168/

Notice the difference in the attitudes of the mother of a terrorist SON, and the father of the terrorist DAUGHTER!

The difference in attitudes is perceptible, and exemplifies our fear/love of women, whatever they may be upto.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Sadhvi_Pragyas_dad_says_he_wor ships_her _photo/articleshow/3644027.cms

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/my-son-was-a n-antinational-he-deserved-to-die/ 378168/

Notice the difference in the attitudes of the mother of a terrorist SON, and the father of the terrorist DAUGHTER!

The difference in attitudes is perceptible, and exemplifies our fear/love of women, whatever they may be upto.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Sadhvi_Pragyas_dad_says_he_wor ships_her _photo/articleshow/3644027.cms

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/my-son-was-a n-antinational-he-deserved-to-die/ 378168/

#49 Posted by akcheema
#68 Posted by bulleya

I don’t think you two are even familiar with the issues involved. I would recommend you two to please read this book in your leisure time to get some knowledge of the real issues involved in the ME before debating it.

http://tinyurl.com/5njbg9

Romair,

Re: 68

Well said about the Jewish people. Interestingly, the same thing can be said about India's own Jews- the Parsis- astoundingly brilliant and successful but on way to extinction.

Regards

akcheema #: "Israel is where it was always meant to be ... with Jerusalem as its capital!"

...by far, by a gigantic orders of magnitude margin, the brightest group of people i have ever met are jews.....there is no community in the world that can collectively even come close to them in success/per person....the statistics are so clear that one has to almost think that jews are made of a different dna.....

take a look at the IT and IT related industry.....a disproportionately number of high tech ceo's are jewish.......not to mention the fact that tel-aviv is second only to silicon valley, in terms of scientists and achievements......

towards the end of 90s, when everyone was talking about the indian IT boom, very few people realized that while india had only 3 companies listed on the nasdaq, israel had 98!......

....micheal dell (founder owner of dell), andy grove (ex-ceo of intel), larry ellison (oracle founder and ceo), steve ballmer (microsoft ceo), summer redstone (ceo redstone), brian roberts (comcast) are all jewish (ballmer is half jewish).......

something like 15% of the top ceo's in usa are jewish (seven to eight times their population ratio).....while around 40% (?) or american noble prize winners are jewish (a whopping 20 times their population ratio!!).....

in fact, i just realized that i have, perhaps, only worked for one IT company that did not have a jewish (or indian) ceo.......

so at a personal level, there is no competition.....jews, based on statistical success, at least, are made of different stuff than the rest of the world......

even a flaming half muslim liberal, like obama, chose a flaming pro-israeli son of a zionist father - rahm - as his chief of staff......

...based on such high personal success, one would think that the jewish community in the world would be prospering beyond belief........

however, it is clear that it is dying out......on its way to extinction......one, thus has to analyze where things went wrong for jews.....where did they not plan correctly......

if internationally backward communities like muslims and hindus are well over a billion people each (not to mention the godless chinese), then why are jews down to 15 million!!.....out of which a majority live in the usa (not in israel), many of whom are not recognized as jews by israelis........

where did a religious community go wrong in its planning......a community that could have easily wiped out the christian and islamic faith altogether, in its origins.....

more on this later, but i have always felt that while the jewish community is extremely successful, individually, it suffers for massive ill-planning at a community level......

the selection of the location of israel - its only state - in the worse possible area, where there is no way i can see how it can survive, is one such decision......

......there are still more jews in america than in isreal......which indicates where they prefer living......and they are far more secure (and far more prosperous)........

had israel been created in maine or baja california (or some remote corner of british columbia), its chances of long-term survival and peace would have been secure.....the whole world would have benefited from jewish brilliance......there would be far more peace......

and most of all, for jews and for israel, such a state's long term future would have been secure....

however, i really don't see how israel can last beyond 50 to 100 years.....if that.....it is demographically not possible (unless all the american jews migrate to israel, en masse)......

...in fact, the migration of jews from usa to isreal (something i don't see happening) cannot occur in the future either......in a book titled, "the vanishing america jew," allen dershewotz writes,

"....As the result of skyrocketing rates of intermarriage and assimilation, as well as "the lowest birth rate of any religious or ethnic community in the United States," the era of enormous Jewish influence on American life may soon be coming to an end. Although Jews make up just over 2 percent of the population of the United States--approximately 5.5 million out of 262 million....our numbers may soon be reduced to the point where our impact on American life will necessarily become marginalized. One Harvard study predicts that if current demographic trends continue, the American Jewish community is likely to number less than 1 million and conceivably as few as 10,000 by the time the United States celebrates its tricentennial in 2076. Other projections suggest that early in the next century, American Jewish life as we know it will be a shadow of its current, vibrant self--consisting primarily of isolated pockets of ultra-Orthodox Hasidim........"

in my opinion, israel would, thus, be well-advised to declare peace and agree to 67 borders......it is in its own long-term survival interests....however, the influence of fundamentalist ideology in the jewish community is very high......so i doubt they will allow this.......

