Modi sends Envoy to Dr Zakir Naik for Safe Passage Back to India

[Mirzali Khan]

The creation of Pakistan was a devine event. Sared to us. ANYONE against it, is also against Islam. A slave of indian hindus and sikhs CAN NEVER question this.

But....but......muslim divide to 3

 

[Cliftonite]

India, 1800 million, Muslims 18%
Bangladesh is hard to guess because they are experiencing very good results in population control
230 million, Muslim 90%
Pakistan, projections by most estimates vastly underestimate the future population, I can provide greater reasoning if you wish about my estimates.
400+ million, Muslim 96%
Nepal, 40 million, Muslim 5%
Sri Lanka, 25 million, Muslim 10%

India's Muslim population will be larger than Pakistan's according to population estimates. Somewhere around 350-400m. And India is supposed to peak at 1600-1650m people. I'm using PEW data results.

In some states of India, Hindus are already decreasing due to low fertility rates and Muslims are increasing.

Kerala has 26% Muslim population if you take an average of all age groups. But if you take new born births, Muslim births were 42% of all births in 2015.

Assam also has 34% Muslim population if you take an average of all age groups. But if you look at 0-4 age groups, Muslims are 45% of the total population.

 

[fallstuff]

Modi is trolling Zakir Naik.
Hoping he can flip him.

 

[jamahir]

Take Pakistan out of the picture, and for a moment imagine a united South Asia, in the form of a nation state called India, and you have nothing to hold these dozens of ethnic groups with distinct histories, cultures and languages together. Just like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, they would disintegrate, and in that disintegration you would create a bloodbath. In 1947 the people did not have access to guns and bombs, beside the killings only happened because the independence process was rushed, not because it was a forgone conclusion.

if there is hatred then tehre will be bloodbath... point is not different ethnicities but the hatred.. which is based on religion, sect, creed and cast.
However, local body system would ensure integrity. Even english fight over a match between LFC and MANU... so sentiments can erupt in a fight..

But see local system of UK.. how much councils are powerful so people don't hate London.. like in Pak karachi, and else blame Islamabad even after 18th amendment.. we need more provinces..

Similarly, more local power means harmony. You know in dehli riots, mostly people were outsiders.
UP has 220 million pop. The strong centre means, it is alienated from grassroots and work for majority for votebank and not issues.. (UP example)

So like EU localised division of power, despite having an area like India, a single country could have been formed.

But main thing is hatred.. which is based on religion, language (Sir sayyad said that after 1867 banaras riots), forefathers, food, clothing means a ticking time bomb... @jamahir @xeuss

1. Peagle's example of Soviet Union... Well, it existed for 69 years, more than India and Pakistan, and it was super power in all senses, including being a space power. India and Pakistan have not been able to achieve what USSR did even 29 years after the dissolution of the USSR.

2. Both of you are talking about the possibility a different style for South Asia be governed. Please read this thread of mine in which I have proposed a solution to the Kashmir issue and as to how India and Pakistan ( and perhaps Bangladesh too ) can be governed through a manner which will remove the animosity between these countries.

 

[fallstuff]

Modi is trying to flip him.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

But....but......muslim divide to 3

There are 59 or 60 Muslim nations. Therefore we are split up into 59 or 60 parts. If we are claiming indian so called "Muslims", bangaldeshis and Pakistanis are one block because they are Muslims then what is stopping us forming forming a single nation with Somalian, Ethiopian, Iraqi, Albanian or Bosnian Muslims?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

1. Peagle's example of Soviet Union... Well, it existed for 69 years, more than India and Pakistan, and it was super power in all senses, including being a space power. India and Pakistan have not been able to achieve what USSR did even 29 years after the dissolution of the USSR.

2. Both of you are talking about the possibility or the unmanagibility of South Asia be governed in a decentralized manner. Please read this thread of mine in which I have proposed a solution to the Kashmir issue and as to how India and Pakistan ( and perhaps Bangladesh too ) can be governed through a manner which will remove the animosity between these countries.

Don't worry about Pakistan and how it should be governed. We the Pakistani people will decide that. Let the Pakistanis worry about Pakistan and you worry about india and the indian so called "Muslims".

 

[Cliftonite]

There are 59 or 60 Muslim nations. Therefore we are split up into 59 or 60 parts. If we are claiming indian so called "Muslims", bangaldeshis and Pakistanis are one block because they are Muslims then what is stopping us forming forming a single nation with Somalian, Ethiopian, Iraqi, Albanian or Bosnian Muslims?

We are not claiming them as one nation. Relax.

