Fudging the population: The missing 90 million Indian Muslims

[baajey]

Yes. It is wrong to be against any particular religion. It is not wrong, and 90% will disagree with me, to be against ALL religion.

i agree, the first part as well as the later.

I agree more kids are considered as a future source of income by the poor. I know you are not one of those types who engage in a debate in a question answer format.
But btw how many kids are sufficient for future insurance ??
A fact that the Mewat area, muslims area in Haryana has more birth rate compared to Hindu area of say Palwal Faridabad Gurgaon. The Mewat area is well connected to highways and good cities like Gurgaon, Faridabad, Palwal and off course Delhi to have good medical facilities.
Mewat is in the farming area of the country so no shortage of food etc. Now if the Mewat has more kids than nearby Hindu areas and by virtue of it the farmer there becomes poor, cause the land is divided between so many due to number of kids at each level, would you still say the more kids are because of poverty ?????
In the generations of our grandparents, it used to be normal to find couple having 7-9 kids (because of high risk of death and lot of man power needed to till the lands etc.[poverty]) but today the same farming community barring one particular section has rarely more than four kids, isnt it.
Please dont show me any courtesy of not writing me an Idiot (which you called me otherwise) since it shows more on you than me, I will ignore that and only focus only on what argument or logic you are giving. And I know of many good people who can be ruthless in certain circumstances but never undignified, not even in language indirectly.
P.s Now please dont use this phrase oh we are murdering them in future, we are not.

Mewat is not the whole of india.
thank you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

By having more children actually you are harassing another citizen because his vote value decreases. People dont realize that one person having huge family gets uneven advantage in democracy.
We need to have laws to favor people with less number of children.

The problem is further increased by playing a victim card that we are poor. No one is discussing that the Sacchar committee report is a direct result of too many kids.

I ignored the other post for its frankly non-representative characterisation of a problem. But this is too much. This is a travesty of truth; a report pointing to the decreasing access to government patronage, to education, to any and every means of advancement in one's personal life, solely due to the religion of an individual, in gross violation of the dictates of a constitution that stipulates absolute equality in terms of religious belief, is now cited as a proof that the community itself is at fault.

This is perversion.

i agree, the first part as well as the later.


Mewat is not the whole of india.
thank you.

Actually, the pervert is upending the truth.

Look at his logic: without any factor taken into account, all the people have all the access that they might want. But some people are poor, and they have more children. Now comes the total perversion: It is not because they are poor that they have more children; no, it is because they have more children that they are poor.

This monstrous inversion of the truth does not take into account the years of suppression, the years of denial of opportunity, the years of relegation to the sidelines even in an otherwise prosperous milieu that have bred and fostered poverty among the Meos. Clearly this individual thinks that the presence of a beggar in a well-appointed drawing room points to the deplorable and incurable regressive nature of the beggar in not being as prosperous as the other occupants? Isn't the drawing room a wonderful, luxurious, richly appointed place? What excuse does the beggar have for being so visibly more helpless than the others? He must be worse off because he is in the drawing room visibly worse off!

What can one do when such members, far from hiding their heads in shame, actually strut about proclaiming their superiority in suppressing the human rights and development of other groups?

 

[Soumitra]

Look at his logic: without any factor taken into account, all the people have all the access that they might want. But some people are poor, and they have more children. Now comes the total perversion: It is not because they are poor that they have more children; no, it is because they have more children that they are poor.

I know this fiberal has ignored me but his logic is totally incorrect

You do not have more children because you are poor. You are poor because you have more children

More Children --> More Mouths to Feed --> More children to educate --> More expenses --> More poverty

Coming to 2nd generation

Less Chances of getting good education --> Less chances of getting a good job --> Second generation will also be poor

 

[pothead]

I know this fiberal has ignored me but his logic is totally incorrect

You do not have more children because you are poor. You are poor because you have more children

More Children --> More Mouths to Feed --> More children to educate --> More expenses --> More poverty

Coming to 2nd generation

Less Chances of getting good education --> Less chances of getting a good job --> Second generation will also be poor

Strangely this problem is not so prevalent in South muslims now a days.
I personally know numerous educated muslims who are having just 1 or 2.