Hamidm2 baitay
Matloob mian nahin matloob bawa
Who are you?
I am sure everyone here is well educated other than the obvious one.
Just wait till your butt is cut and pasted elsewhere since you love to stick it where it doesn't belong.
Are you appointed as some jamaydar/bhangi/choora by the Chowk administration and feel threatened by what others feel should be brought to the attention of general audience?
Why don't you live with what others have to say?
Insha'Allah the day will come when those shinning beacons will shine through the rear-ends of your kind and your aulaad.
Stop inflicting insults against our beloved Prophet PBUH:
you don't seem to have enough gooda in your bones so you want to bring in "if you are not careful the horrible hindoos will send you packing back to kashghar or mecca or baghdad or some other godforsaken place you claim you came from ........"
Since you are such a handicap & retard why don't you shut up and mind your very own business as you are worse than a great number of Hindus who interact here in a much pleasant manner, but what do you know about mannerism you happen to be a murtid with a name you accidentally received from your parents perhaps since you lived in Muslim neighborhood.
In future don't address me about the posts that were not posted to your attention. What did you do with the money your mama gave you to go to school.

Re: # 64

matloob mian,

.... no need to cut n'paste the history of israel - everyone here is fairly well educated .......

.........so what if the jews came back after wandering the desert and taking a sightseeing tour of europe for a couple of centuries ? ..... they are finally home and god bless them for being a shining beacon of light in that wilderness inhabited by savage bedouins ..... in any case, their claim is much more legitimate than that of the miserable converts who inhabit pakistan and claim descent from a bedouin prophet and his great grandson, chengiz khan ....... if you are not careful the horrible hindoos will send you packing back to kashghar or mecca or baghdad or some other godforsaken place you claim you came from ........

History of Zionism and British Mandate of Palestine
Jews living in the Diaspora have long aspired to return to Zion and the Land of Israel. That hope and yearning was articulated in the Bible, and is a central theme in the Jewish prayer book. Beginning in the 12th century, Catholic persecution of Jews led to a steady stream leaving Europe to settle in the Holy Land, increasing in numbers after Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492. During the 16th century large communities struck roots in the Four Holy Cities, and in the second half of the 18th century, entire Hasidic communities from eastern Europe settled in the Holy Land.

The first large wave of modern immigration, known as the First Aliyah, began in 1881, as Jews fled pogroms in Eastern Europe. While the Zionist movement already existed in theory, Theodor Herzl is credited with founding political Zionism, a movement which sought to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, by elevating the Jewish Question to the international plane.

In 1896, Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), offering his vision of a future state; the following year he presided over the first World Zionist Congress.

The Second Aliyah (1904–1914), began after the Kishinev pogrom. Some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine. Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews, but those in the Second Aliyah included socialist pioneers who established the kibbutz movement. During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration, which "view[ed] with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi split off.

In 1922, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom a mandate over Palestine for the express purpose of "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home". The population of the area at this time was predominantly Muslim Arab, while the largest urban area in the region, Jerusalem, was predominantly Jewish.

Jewish immigration continued with the Third Aliyah (1919–1923) and Fourth Aliyah (1924–1929), which together brought 100,000 Jews to Palestine. In the wake of the Jaffa riots in the early days of the Mandate, the British restricted Jewish immigration and territory slated for the Jewish state was allocated to Transjordan. The rise of Nazism in the 1930s led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This influx resulted in the Arab revolt of 1936–1939 and led the British to cap immigration with the White Paper of 1939. With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine. By the end of World War II, Jews accounted for 33% of the population of Palestine, up from 11% in 1922.

1948 Palestine war and Declaration of Independence (Israel)
After 1945 the United Kingdom became embroiled in an increasingly violent conflict with the Jews. In 1947, the British government withdrew from commitment to the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. The newly created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city – a corpus separatum – administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status. The Jewish community accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.

Regardless, the State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one day before the expiry of the British Mandate for Palestine. Not long after, five Arab countries – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq – attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, although conflict between the Jews and Arabs of Palestine started earlier.

After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established. Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations on May 11, 1949. During the war 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, or about 80% of the previous Arab population, fled the country. The fate of the Palestinian refugees today is a major point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the early years of the state, the Labor Zionist movement led by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion dominated Israeli politics. These years were marked by mass immigration of Holocaust survivors and an influx of Jews persecuted in Arab lands. The population of Israel rose from 800,000 to two million between 1948 and 1958. Most arrived as refugees with no possessions and were housed in temporary camps known as ma'abarot. By 1952, over 200,000 immigrants were living in these tent cities. The need to solve the crisis led Ben-Gurion to sign a reparations agreement with West Germany that triggered mass protests by Jews angered at the idea of Israel "doing business" with Germany.