Pakistan is not a mono-ethnic nation and forming an identity on a hypothetical Pakistani race (which you like to do) will always end up in disappointment because there is no Pakistani race.

You cannot enforce a hypothetical mono-identity because Pashtun culture differs from Punjabi culture which differs from Sindhi culture.

You can however carve out a Pakistani identity from a mixture of all the different identities in Pakistan, like America has done.

 

[Goenitz]

I am sorry to say, but, your statement consist of nothing but,
assumptions, presumptions, ifs and buts, it contains no reasoned argument, you have only presented disjointed set of examples that have no meaning with one another, but you are trying to prove "hate", based on "religion, sect, creed and cast", but your statement does not make a coherent argument.

Firstly, I would like you to present a more coherent reasoned statement,
Secondly, I will present a basic answer to you premise, that somehow you can get rid of hate with a magic wand.

The distrust of other, and affiliation with one own is a natural human trait, it has always existed, still exists and always will exist. Before you go analysing hatred, please, it is important to recognise that fact. The creation of India and Pakistan was not based on hatred, where have you created this logic from, its is simplistic to the extreme. You place far too much emphasis on "hate" and fail to recognise the realities of life.

English local government system has done nothing except provide a basic local government system, it has played no part in controlling so called "hate", the two things have no links whatsoever. It has been around for centuries, throughout that period there have been many issues of every kind, they were not controlled by local governments, but effective recognition of problems, and taking remedial actions, it has been a long process, not an overnight magic wonder, as you state.

I am sorry to say, but, I think you are massively confused or ill-informed. The Nazis ideology was based on race not "religion, sect, creed and cast", the American civil war had nothing to do with those 4 examples, nor did the break up of the Soviet Union, there are endless examples where " religion, sect, creed and cast" did not play a part.

I think it is important to recognise facts for what they are by looking at history holistically, rather than picking and choosing before forming disjoined conclusions, it results in weak arguments and an incomplete picture of history.

"Coherence! thou art indeed my enemy"
My response was with your previous comment " There is no historical nation called India or by any other name , it was a fictitious reality created as a British colony. "
India always been and still is a "United States".. There are different religion (various hindu sects, some prefer kali, others vishnu, hanuman tetc), languages, cultures etc. So like European Union, an agglomerate of states.
So even before India was, a time to time, confederation since Muryans.. So its not a British invention but a manifestation of old ideas by them.

" Just like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, they would disintegrate, and in that disintegration you would create a bloodbath. "
So my argument was more independent local bodies could create a united India as people are happy to live in self-governing small entities. Large entities like Mahrashtra, UP tend to separate itself or at least feed an idea of separation like of separate Texas or California... As a matter of fact, why India was always ruled by foreigners is due to its feudal system (local , but tyrannical, so Feudal readily obeyed every new power at Dehli)... Plus votebank politics means provincial centre prefers appeasement of majority than issues (like Sindh Govt takes votes from interior Sindh and do not care of Karachi as it doesn't bother).

"I am sorry to say, but, I think you are massively confused or ill-informed. The Nazis ideology was based on race not "religion, "
Every Idea is a religion be it feminism. veganism, etc. Once, you believe that my Ideas are better or "holier than thou" concept, it means you has formed a 'religion. Like US treats democracy as a religion "we are giving you democracy".. @jamahir you too are religious communist

"Such a disintegration, in the modern age, with guns and bombs, I cannot even imagine how many would die, "
It would have been an eventuality as I argued locals didn't like each other, and Yes the hatred towards each other is the reason for partition. That hatred created mistrust that Hindus cannot represent Muslims. That hatred rose because Hindus considered Muslims, 'impure', enemy and sympathiser of their enemy. Quaid himself said "Our heroes are their foe".. Sir Sayed said on Banaras Urdu-Hindi controversy that "Muslims and Hindus cannot live together and whosoever live, will see that" . I mean who disown a language, unless you hate that civilisation??
Technically the same sentiments is still present that BJP cannot represent Muslims. But it is a badluck that Muslim think Congress can, which is false too despite being politer than BJP. Do you know there was a movement of "Shudhi"in 1900? ,, it is today equivalent of 'Ghar wapisi'.. So I see further division of India in a century. I fear the same for my country as our provinces are too large.
Otherwise you are right that local government cannot eradicate 'hatred' or competition but small bodies are too much economically dependent on each other that they cannot think of separation.