It's mostly the uneducated ones that are having multiples, which exasperates their economic condition even more. I was looking reading a news about a Rohigya girl who was 14 and was married and was already with kids.
A 14 year old kid with a kid.

It's a social issue in my opinion and lack of education combined with influence of people with nefarious designs, it's a vicious cycle for these poor souls.

 

[Joe Shearer]

With most of Sub-Saharan Africa clocking well above 5.5 birth rate, your point is quite valid. Also Muslim community's reluctance to use birth control because of supposedly religious reasons is another reason of population boom in Muslim world. Also the mentality that your kids, the male ones, are your ticket to a secure old age is also contributing to Muslims having so many kids.

Yes throughout the history, until the middle of 20th century food or lack of it decided the population level in a region, but now food is not a scarce commodity any more.

Germany has world's lowest birthrate followed closely by Japan. Now both of these countries have access to Beef, Germany is in fact in top 10 countries when it comes to meat consumption, but children and in case of Japanese youth even sex is not high on their priority list.

Also Hindu extremists in India or White nationalists in west are right to some extent in believing that Muslims want to dominate the world through population boom, as some illiterate members of our community believe it to be a religious duty of each Muslim to have as many children as he/she can to increase the size of Ummah of the Prophet(PBUH). Once the literacy level increases, we will see a slow birth rate among Muslims.

The recent census results in Pakistan shows the same trend. The regions like Urban Punjab and Sindh, showed a much lower growth rate than tribal and rural areas of Baluchistan and KPK.

There was a joke in Punjabi drama where a guy asks other why he has so many kids, he answered because of the Load Shedding(rolling blackout). You wake up at 2pm at night, have nothing else to do so you get on with the only entertainment available to you.

Good post, Sir.

I am happy to note your comments about Punjab and Sind, compared to rural and tribal Balochistan and KPK. That pattern fits right in. You will have seen the improvement in other Muslim-majority parts of South Asia as well.

Higher standard of living and higher level of literacy will both have an effect. Religion has little or nothing to do with it, except among some backward people.

Strangely this problem is not so prevalent in South muslims now a days.
I personally know numerous educated muslims who are having just 1 or 2.

It's mostly the uneducated ones that are having multiples, which exasperates their economic condition even more. I was looking reading a news about a Rohigya girl who was 14 and was married and was already with kids.
A 14 year old kid with a kid.

It's a social issue in my opinion and lack of education combined with influence of people with nefarious designs, it's a vicious cycle for these poor souls.

You keep asking that your posts should be read, and your personality should not be attacked. For that, you have to interact with others, not try to thrust your views on them. It is not lack of education but poverty that builds conditions for premature marriages; people cannot afford to delay these, and take the first opportunity to bid their girls goodbye.

 

[pothead]

You keep asking that your posts should be read, and your personality should not be attacked. For that, you have to interact with others, not try to thrust your views on them. It is not lack of education but poverty that builds conditions for premature marriages; people cannot afford to delay these, and take the first opportunity to bid their girls goodbye.

Sir, I am not thrusting my views on anyone.
I am just putting across my view, that's it. I am not sure which part of my post was intended to come across that way.

I ended my post with a phrase called 'vicious cycle'. I am not disagreeing with your analysis. I am only adding the other factors in play which cause the vicious cycle to continue.

For example, the poor 14 year girl who was given away, decides to stick with one child, works hard to bring up this one child. I believe she can make a difference for that one child of hers. If she has 5 or similar numbers, there is no chance no matter what she does that she and her partner can give these many kids quality of life, no matter what they do. The 'vicious cycle' continues.
The 'choice' to have less kids is a right given to every couple.

regarding education, I have seen it make a difference. Most educated muslims don't have large amount of kids. Now, they are also well off. Point is, Poverty is the effect of the action, not the cause. The cause is the 'decision' to have large amount of kids when one knows very well you can't provide quality of life to them.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, I am not thrusting my views on anyone.
I am just putting across my view, that's it. I am not sure which part of my post was intended to come across that way.