During the 1950s, Israel was frequently attacked by Palestinian fedayeen, mainly from the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip. In 1956, Israel joined a secret alliance with The United Kingdom and France aimed at recapturing the Suez Canal, which the Egyptians had nationalized (see the Suez Crisis). Despite capturing the Sinai Peninsula, Israel was forced to retreat due to pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union in return for guarantees of Israeli shipping rights in the Red Sea and the Canal.
At the start of the following decade, Israel captured Adolf Eichmann, an architect of the Final Solution hiding in Argentina, and brought him to trial. The trial had a major impact on public awareness of the Holocaust, and to date Eichmann remains the only person sentenced to death by Israeli courts.


So where did they come from? none of them was from the holy land

David Ben-Gurion - 1st Prime Minister of Israel
Born 16 October 1886 - Płońsk, Poland Russian Empire
Died 1 December 1973 Israel

Moshe Sharett - 2nd Prime Minister of Israel
Born 15 October 1894 - Kherson, Ukraine
Died 7 July 1965 - 7 July 1965 Israel

Levi Eshkol - 3rd Prime Minister of Israel
Born 25 October 1895 - Oratov, Ukraine
Died 26 February 1969 - Jerusalem, Israel

Golda Meir - 4th Prime Minister of Israel
Born: 3 May 1898 Kiev, Russian Empire
Died: 8 December 1978/ Jerusalem, Israel

For further information also view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NwWLL4LB58

Re: #47
Rashid_s
Those who don't know when, how & why Israel was created as well as those who make such statements as "allah himself (since he doesn't exist)", Na'aoozo billah; what do they know, one can only pray to Allah SWT to guide those who are misguided and astray.
It requires an altogether different level of intellect to understand and have faith in the unseen, while today such people are discussing matters such as the founding or existence of Israel without slightest knowledge as to who, how, when and why about it although such facts are well documented hundreds of thousands of times.

Re: # 62

salim mian,

.... if it hadn't been for the treachery of the bedouins of hejaz, there would be no israel and you could be sunning yourself on the beach in haifa ....... it could have been all yours ........ these damn arabs!

#60 Posted by hamidm2 on November 11, 2008 11:56:03 am
{"salim mian,
.... as a proud turk you should know what these arabs are like ...."}

Hamidumdum Sahib,
Please don't get me started on that. I share Ataturk Mustafa Kemal Pasha's assessment of the Arab traitors during WWI. Shaikh Lawrence would not have been successful were it not for the revolt led by Sharif Hussein (The King of Jordan's Abdullah's great great grandfather)

Having said all that, I am still aware of human rights with justice and dignity for ALL.

#59 hamidumdum2 {" he thinks it would be better for all of us if all arabs were placed under israeli control ...... "}

Hamidumdum Sahib,
I would have to agree with you there. My only issue with the Israelis is that they stop their two-tiered caste structure. If they are serious about being in the land forever and want to hold on to Eretz Israel, then they need to absorb the entire Palestinian population and bring it into the 21st century as far as education, treatment of women, health, and fairness are concerned. Nothing would please me more than to have Israel lead the social change to wipe out the ignorance that we call Soodi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and Yemen.

Re: # 59

salim mian,

.... as a proud turk you should know what these arabs are like ....

Re: # 58

salim mian,

...... my friend abbasi, who rears his ugly head on chowk every now and then, went on a pilgrimage to the holy land this summer with his family ...... according to him he feels sorry for the poor israelis who are surrounded by 'scum' ..... he was treated in a most civilzed manner by the israelis and was free to go wherever he wanted, whenever he wanted and, more importantly, the air did not smell of sweat and goat urine ..... on the other hand, jordan smelt like a stable and the jordanians behaved like ... well, like arabs ! ........... he thinks it would be better for all of us if all arabs were placed under israeli control ...... rather drastic, but i can see where he is coming from ... don't you?

..... do you really want to go back to 1967 when the mohammedans controlled our holy places and we couldn't go for a pilgrimage?

#53 Posted by bulleya on November 11, 2008 3:39:10 am
....the biggest mistakes made by those attempting a found a country called israel, was to place it in a location, where it will, always, be in extreme danger......
...........however, i doubt israel will last too long in its current state......the demographics are hugely against it.......israel should go back to the 67 borders, gain worldwide recognition as a state by its arab neighbors, and agree to end the occupation and a palestinian state......
if not for the good of the palestinians, then for its own future....... "}

Bulleya (is this Romair?)
Very logically presented and beautifully expressed - you offer the most intelligent discussion and rationale for a two state solution based on mutual recognition and respect. Thanks.