@jamahir
No Sir, I am not talking about reuniting, but how could a united India would run effectively. That was based on more quasi-federal structure with more number of provinces. Unlike Soviet and China. However, China is an exception as most people speak Chinese and of Han origin. With more prosperity and information sharing, an ethnic union will disintegrate. Anyway, at least everyone speaks Russian. Whereas in India it is not but a lingua franca.
And your solution to Kashmir is not practical. By opening a border and having trade is good and basically means let freeze Kashmir issue. A good way forward if it is de-militarised which is not possible. And I will try to read it completely.

 

[Surya 1]

that’s why modi begged him like a little bitch to give him credit and molvi told little impotent stone worshipper to go suck he’s pagan Grannies ashes out the ashtray

lol at Kashmir always dreaming of Kashmir these pagan rapists
Only on paper in India is Kashmir a part of shithole slumworld rest of the world knows street shitters don’t belong to paradise on earth

Modi tere PM ka bhi phone nahi uthaya vo ek tin Lodi ke mullah ke pass gidgidayega?

He has a only popular amongst Indian Muslims... Nobody in Pakistan knows him.

True, tell this to the cheer girls dancing with joy here.

 

[jamahir]

.. @jamahir you too are religious communist

Well, I consider modern Communism to be the natural successor of Islam. I quote my thread from 2016 :

During the same period (1920s-30s), another (though lesser known) Islamic scholar in undivided India got smitten by the 1917 Russian revolution and Marxism.

Hafiz Rahman Sihwarwl saw Islam and Marxism sharing five elements in common: (1) prohibition of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the privileged classes (2) organisation of the economic structure of the state to ensure social welfare (3) equality of opportunity for all human beings (4) priority of collective social interest over individual privilege and (5) prevention of the permanentising of class structure through social revolution.

The motivations for many of these themes he drew from the Qur’an, which he understood as seeking to create an economic order in which the rich pay excessive, though voluntary taxes (Zakat) to minimise differences in living standards.

In the areas that Sihwarwl saw Islam and communism diverge were Islam’s sanction of private ownership within certain limits, and in its refusal to recognise an absolutely classless basis of society.

He suggested that Islam, with its prohibition of the accumulation of wealth, is able to control the class structure through equality of opportunity.

The thread OP is really an article by Nadeem Paracha and chronicles socialist / communist activism among Muslims and in Muslim-majority lands since the early 1900s. It is a lengthy article but you should read it.

I have myself proposed an economic system in this thread. It is a combination of older welfare state system and my idea as to how a person will not be able to accumulate wealth and thus be "richer" than others.

@jamahir
No Sir, I am not talking about reuniting, but how could a united India would run effectively. That was based on more quasi-federal structure with more number of provinces. Unlike Soviet and China. However, China is an exception as most people speak Chinese and of Han origin. With more prosperity and information sharing, an ethnic union will disintegrate. Anyway, at least everyone speaks Russian. Whereas in India it is not but a lingua franca.
And your solution to Kashmir is not practical. By opening a border and having trade is good and basically means let freeze Kashmir issue. A good way forward if it is de-militarised which is not possible. And I will try to read it completely.

In that thread I too am not talking of a union of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh but how a common progressive political and economic system can be adopted by each of these countries while these countries remain politically independent of each other. This will be like Syria and former Iraq which had the common Baathist system yet were politically independent of each other. Quite a few people misunderstood this distinction I made.

About Kashmir you will see in that thread that not only have I also spoken about de-militarization but also how the common political structures in India and Pakistan will resolve the Kashmir issue. Some of those points were also proposed by Musharraf when he met Vajpayee in the Agra Summit in 2001. Article here.

As to what political and economic system should Ind, Pak and BD should adopt, I have mentioned the Direct Democracy Socialism system that governed pre-2011 Libya and which has been adapted to Venezuela. That theory was originally called the Third Universal Theory aka Jamahiriya theory. You can read the theory of that political system here and read this thread as to how some of that worked in practice.

 

[peagle]

India's Muslim population will be larger than Pakistan's according to population estimates. Somewhere around 350-400m. And India is supposed to peak at 1600-1650m people. I'm using PEW data results.

In some states of India, Hindus are already decreasing due to low fertility rates and Muslims are increasing.

Kerala has 26% Muslim population if you take an average of all age groups. But if you take new born births, Muslim births were 42% of all births in 2015.

Assam also has 34% Muslim population if you take an average of all age groups. But if you look at 0-4 age groups, Muslims are 45% of the total population.

I have read those studies, but like they say, they are not the gospel truths, they have to make sense. I have consistently observed Pew being wrong on so many matters that I understand. I have been following population developments in South Asia for nearly 30 years, so rather then just provide my statements, I will provide rational for why I believe myself to be correct and Pew to be talk out of their organisational backside.