I ended my post with a phrase called 'vicious cycle'. I am not disagreeing with your analysis. I am only adding the other factors in play which cause the vicious cycle to continue.

For example, the poor 14 year girl who was given away, decides to stick with one child, works hard to bring up this one child. I believe she can make a difference for that one child of hers. If she has 5 or similar numbers, there is no chance no matter what she does that she and her partner can give these many kids quality of life, no matter what they do. The 'vicious cycle' continues.
The 'choice' to have less kids is a right given to every couple.

regarding education, I have seen it make a difference. Most educated muslims don't have large amount of kids. Now, they are also well off. Point is, Poverty is the effect of the action, not the cause. The cause is the 'decision' to have large amount of kids when one knows very well you can't provide quality of life to them.

That is the perversity of the bigot. Both @Kedardel and you have the same response, not realising that with the breakdown of the government education system, it needs major income outlay to educate a child. Families below the poverty line DO NOT have the luxury of disposable income sufficient to meet that expense. The choice to have less kids IS NOT available to those who hope that a surviving kid will look after them; the view is different from the ranks of the Gurjar and Reddy communities, both of whom are so alike each other, as from the ranks of the Muslim, the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. Ask any sociologist, if you can tear yourself away from your favourite reverie.

 

[Suriya]

So what is your solution to the "Muslim" problem?

We are looking for a " final solution " .

 

[pothead]

That is the perversity of the bigot. Both @Kedardel and you have the same response, not realising that with the breakdown of the government education system, it needs major income outlay to educate a child. Families below the poverty line DO NOT have the luxury of disposable income sufficient to meet that expense. The choice to have less kids IS NOT available to those who hope that a surviving kid will look after them; the view is different from the ranks of the Gurjar and Reddy communities, both of whom are so alike each other, as from the ranks of the Muslim, the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. Ask any sociologist, if you can tear yourself away from your favourite reverie.

Exactly which part of my post is Bigoted?!!!!!!
Why would even use that word when all we are having is a debate on a sociological phenomenon? Look sir, if you don't want to debate me, don't engage me but don't get all jumpy and defensive and start using stupid words.

I understand the sociological phenomenon you are saying. I don't deny it. All I attributing to is that the cycle rarely gets broken. And yes, education helps. And yes, our education system is bat shit crazy messed up. But poverty is not unique to just muslims or SC/ST's. There are many from these communities that are millionaires, that form upper middle as well as middle class. And on opposite end there are many other castes that live in abject poverty, that includes Brahmins as well. You know very well why a poor upper caste Hindu would have 1-2 children. Ask any sociologist sir, he would tell you the exact reason.

Education helps -> Can't give education because of large number of kids -> The kids lack education to make educated decision -> They have numerous kids -> The cycle continues.

Now, factors in play are poverty, education, lack of guidance and apathy. Pick your poison.

 

[baajey]

Poorer sections of the society need more hands (for eg labourers, gutter cleaners etc etc) for today’s survival. They dont have the luxury of sacrificing hands and affording education at the same time.
If they sacrifice hands (by not giving birth to more kids), they could not manage today’s bare necessities.
If they sacrifice education (by giving birth to more kids), they cannot escape the vicious cycle that @pothead mentioned.
These problems which is purely economical in nature is being colored as a communal one.
Now if i m allowed to mention a single case to connect it with a countrywide problems (as many of them already did); i would like to bring my own family here.
My grandad (headmaster by profession) had 14 kids, 3 perished due to lack of proper healthcare. If my grandad would have stopped at the first 2, i wouldnt be writing this post now.
My father n only one uncle (males) and a few aunts had various levels of education. Rest of them were busy helping grandad in farms (during crop laying days etc etc). My dad was persistent enough to get to a degree (BSc in agriculture) and landed a decent job to raise my sister n myself.
The ones who didnt get education kept themselves limiting their progenies to 1 or 2 max, by seeing my father’s example. Their kids are educating themselves now while their dads are toiling in fields.
My point being, religion has very little with having numerous kids. Factors such as poverty, healthcare etc etc are responsible for this. And this transformation takes time. 3 generations in my case.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Exactly which part of my post is Bigoted?!!!!!!
Why would even use that word when all we are having is a debate on a sociological phenomenon? Look sir, if you don't want to debate me, don't engage me but don't get all jumpy and defensive and start using stupid words.