Re: # 53 bulleya ......imagine if israel had been created in a small corner of ontario or california.....it would have prospered further, and the areas around it would have as well.....not to mention the fact that the world would have been a much safer place......


man, you do not have a sense of irony (i presume) but your interacts are always full of irony. What is it that is stopping the arabs from prospering in a similar manner....

Cheema ji, its either victory for Allah (god, as Muslims understand it) or victory for justice (or fairness, as Muslims understand it), depending upon whether one is self-consciously 'religious' or not.

But yeah, faith in ultimate victory - and hence insistence of persistence - is the same in both cases.

Re: # 53; bulleya

read the following please ... a famous excerpt from a Zionist perspective oft quoted:

[[Britain did not want to upset the delicate balance of relationshhips in the Middle East, so as a short-term solution, the British offered Herzl and the Jews the land of Uganda as a respite. Herzl reluctantly accepted the offer, but at the next Zionist Congress the offer was resoundingly rejected. The following year Herzl died. A new Zionist leader emerged - Chaim Weitzman. The British government continued to apply pressure on the Zionists to accept Uganda as a temporary shelter, but things changed in a pivotal meeting between Weitzman and another Christian Zionist, Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary. Balfour asked Weitzman why was Uganda rejected and why were the Jews hung up on Palestine. Weitzman responded by suggesting the tables be turned and he offer to Balfour, Paris instead of London. Balfour replied that the British currently had London but the Jews do not have Jerusalem. Weitzman said, "We had Jerusalem when London was a swamp." That was enough to persuade Balfour to begin to argue for Palestine for the Jews. ]]

Israel is where it was always meant to be ... with Jerusalem as its capital!

Re: # 52; Kaal bhai

the one thing that (currently) reverberates through the 'muslim' mind is what is inscribed all over the Alhambra palace in Granada (Spain) ... "wa la ghalib-u ilallah"!

...and of course the 'message' is not propagated by allah himself (since he doesn't exist) but by his very own 'mujahids' in this world ... to some the above arabic statement becomes very close to home and translates in to 'personal' ghaliba over all else ... simply so "Justice" be allowed to take her own majestic course!

....the biggest mistakes made by those attempting a found a country called israel, was to place it in a location, where it will, always, be in extreme danger......

......imagine if israel had been created in a small corner of ontario or california.....it would have prospered further, and the areas around it would have as well.....not to mention the fact that the world would have been a much safer place......

most of all, its survival would have been ensured......

.......however, its founders opted for ideology over pragmatism, and asked for a piece of land in the most vulnerable area.....

israel is a foreign element in the thousands of years history of the region......the people who are running israel are mostly russian and european jews - they are caucasians in a region, which is semite.....

a huge portion of israelis are actually arab jews, as well.....though they are at the bottom of the social ladder....they seemed to have been living, relatively, peacefully in the region along with arab christians and muslims......

i am quite sure all jews would have had access to the jewish holy sites in this arab area, regardless of where israel would have been created......

........however, i doubt israel will last too long in its current state......the demographics are hugely against it....

jews, due to their own success, are a dying breed.....their numbers are shrinking, worldwide (as per their own analyses)......they are inter-marrying with christians in usa and are not having enough kids in israel.....

if one counts the occupied areas, as part of israel, muslim and christian arabs, are already in the same range as jews.......in 7 years, the jewish population maybe only 45% of this region.......

within proper israel, non-jews are around 20-25%....and have some of the highest birth rates in the world.....while the jewish birth rates are low......in addition, the large scale migrations of jews to israel (from russia and other arab countries) have already occured....it is quite possible that migrations may become negative, if jews start migrating to large numbers to usa.......

.......so the jews will be a minority in the lands they occupy.....and will, at some stage, will be a minority in proper israel, as well......

at that point, they will have no choice but to implement open aparthied within proper israel, as well......in today's world that is not possible.......

......there are various other reasons going against israel also......they are surrounded by 22 arab countries.......some of which (gulf countries) are shrewdly starting to become one economic union, and are becoming major int'l economic players......sooner or later, their clout will become huge.......

with a rapidly declining jewish votebank in usa, and a rapidly rising non-jewish population in israel and an economically growing gulf oil power, i don't see how israel can last in its current state, for too long......

....israel has the second most sophisticated nuclear weapons system in the world, behind usa.......however, even nukes cannot fight demographics......

the most unwise decision made by the founders of israel, was to ask for a country in such a dangerous location.....the second most unwise decision, would be to continue in a state of conflict with its neighbors, when the long term demographic and economic odds are so highly stacked against it......

israel should go back to the 67 borders, gain worldwide recognition as a state by its arab neighbors, and agree to end the occupation and a palestinian state......

if not for the good of the palestinians, then for its own future.......

Cheema ji, some Muslims call others pigs and descendents of monkeys only because others are unfair to Muslims. Others have done all kinds of wrongs to Muslims. Similarly, we shouldn't take ahmadinejad seriously when he calls for the annihilation of Israel.