Population projections in essence are just about maths, that's, historical trends, present growth rate, and expected future growth, the last part is guess work, because it relies on population control polices, there implementations, the acceptance at social level, accurate reporting of such efforts and the list goes on, but you can also assess the future trends partly by looking at historical performance of population control policies in a country.

We are here to discuss, national figures, not regional figures, especially from tiny states, sticking to national figures makes sense because it is the overall population and percentage share that we are concerned with, so, lets ignore the regional example.

For sake of ease, where possible I will be rounding off to the nearest whole number.
India's first census after independence was in 1951, in that census India had a Muslim population 10% from a total population of 360 million. In the 2011 census, India had a Muslim population of 14.2% from a total population of 1210 million.

14.2 - 9.8 = 4.4 / 6 (decades) = 0.73
On average Muslim population has increased by 0.73 percentage points as a share of the total population. This during a period of explosive population growth, India has already reach near fertility replacement levels, meaning its population will stop growing over the next couple of decades, after the natural growth momentum also comes to a halt.
But, the leveling of growth is not just among Hindus or non-Muslims, India Muslims have also lower fertility rate then in the past and their population is also growing at a much slower rate then before, higher the then other groups, but still slowing fast, meaning their growth rate will also reach zero natural growth within next couple of decades, perhaps a decade slower then other groups.

On the basis of previous growth trajectory, lets assume India's Muslim population will stand at 15% in the next census, which is this year. so the growth of Muslim population as a share of overall population would have grown by 5% percentage points, from 10% to 15% in 70 years.
We have already established the growth trends were different in the previous decades and have already changed and are expected to come to a halt within the next 3 decades.

India's Muslim population at most will increase at the same percentage points as in the previous decades, so,
0.73 x 3 = 2.19 + 15 = 17.2% by 2051, by which India's population is sure to come to a halt, including its Muslims population growth, lets round that to 18%

you have stated that India's population will peak at 1650, that naturally means all groups within a country reach a peak, otherwise it would continue to grow.

18 / 1650 x 100 = 297 Million, lets assume a higher peak of 1800 million
18 / 1800 x 100 = 324 million <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

But if we follow the actual historical trends, then,
17.2 / 1800 x 100 = 309.6 million <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Peak Muslim Population in India

2021
15% / 1360 x 100 = 204 million Muslims in India in 2021.

I think they created their figures after a drunk late night office party, No matter the reputation, what they say has to make sense, it does not make sense at all. at most Muslim population in India will peak around the figures I just provided above. we can see the success of population control polices in India, that cannot be ignored.

Now Pakistan.
2021
96% / 232 million x 100 = 223 million Muslims in Pakistan in 2021

2017
212 increasing by 2.4%
.024 x 212 = 5 million x 4 = 20 million = 232 million in 2021, I have not taken into account accumulated growth.

Pakistan's first census after independence was also in 1951, the Muslims population was 97% from a population of 34 million, and in the last census in 2017, it is estimated to have a Muslim population of about 96% our of 212 Million. Yes, Muslim population decreased as a share of total population, non-Muslims are doing well after all, they just have a even higher birth rate.

Now, with Pakistan things get a bit tricky, because there have only been 2 censuses since 1981, in 1998 and 2017. Pakistan is known to have useless population control policies and measures.

Between 1981 and 1998 population increased by 59% from 84 million to 134 million over 17 years.
Between 1998 and 2017 population increased by 58% from 134 million to 212 million over 19 years. At an average annual growth rate of 2.4%.

Pakistan has experience a very similar and consistent growth rate from 1981 to 2017, that's a nearly 40 year period.
Now, lets assume a somewhat similar growth rather between 2017 and lets say 2035, I do not foresee any population planning program on the horizon, even if they start now, it takes time to get such a policy in place, get it approved and implemented, and more time still, before you start seeing results, so, I do not see radical changes around the corner.

2017 to 2035 is 18 years, lets assume a slightly slower increase lets say at 54%,
1.54 x 212 = 326 million, 313 million Muslims by 2035 and still growing like crazy in 2035.

Let us look at it from a different perspective,
One of the yard sticks used in population projections is the rule of 70, so a population growing at 1% will double in 70 years, at 2% at 35 years, so whatever the growth rate, you divide that by 70 and you get an estimated doubling time of that population.

If we take Pakistan's population growth at 2.4% in 2017,
70 / 2.4 = 29 years to double, so Pakistan's population of 212 million would reach 424 million by 2046,
96 / 424 x 100 = 407 million Muslims by 2046, by this time India's total and Muslim population would have stopped growing, with the Muslim share around 320 million, whereas, Pakistan's population would still most likely be growing.