I understand the sociological phenomenon you are saying. I don't deny it. All I attributing to is that the cycle rarely gets broken. And yes, education helps. And yes, our education system is bat shit crazy messed up. But poverty is not unique to just muslims or SC/ST's. There are many from these communities that are millionaires, that form upper middle as well as middle class. And on opposite end there are many other castes that live in abject poverty, that includes Brahmins as well. You know very well why a poor upper caste Hindu would have 1-2 children. Ask any sociologist sir, he would tell you the exact reason.

Education helps -> Can't give education because of large number of kids -> The kids lack education to make educated decision -> They have numerous kids -> The cycle continues.

Now, factors in play are poverty, education, lack of guidance and apathy. Pick your poison.

Let me put it in point form, over two posts, the easier to sort out the threads and detect the finer traces of what makes us think as we do.

1. There are caste factors at play in every Indian situation; sometimes we are sensitised and are alert to their influence on our actions and thinking. Sometimes we are not. After several decades of indoctrination at home, in family society, in the caste surroundings, even in school and college environments, it is not possible to get away altogether from these influences without an effort of will.
2. There are other factors that colour our thinking; it is moot whether these are independent or dependent. It is possible that our religious and our political thinking are each of them entirely independent of all other factors making up our personality; it is possible that they, and our caste consciousness, interplay, that we are ultimately unable to detect why a particular thought, attitude or action happens, whether it is due to religion, to political belief, that is, ideology, or to caste consciousness, to a combination of any two, in some proportion that is not constant across individuals, or to an interplay of all three all together.
3. There are those who further distinguish a cultural factor; it is difficult to say if this is independent or a mix of the three basic factors.
4. There may be others. It is possible that committed Marxists have lost their religious and caste influences and are completely engaged with society on the basis of their political thinking. From what I have seen, even those who have detached themselves from caste consciousness and from religious belief, in that order of difficulty, seldom manage to get away from culture. They retain their affiliation to types of dress, even when alternatives are available, to forms of food, even when alternatives are available, to music and to the arts, again, even when other influences fail.
5. When I say bigoted, I mean any and all of these factors govern the individual rather than being supportive of his intellect and of his rational thought.

Before going on to address your last two notes, may I ask if this explains my use of the word 'bigot' and how it is used? Or do you continue to discover insult hidden under every leaf?

 

[My-Analogous]

As of 2015View attachment 433458
according to research, a nation need at 2.2% fertile rate to maintain the growth of the population, so Bangladeshi population is actually in decline mode.
more precisously
A loosely defined goal of Zero Population Growth is to match the replacement fertility rate, which is the average number of children per woman which would hold the population constant. This replacement fertility will depend on mortality rates and the sex ratio at birth, and varies from around 2.1 in developed countries to over 3.0 in some developing countries.

Your information i not correct. Pakistan fertility rate is 2.62(2017) where as Bangladesh is 2.32 (2017). India fertility rate is 2.42(2017) and winner is Srilanka with 2.07(2017)
http://www.geoba.se/population.php?pc=world&type=010&page=1

 

[Maarkhoor]

Shakir Lakhani
Engineer, former visiting lecturer at NED Engineering College, industrialist, associated with petroleum/chemical industries for many years. Loves writing, and (in the opinion of most of those who know him), mentally unbalanced. He tweets @shakirlakhani (twitter.com/shakirlakhani)

@Zarvan