Once others are fair and just to Muslims, Muslims will become very friendly and accommodative to everyone else (as they have always been). One become fair and just to Muslims everywhere by agreeing with them, and seeing the world as they see it.

EC ... I have travelled extensively in the middle-east and the only country I'd live in there is Israel ... the Israeli arabs have far more "human rights" than most middle-eastern arabs under 'their own' rulers

I recall a conversation I had with an ex-boss of mine in England ... he was (probably still is) a consultant physician, Palestinian born/bred, educated (uni) in Kuwait followed by the UK ... he greeted me 'Eid Mubarak' once and I reciprocated ... then he said he'd celebrate Eid only on the day the world was "free from the descendents of pigs and monkeys"!! ... this is a so-called western-educated person speaking!! ... by all accounts regarded a "moderate" by his peers! ... I moved on very quickly from that

Then there was another example of a very similarly educated Palestinian consultant who was the complete opposite ... he married an English woman and was fully integrated ... and was reviled by the 'community'! (as a traitor!!) ... such is the "community" my friend! and he ended up leaving all his cultural heritage because he felt 'pushed' in that direction ... sad!

Like I said before, there is a need for a complete turn around of the 'muslim' way of thinking ... if we choose to live as part of the modern world ... otherwise stop complaining at the ridicule you receive from others ... there is always a price! ... and stop abusing the freedoms of expression and other such luxaries you have in the "west" ... the very west where some live and take every advantage of what it has to offer them personally and then cry blue murder when the shoe is on the other foot.

One's wrongs or mistakes do not justify others', Mr. akcheema!

Re: # 48

Israel didn't ask to be attacked in 1948 and then in 1967 ...East Jerusalem was still under Jordanian control until 1967 ... one can't simply ignore the facts and get carried away with emotions here ... I thought the "original rhetoric" was to push/throw the jews into the ocean (or words to that affect!) ... how can one ignore history?

If the issue is simply a few million Palestinians, show me the "special" treatments they received in their own "brotherly" countries! ... it issimply a rhetoric and a completely worn out excuse ... are you telling me Hamas (only one example) are going to give up their ambition to "destroy and annihilate" Israel if they are given full autonomy in the Palestinian territories ... with/without Jerusalem?

What's required is a cultural change here ... that of the mindset ... otherwise it is a recipe for self-destruction (the muslim attitude, that is)

#42 Posted by akcheema
"Israel has every right to exist ..."

Sure it does but within its 1948 borders. It should return all occupied areas afters 1948 to Palestine.

"the day the arabs grasp that concept and stop blaming others for their misgivings, that will be the day of liberation"

Arabs know it pretty well. All they are asking is return of the occupied areas and withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the occupied areas. What is so hard in it to understand?

Re: # 37
“spoken like a true arby-worshipping pakistani�
Sir, I am neither one nor the other. Your prejudice shines the brightest.
Israel was created on false premises, even then no body denies its right to exist, in spite of Dinezad’s rhetoric’s, for its existence in the region is a reality, for it suits many ‘arbys’ puppets and others who helped create it!
The INJUSTICES of US foreign policy viz a viz Israel- a Zionist State (not of Jews) and Iran on WMDs is the issue here. Why can one have them and not the other, when the other does not even has it yet?
As far as the “occupation� of Palestinian land is concerned, the Palestinians and others in the same situation have “ a right……on such principles…..as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness�.

Tahmed sahib,

#44

Look at the positive side of things. Pakistanis are true internationalists and believer in the global brotherhood of men!!!

Regards

Certainly, this reflects the state of relations between Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world!

#40 i find it interesting how some pakistanis are more concerned about the welfare of 3 million palestinians (whose revered leader yasser was at best neutral on kashmir) than they are of the welfare of 180 million pakistanis.

very true!

Re: # 40

Israel has every right to exist ... the day the arabs grasp that concept and stop blaming others for their misgivings, that will be the day of liberation ... no country would stand by and allow madmen launch an ongoing assualt on its citizens ... what do you expect Israel to do if not retaliate?

#40 mr cheema: even a palestinian in the US said what you are saying - how arab autocrats/dictators use israel/palestine as a convenient excuse to stay in power.

How Obama deals with the arabs and the Israelis will be worth watching!

Re: # 37; tahmed sahib

Israel/Palestine is the excuse ... if it weren't around, I am sure there would be other justifications people would think of ... it is a never ending vicious cycle I am afraid

Well, arabs do not have a representative government. Democracy can make a lot of difference in the arab society.

rashid_s: spoken like a true arby-worshipping pakistani. do arabs rant against indians the way you rant against israelis? arab thugs have been beheading pakistani soldiers and civilians - and all that fools like you can do is keep harping about "zionism" and against the US.

Keep ur fingers crossed!