This is the most basic but accurate representation I could present, so Pew's projections just do not make sense. Pakistan is highly likely to become the largest Muslim country in the world, over taking Indonesia around 2030 or so, and that position is not likely to change. Pakistan will remain the largest Muslim country in the world.

Pakistan's projections very much depend on how effective we are at organising an effective population control polices, but that is not in discussion here, we are discussion the size of Muslims populations. Pakistan's Muslim population became larger then India's sometime during the 1990s, and that gap has only, and will only increase with time. Indonesia's population is also slowing, so it is highly likely Pakistan will become the largest Muslim country in the world, by far. certainly far larger then India's Muslim population.



@masterchief_mirza
thought you might be interested in reading, or providing any feedback

 

[peagle]

1. Peagle's example of Soviet Union... Well, it existed for 69 years, more than India and Pakistan, and it was super power in all senses, including being a space power. India and Pakistan have not been able to achieve what USSR did even 29 years after the dissolution of the USSR.

2. Both of you are talking about the possibility a different style for South Asia be governed. Please read this thread of mine in which I have proposed a solution to the Kashmir issue and as to how India and Pakistan ( and perhaps Bangladesh too ) can be governed through a manner which will remove the animosity between these countries.

Remember, even before the Soviet union, the Russian empire exited for far longer, so those nations were under the same rule for nearly 200 years.

I have read that thread, and we communicated as well, I appreciated your thoughtfulness on the matter, and I think I respectfully disagreed with many of your conclusions. In my opinion, the situation we have right now is ideal.

The only thing holding the region back is India's instance on being the big boss, Pakistan wont stand for that. If India chooses to play a role of a big brother, I think that would be more acceptable, but that's a choice for India to make. I am very secular, but there is no power on earth that can command me except Allah, it really is that simple. Being a big brother is different from being a big boss. Once India learns that, there will be peace in South Asia. I am not holding my breath lol

 

[peagle]

"Coherence! thou art indeed my enemy"
My response was with your previous comment " There is no historical nation called India or by any other name , it was a fictitious reality created as a British colony. "
India always been and still is a "United States".. There are different religion (various hindu sects, some prefer kali, others vishnu, hanuman tetc), languages, cultures etc. So like European Union, an agglomerate of states.
So even before India was, a time to time, confederation since Muryans.. So its not a British invention but a manifestation of old ideas by them.

lol I love your statement, made me laugh, good to have a sense of humour, now back to the discussion lol
You are seriously mistaken, or massively misinformed to have reached this conclusion, you are comparing apples and oranges, United States is a nation state, European Union is a process of we don't even know what yet, the first casualty of that process was Brexit, because single European identity is based on certain ideals, not a nationhood.

India has never existed as a Union in its history, never, it has nothing that signifying any sense of uniformity, except the form that exists in Europe, cultural similarity and certain uniform ideals, beyond that nothing. I am at a lose how you came to your conclusions. It had brief periods of empires that covered much of South Asian landmass, never all, and that is about it, you have created wild conclusions from history. This is so wrong, and so far from the truth, honeslt my mind boggles at your conclusions, bro wake up.

And, still you are not providing coherent answers, rather jumping from once set of examples to the next, pick a point and please argue to it a conclusion, not jump around because that takes the discussion here, there and everywhere.

" Just like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, they would disintegrate, and in that disintegration you would create a bloodbath. "
So my argument was more independent local bodies could create a united India as people are happy to live in self-governing small entities. Large entities like Mahrashtra, UP tend to separate itself or at least feed an idea of separation like of separate Texas or California... As a matter of fact, why India was always ruled by foreigners is due to its feudal system (local , but tyrannical, so Feudal readily obeyed every new power at Dehli)... Plus votebank politics means provincial centre prefers appeasement of majority than issues (like Sindh Govt takes votes from interior Sindh and do not care of Karachi as it doesn't bother).

This makes no sense, you went from historical South Asian, to modern day India, then onto modern day Pakistan, all in one paragraph, you are pulling ideas from thin air that have no relevance to each other. I honestly can tell you are intelligent, but, without any malice, please, make some sense, so I can reply, there is no link between anything you have said, it simply does not make sense. I am sorry because I have no wish to convey any rudeness. It just doesn't make sense.

"I am sorry to say, but, I think you are massively confused or ill-informed. The Nazis ideology was based on race not "religion, "
Every Idea is a religion be it feminism. veganism, etc. Once, you believe that my Ideas are better or "holier than thou" concept, it means you has formed a 'religion. Like US treats democracy as a religion "we are giving you democracy".. @jamahir you too are religious communist

Bro, I am seeing a pattern here, you seem to be under the impression, just saying something means it makes sense, you cannot create your own logic and your own conclusions. If this carries on, I might have to stop replying.

"Such a disintegration, in the modern age, with guns and bombs, I cannot even imagine how many would die, "
It would have been an eventuality as I argued locals didn't like each other, and Yes the hatred towards each other is the reason for partition. That hatred created mistrust that Hindus cannot represent Muslims. That hatred rose because Hindus considered Muslims, 'impure', enemy and sympathiser of their enemy. Quaid himself said "Our heroes are their foe".. Sir Sayed said on Banaras Urdu-Hindi controversy that "Muslims and Hindus cannot live together and whosoever live, will see that" . I mean who disown a language, unless you hate that civilisation??
Technically the same sentiments is still present that BJP cannot represent Muslims. But it is a badluck that Muslim think Congress can, which is false too despite being politer than BJP. Do you know there was a movement of "Shudhi"in 1900? ,, it is today equivalent of 'Ghar wapisi'.. So I see further division of India in a century. I fear the same for my country as our provinces are too large.
Otherwise you are right that local government cannot eradicate 'hatred' or competition but small bodies are too much economically dependent on each other that they cannot think of separation.

Here, I can see where you are coming from, but again you have covered too many different topics in a short space, it is not possible to have such a wide discussion and cover so many different topics and issue. I'm afraid coherence is indeed your enemy.
My intention is to discuss to reach a conclusion, you apparently want to jump around for sake of talking. Again, I do apologise, but just to give you an example, you think India will disintegrate, but you also think South Asia wold be better under some sort of local government, then you go into Hindi/Urdu controversy and Ghar Wapsi, and back to hate and so on, ok really you are condensing too many different topics for me to answer, without this turning into a never end discussion.

The only way this is going to worked is if you pick one topic, this is where we started from, but gone everywhere lese, you can pick again, then we can discuss that, and nothing else, and all examples and statements have to be related to that, no jumping from one example to next. when you provide an example , justify why it is relevant, an example itself is not an answer. justify it.

 

[Cliftonite]

I have read those studies, but like they say, they are not the gospel truths, they have to make sense. I have consistently observed Pew being wrong on so many matters that I understand. I have been following population developments in South Asia for nearly 30 years, so rather then just provide my statements, I will provide rational for why I believe myself to be correct and Pew to be talk out of their organisational backside.

Population projections in essence are just about maths, that's, historical trends, present growth rate, and expected future growth, the last part is guess work, because it relies on population control polices, there implementations, the acceptance at social level, accurate reporting of such efforts and the list goes on, but you can also assess the future trends partly by looking at historical performance of population control policies in a country.

We are here to discuss, national figures, not regional figures, especially from tiny states, sticking to national figures makes sense because it is the overall population and percentage share that we are concerned with, so, lets ignore the regional example.

For sake of ease, where possible I will be rounding off to the nearest whole number.
India's first census after independence was in 1951, in that census India had a Muslim population 10% from a total population of 360 million. In the 2011 census, India had a Muslim population of 14.2% from a total population of 1210 million.

14.2 - 9.8 = 4.4 / 6 (decades) = 0.73
On average Muslim population has increased by 0.73 percentage points as a share of the total population. This during a period of explosive population growth, India has already reach near fertility replacement levels, meaning its population will stop growing over the next couple of decades, after the natural growth momentum also comes to a halt.
But, the leveling of growth is not just among Hindus or non-Muslims, India Muslims have also lower fertility rate then in the past and their population is also growing at a much slower rate then before, higher the then other groups, but still slowing fast, meaning their growth rate will also reach zero natural growth within next couple of decades, perhaps a decade slower then other groups.

On the basis of previous growth trajectory, lets assume India's Muslim population will stand at 15% in the next census, which is this year. so the growth of Muslim population as a share of overall population would have grown by 5% percentage points, from 10% to 15% in 70 years.
We have already established the growth trends were different in the previous decades and have already changed and are expected to come to a halt within the next 3 decades.

India's Muslim population at most will increase at the same percentage points as in the previous decades, so,
0.73 x 3 = 2.19 + 15 = 17.2% by 2051, by which India's population is sure to come to a halt, including its Muslims population growth, lets round that to 18%

you have stated that India's population will peak at 1650, that naturally means all groups within a country reach a peak, otherwise it would continue to grow.