“It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.�
Yes indeed it has. But it is a change in the thinking and attitude of mostly the younger generation, particularly the White.
But Obama is no political Messiah. He is heavily indebted to the Zionist lobby for financial support, as reported in the media and they will demand their “pound of flesh�. His appointment for the influential post of Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel is only the beginning. Who so ever sits on the White House thrown sits with the help of the Zionist courtiers. Plus it is the ‘American interest first’ at the expense of all other factors just and unjust, that matters to the USA.
Read all his statements on the issue of Israel viz a viz Iran’s Nuclear ambition to develop it for “peaceful energy only�. Why should not Iran have Nuclear technology for it and yet the Zionist State has Nuclear weapons? Conversely why should Iran have Nuclear weapons if Israel does not have them?
Even if, for a moment we were to dream that the messiah would make Israel destroy those WMDs ( eg or by sending them to US) that we can TRUST Obama will not supply Israel with those weapons when a push-came-to-a-shove? Why should the world trust USA after having used them twice in anger on Japan and other chemicals weapons on humanity, and not trust Iran when it does not even have them now and will not acquire them in future? Even if it starts today, they say it will take them ten years before they can produce some.
But we live in hope for a Change for Justice from a bankrupt Super Power!

{" No wonder, the whole world is rejoicing, literally, at Obama’s victory. I now realise that I had not put my pen to paper for nothing at that time. Much has happened and changed from the late 1990s to the present day but the essentials of human existence and prosperity will never change, and hoping for the best is one aspect of it."}

Naqvi Sahib,
Very moving article and written with utmost sincerity and idealism. No, you were neither wrong nor ahead of your time then - you, and many of us, have been beaten over and over again into submission. Yes, we have become accustomed to up being down, right being wrong, and day being night. We are all awaking from a long, dismal, violent nightmare that has lasted eight long years. Welcome back.

plz!!! splitting hair will not do here. Obama will evaluated on steps he takes rather than on petty matters!

Men's Rights activists, see controversy in Obama's speech, ( "...( Men ) have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men....") and a pointer to gender bias. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11094.html

This anti-male image is further strengthened in his choice as running mate, of Joe Biden, said to the the architect of the controversial VAWA.

His recent election was allegedly helped by disproportionate support from women, and minorities. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8BsExhV2UVbZa62nYpKgwyqkm5gD948JT4O0

add to #30 Posted by pinku on
On second thoughts
[[
out of place comments only reflect upon the forum and the one who posts those,
]]

forum/articles can not be anywhere perfect, nor they can achieve anything important by remaining ultra clean.. Ideas are what matters.. and we are not that high IQ that we know for sure how these ideas, some good and some bad, can interplay in different conditions.... but in general as long as trolls let you give your good ideas there bad ideas may actually help you and them as well.. and that is the purpose.... I have been reading these articles and discussions for quite some time here.. so i know a little bit about them.. it is simply wrong to suggest that trolls can stop anyone from expressing their good ideas... there is so much time and if people are so affected by such trolls it seems they hardly have significant ideas and/or sincerity to carry on with them...I have not so far said anything properly about it, but you can give it a thought..

for the time being, I am just trying to set higher standards for "trolls":-), which seems to be a good deed (till writing proper comment is out of reach for me)??...

#29 Posted by MatloobZaman on
That was perfect. I am a chowkidar/chaprasi in my own rights for myself, what you see as hatred is my chowkidaari. It belonged here at that time, for more than one reason. As a sincere troll/chowkidar I keep checking where i need to show my own brand of idiocy ( and in what amount).

Believe me, i understand that your concern is proper, but you assume that everybody who comes to this article page has same psychological condition. But my chowkidaari starts at the periphery of most of these articles or their subjects.

Re: # 27
I don't really care who says what but at the least what one says should be in context with an ongoing discussion thread or else it is a lost cause.
Chowkidars should be bright enough to know who to ban for what I don't set their rules nor do I recommend anyone to be banned, out of place comments only reflect upon the forum and the one who posts those, even hatred should be inflicted where it belongs.
Feel free to exercise your privilege.

The choice of Rahm has raised eyebrows but only time will tell how he operates since he is considered a moderate.

#26 Posted by MatloobZaman on
Sorry MatloobZaman,

I don't give any right to anyone about what i will discuss on public forums.. the moment you say something publicly i reserve the right to respond... I do try to not to hurt that much emotionally and be civilized in my own way, but it may not be as per your standard or any other arbitrary standard..

though it was against somebody's comment but i don't even follow a rule like you can say only something that somehow relate to the article ..

if you have been hurt by my comments you can ask chowk to ban me....

let me create an ilog with it, so that people do not ask anything like this unless they think they can convince me

Re: # 18
Why in the whatever Hinduism or any other faith requires to be discussed irrelevantly in this thread?
Obama is not Hindu nor is Rahm!