18 / 1650 x 100 = 297 Million, lets assume a higher peak of 1800 million
18 / 1800 x 100 = 324 million <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

But if we follow the actual historical trends, then,
17.2 / 1800 x 100 = 309.6 million <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Peak Muslim Population in India

2021
15% / 1360 x 100 = 204 million Muslims in India in 2021.

I think they created their figures after a drunk late night office party, No matter the reputation, what they say has to make sense, it does not make sense at all. at most Muslim population in India will peak around the figures I just provided above. we can see the success of population control polices in India, that cannot be ignored.

Now Pakistan.
2021
96% / 232 million x 100 = 223 million Muslims in Pakistan in 2021

2017
212 increasing by 2.4%
.024 x 212 = 5 million x 4 = 20 million = 232 million in 2021, I have not taken into account accumulated growth.

Pakistan's first census after independence was also in 1951, the Muslims population was 97% from a population of 34 million, and in the last census in 2017, it is estimated to have a Muslim population of about 96% our of 212 Million. Yes, Muslim population decreased as a share of total population, non-Muslims are doing well after all, they just have a even higher birth rate.

Now, with Pakistan things get a bit tricky, because there have only been 2 censuses since 1981, in 1998 and 2017. Pakistan is known to have useless population control policies and measures.

Between 1981 and 1998 population increased by 59% from 84 million to 134 million over 17 years.
Between 1998 and 2017 population increased by 58% from 134 million to 212 million over 19 years. At an average annual growth rate of 2.4%.

Pakistan has experience a very similar and consistent growth rate from 1981 to 2017, that's a nearly 40 year period.
Now, lets assume a somewhat similar growth rather between 2017 and lets say 2035, I do not foresee any population planning program on the horizon, even if they start now, it takes time to get such a policy in place, get it approved and implemented, and more time still, before you start seeing results, so, I do not see radical changes around the corner.

2017 to 2035 is 18 years, lets assume a slightly slower increase lets say at 54%,
1.54 x 212 = 326 million, 313 million Muslims by 2035 and still growing like crazy in 2035.

Let us look at it from a different perspective,
One of the yard sticks used in population projections is the rule of 70, so a population growing at 1% will double in 70 years, at 2% at 35 years, so whatever the growth rate, you divide that by 70 and you get an estimated doubling time of that population.

If we take Pakistan's population growth at 2.4% in 2017,
70 / 2.4 = 29 years to double, so Pakistan's population of 212 million would reach 424 million by 2046,
96 / 424 x 100 = 407 million Muslims by 2046, by this time India's total and Muslim population would have stopped growing, with the Muslim share around 320 million, whereas, Pakistan's population would still most likely be growing.

This is the most basic but accurate representation I could present, so Pew's projections just do not make sense. Pakistan is highly likely to become the largest Muslim country in the world, over taking Indonesia around 2030 or so, and that position is not likely to change. Pakistan will remain the largest Muslim country in the world.

Pakistan's projections very much depend on how effective we are at organising an effective population control polices, but that is not in discussion here, we are discussion the size of Muslims populations. Pakistan's Muslim population became larger then India's sometime during the 1990s, and that gap has only, and will only increase with time. Indonesia's population is also slowing, so it is highly likely Pakistan will become the largest Muslim country in the world, by far. certainly far larger then India's Muslim population.



@masterchief_mirza
thought you might be interested in reading, or providing any feedback

Interesting analysis. Hard to argue against it.

I have read those studies, but like they say, they are not the gospel truths, they have to make sense. I have consistently observed Pew being wrong on so many matters that I understand. I have been following population developments in South Asia for nearly 30 years, so rather then just provide my statements, I will provide rational for why I believe myself to be correct and Pew to be talk out of their organisational backside.

Population projections in essence are just about maths, that's, historical trends, present growth rate, and expected future growth, the last part is guess work, because it relies on population control polices, there implementations, the acceptance at social level, accurate reporting of such efforts and the list goes on, but you can also assess the future trends partly by looking at historical performance of population control policies in a country.

We are here to discuss, national figures, not regional figures, especially from tiny states, sticking to national figures makes sense because it is the overall population and percentage share that we are concerned with, so, lets ignore the regional example.

For sake of ease, where possible I will be rounding off to the nearest whole number.
India's first census after independence was in 1951, in that census India had a Muslim population 10% from a total population of 360 million. In the 2011 census, India had a Muslim population of 14.2% from a total population of 1210 million.