Re: # 20
He volunteered in the Israeli forces during the Gulf Storm not to fight for or on behalf of USA

Re: # 5
Eyecontact sb
True and as I mention in # 23 anyone would perform better than Bush the cattle auctioneer and Cheney the aspiring Americana believer, and, of course Obama will most definitely will be a lot better leader in the white house compared to these two.

Anyone would do better than the tail wagging Bush & Chenney

Re: # 16
From I have seen of - and about - him, I suspect that Obama is ambitious, opportunistic, motivated, and capable of being ruthless if he has to. Given how things have gone in the last eight years of the neocon rule, voting for more of the same for, at least, four more years was hardly an option.

Obama may not turn out to be the right man, certainly not a messiah. But it is a leap of faith Americans have to take.

Agreed. There must be a balance in our approach. There should be an element of hope (http://saadiam.blogspot.com/2008/11/barack-hussein-obama.html), and we shouldn't get carried away either (http://saadiam.blogspot.com/2008/11/president-of-world.html).
http://saadiam.blogspot.com

#19
I think he volunteered in Israel during the first Gulf War (I don't think he fought in the IDF though -- he did some civilian work)

Re: # 16

"Rahm Emmanuel, his bureau chief, happened to be a volunteer who fought in the Israeli Army in the 6 Day"

Rahm is 48 years old, for him to participate leave alone volunteer in the Israeli 6 day war at the age of 13 seems a stretch.

#14 Posted by Goldfinger on
If you go back to earlier period say Before Muhammad, you won't be able to find most things mentioned in your comments (in Hinduism), including Thuggee, so you have to remain in Islamic period to find all those idiocies??

Plus thugee can be part of hindu religion as per your own level of knwoledge and honesty, not for others. It came well after Prophet has given his own example of thugge by looting carvans.

It is good and ok to say what you find wrong with Hinduism, but you have to work much harder to give good arguments, not that quick and easy..

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Yesterday's Hindustan Times carried an article that said something that close Obama watchers in the USA knew but which the media here did not publicize, nor did the international media, in its euphoria, care to investigate: Sonal Shah, a key Obama advisor happens to be a strong Vishwa Hindu Parishad supporter and the daughter of one of the founders of the Overseas Friends of the BJP.

Look a little closer and it also turns out that Rahm Emmanuel, his bureau chief, happened to be a volunteer who fought in the Israeli Army in the 6 Day War. How this bodes well for peace, I shall leave the Islamists to answer. They and sundry socialists were the ones who led the jeering and noise that greeted Obama's victory after they campaigned for him right through. While this is not to support a decrepit old imbecile like John Mc Cain, there is a delightful irony in the fact that the fundamentalists who hooted and hollered for Obama now find themselves hoist on their own petard.
"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, two are a law firm and three are called a Congress." - John Adams, 1776.

Well, the situation should be seen in its entirety. Mindsets have to be changed!!!

Re: # Says nkg: "hey, don't expect that much from mo follwer beduinoids...first, let them repeal 7th century arab barbarism like shariat etc... and make the country livable for civilised (non mo follwers) people...."

Well seems like nkg has some deep-seated hatred for the followers of 7th century religion because he's everywhere spewing his venom against them...he wants people to go to earlier time period...so that everyone could become like him (nkg)...start clasping hands in front of your chests and bowing your heads in submission to Kali,the Devi of trickery, treachery, and perfidy and start drinking huge bowls of urine daily...start burning live women in suttee when their husbands die, and join his magnificent religious cult, the Thugs of India. After all, as part of his (nkg's)religion, Thugee was practiced for a long time. The Thugs used to waylay any and all unwary travellers travelling anywhere in India. The culmination and ecstacy of his religious antecedents was when ever they could take into complete confidence an innocent traveller. Then, while the poor unwary soul slept, with a silk handkerchief, his life would be snuffed out, and the poor man still thinking his murderer to be his friend. In this way, over the ages in one of the few fields India has been able to garner a niche for itself in the Guinness book of world records, is the slot of Thugee and serial killings. Thugee and Thugs are recognised as having been the greatest serial murderers of history, possessing a strange record of sorts to their credit, of murders of millions of unwary travellers. That is the philosophy and the beacon which is guiding nkg's goat into this 21st century.

Much will be known after Obama completes his selection of team!

Well, I still believe that a beginning can be made at this juncture...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Hello responsible thinker
Numan

But a Black man going to the White House is something of a miracle, isn't it?

#7
Gurooooo
You knew the answer to this rhetorical question didnt you '.)


When India appoints Coas A Muslim and Prime Minister as mussallman

http://view.break.com/578969 - Watch more free videos

now since Obama is president elect when will Bakis elect a Hindu haris as president and christian bhangi prime-minister?

Re: # 2

You can TRUST the Americans to do the WRONG thing!