14.2 - 9.8 = 4.4 / 6 (decades) = 0.73
On average Muslim population has increased by 0.73 percentage points as a share of the total population. This during a period of explosive population growth, India has already reach near fertility replacement levels, meaning its population will stop growing over the next couple of decades, after the natural growth momentum also comes to a halt.
But, the leveling of growth is not just among Hindus or non-Muslims, India Muslims have also lower fertility rate then in the past and their population is also growing at a much slower rate then before, higher the then other groups, but still slowing fast, meaning their growth rate will also reach zero natural growth within next couple of decades, perhaps a decade slower then other groups.

On the basis of previous growth trajectory, lets assume India's Muslim population will stand at 15% in the next census, which is this year. so the growth of Muslim population as a share of overall population would have grown by 5% percentage points, from 10% to 15% in 70 years.
We have already established the growth trends were different in the previous decades and have already changed and are expected to come to a halt within the next 3 decades.

India's Muslim population at most will increase at the same percentage points as in the previous decades, so,
0.73 x 3 = 2.19 + 15 = 17.2% by 2051, by which India's population is sure to come to a halt, including its Muslims population growth, lets round that to 18%

you have stated that India's population will peak at 1650, that naturally means all groups within a country reach a peak, otherwise it would continue to grow.

18 / 1650 x 100 = 297 Million, lets assume a higher peak of 1800 million
18 / 1800 x 100 = 324 million <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

But if we follow the actual historical trends, then,
17.2 / 1800 x 100 = 309.6 million <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Peak Muslim Population in India

2021
15% / 1360 x 100 = 204 million Muslims in India in 2021.

I think they created their figures after a drunk late night office party, No matter the reputation, what they say has to make sense, it does not make sense at all. at most Muslim population in India will peak around the figures I just provided above. we can see the success of population control polices in India, that cannot be ignored.

Now Pakistan.
2021
96% / 232 million x 100 = 223 million Muslims in Pakistan in 2021

2017
212 increasing by 2.4%
.024 x 212 = 5 million x 4 = 20 million = 232 million in 2021, I have not taken into account accumulated growth.

Pakistan's first census after independence was also in 1951, the Muslims population was 97% from a population of 34 million, and in the last census in 2017, it is estimated to have a Muslim population of about 96% our of 212 Million. Yes, Muslim population decreased as a share of total population, non-Muslims are doing well after all, they just have a even higher birth rate.

Now, with Pakistan things get a bit tricky, because there have only been 2 censuses since 1981, in 1998 and 2017. Pakistan is known to have useless population control policies and measures.

Between 1981 and 1998 population increased by 59% from 84 million to 134 million over 17 years.
Between 1998 and 2017 population increased by 58% from 134 million to 212 million over 19 years. At an average annual growth rate of 2.4%.

Pakistan has experience a very similar and consistent growth rate from 1981 to 2017, that's a nearly 40 year period.
Now, lets assume a somewhat similar growth rather between 2017 and lets say 2035, I do not foresee any population planning program on the horizon, even if they start now, it takes time to get such a policy in place, get it approved and implemented, and more time still, before you start seeing results, so, I do not see radical changes around the corner.

2017 to 2035 is 18 years, lets assume a slightly slower increase lets say at 54%,
1.54 x 212 = 326 million, 313 million Muslims by 2035 and still growing like crazy in 2035.

Let us look at it from a different perspective,
One of the yard sticks used in population projections is the rule of 70, so a population growing at 1% will double in 70 years, at 2% at 35 years, so whatever the growth rate, you divide that by 70 and you get an estimated doubling time of that population.

If we take Pakistan's population growth at 2.4% in 2017,
70 / 2.4 = 29 years to double, so Pakistan's population of 212 million would reach 424 million by 2046,
96 / 424 x 100 = 407 million Muslims by 2046, by this time India's total and Muslim population would have stopped growing, with the Muslim share around 320 million, whereas, Pakistan's population would still most likely be growing.

This is the most basic but accurate representation I could present, so Pew's projections just do not make sense. Pakistan is highly likely to become the largest Muslim country in the world, over taking Indonesia around 2030 or so, and that position is not likely to change. Pakistan will remain the largest Muslim country in the world.

Pakistan's projections very much depend on how effective we are at organising an effective population control polices, but that is not in discussion here, we are discussion the size of Muslims populations. Pakistan's Muslim population became larger then India's sometime during the 1990s, and that gap has only, and will only increase with time. Indonesia's population is also slowing, so it is highly likely Pakistan will become the largest Muslim country in the world, by far. certainly far larger then India's Muslim population.



@masterchief_mirza
thought you might be interested in reading, or providing any feedback

Interesting analysis. Hard to argue against it.