You're right Zaman sb but i believe personalities do make a difference at the end of the day. Can't we see the sharp contrast between Bush and Clinton?

Re: # 3
Regardless of what we think or speculate, there are certain limitations a US president can maneuver within prescribed parameters. The "national" policies are prescribed in long term plans of action and no president deviates from those plans for the so-called national interest.

I don't buy the argument that Obama will prove to be just another ordinary US President and play into the hands of the American establishment. He'll definitely make a difference!

Good point Parthaab...Obama's mother and father were married for exactly one month.

This belongs here too.
The only thing significant is his color. That was a big question…and many wondered…is America ready for a black President? Well, America said yes! Let us wait and see whether Obama is ready or not. The guy is thin on experience and there are many question marks.

He starts out by appointing Rahm as the Chief of Staff. Rahm is a slick operator like his buddy David Axelrod. Rahm’s father was Irgun…which was like AlQuaida in Palestine before 1948. (FROM WIKIPEDIA: Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,[3][4] and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.[5])Menachem Begin's boys, Irguns. His father was a Doctor but also keen on bombing places like the King David Hotel in which 91 innocent (mostly British) people were killed and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. The Deir Yassin massacre was the slaughter of all of the inhabitants of the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin by Jewish terrorists. More than 300 Palestinians were killed. Rahm also served in Israeli Army. Rahm is clearly not like his father but Obama’s first appointment sends a great negative signal.

I am just glad that Rahm is not a Likudnik but you never knew what is lurking behind the liberal veneer.

A quote from Obama’s book (he is the only politician in the world who wrote two autobiographies before he turned 45).

Before leaving for Occidental College, Obama visits Frank [Frank Marshall Davis] one last time to get his advice, somewhat on the model of Laertes going to Polonius in Hamlet. Frank tells Obama that college represents "an advanced degree in compromise." Frank explains that Obama has to understand the "real price of admission." The real price is "leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind. Understand something, boy. You're not going to college to get educated. You're going there to get trained. They'll train you to want what you don't need. They'll train you to manipulate words so they don't mean anything anymore. They'll train you to forget what it is that you already know. They'll train you so good, you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that s**t. They'll give you a corner office and invite you to fancy dinners, and tell you you're a credit to your race. Until you want to actually start running things and then they'll yank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well paid n****r, but you're a n****r just the same." (Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, 97)

. . .Obama narrates that he went to visit Frank Marshall Davis. From Davis, Obama received quantities of whiskey accompanied by a lecture on the incommunicability of race-based experience to persons on the other side of the color line, namely Obama's grandparents, the "white folk." Frank tells Obama that his grandfather is basically a good man but that the black experience for Gramps is a book sealed with seven seals: "He can't know me," says the communist Frank, "not the way I know him. Maybe some of these Hawaiians can or the Indians on the reservation. They've seen their fathers humiliated. Their mothers desecrated. But your grandfather will never know what that feels like." (Dreams 90) Frank concludes: "what I'm trying to tell you is, your grandma's right to be scared. She's at least as right as Stanley is. She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That's just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it's not. So you might as well get used to it." (Dreams From my Father 91)

Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the US Communist Party.

Messiah? This is Krugman, “Professor Paul Krugman is surely one of the more intelligent of these critics when he writes: "Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration—remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again." (Paul Krugman, New York Times, February 11, 2008�

Obama went for two years to Occidental College in California and then transferred to Columbia University ("He said in a recent interview that he had begun to weary of the parties and fretted about a lackadaisical approach to his studies,"). At Columbia, he met Brzezinski, who at that time, in his immediate post-Carter administration years, was head of the university's "Russian Studies" program. Not only did Obama, then, meet Brzezinski, but he wrote his senior thesis with Zbigniew Brzezinski as his advisor. A close association with a powerful figure? Well, yes. And is that all there is to it? Well, no. The mystery is this: It turns out that, as far as the public record is concerned, it's almost as if those two years of Obama's life—at Columbia—never even happened, so deep an abyss of secrecy have they fallen into, or so thick a vault have they been locked up in.
And now Zbigniew Brzezinski is his biggest supporter in DC.

Who introduced David Axelrod to Obama? Would be an interesting story to learn too.
Read this great article and learn about Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=1&ref= politics&oref=slogin

I loved this headline at www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x39 9234

"Let Us Shed Tears of Gratitude for this Moment of Grace - It will be Brief "

For the already oppressed American male, there can be nothing WORSE than a FEMINIST President like Barack Obama ( TWO daughters :)).

Joe Biden was architect of the anti-male DV in the USA
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1517, and http://www.mediaradar.org/
A lawyer like Obama, Biden is a leading advocate for dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states.

Baracks white mother was a feminist activist, who was into 'World Women Banking', divorced twice, and she raised Obama fatherless ( allowed to see him only till he was 10 years old ).

Btw, is POLITICS second nature for all LAWYERS?