3 ms·

One of the qualities of India that I've appreciated growing up in modern India is how welcoming it is to all religions despite being super racist / castetist. A

One of the qualities of India that I've appreciated growing up in modern India is how welcoming it is to all religions despite being super racist / castetist. As a Sikh who has cut his hair, I'm not sure what religion I belong to from an official standpoint (in the sense that what box I should tick on a Govt. form). However, I can see how this could make a lot of people happy with BJP given their biases (and fear) against the Muslim population that is popularly perceived as the most rapidly growing religion in all neighborhoods across India.

lotsofpulp 9y ago
It's not just perception, the data states that Islam is experiencing the most growth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth Not surprising, they have tons of children which you can easily see if you've been to various countries.
- thewarrior 9y ago
  Disappointed to see this on HN . They are among the poorest and most marginalized communities in the country . Their population growth when correcting for their economic status is not that much higher than the rest.
  - dep_b 9y ago
    Correcting for their economic status still doesn't make the statement you reply to untrue.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    What could be disappointing about data? Poor or rich, population changes can cause changes in lifestyle and the social order in general, hence the relevance of knowing that it is real and not just perceived or bias.
    - bildung 9y ago
      I think the point is that this muslim population growth isn't real, in the sense that the implied causation is wrong. Those people don't get more children because they are muslim but because they are poor, as poor people generally get more children all over the world (e.g. African Americans in the U.S. are both over-represented among the poor and grow as a share of the overall population in the U.S.)
      - lotsofpulp 9y ago
        There are tenets of Islam that encourage increasing their population and/or having multiple wives (see Saudi Arabia and some of the countries around it). So I would not postulate that they have more children only because they are poor. Also the data shows a higher childbirth rate for wealthy Muslims also. There is a similar belief for evangelical Christians and hasidic Jews, and those populations also have more children than average.
- dilawar 9y ago
  Which is equal to growth rate of Hindu Dalits. Not surprisingly since economic standing of both community is the same.
  - newyankee 9y ago
    Not really. Especially amongst economically well off Muslims as well their fertility rate is higher than Hindus.
chauhankiran 9y ago
I don't think it is worried plan. Textbook treats history of india as only Mughals and British. That is not only history of India, they are just adding old history as well.
- r_singh 9y ago
  I agree with you actually. Having studied ICSE growing up, those 2 topics are the most prominent parts of Indian history in my memory, after which come Maratha and Rajput history.
  - newyankee 9y ago
    I remember studying in Pune i had some ICSE friends who did not care or knew much about Shivaji and his contributions. Imagine this happening in Tamil Nadu.
    - kamaal 9y ago
      >>Imagine this happening in Tamil Nadu. So Tamil Nadu, has its own rich history, literary heritage, food habits, clothes, festivals etc etc. Going back to thousands of years. Same with Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka or Kerala. Why do you expect they study Maharashtra's history?
      - newyankee 9y ago
        Even in my MH board i have studied about most South Indian empires from Cholas, Krishnadevaraya, Harihara and Bukka and so on. They were never excluded and made a point to include prominent contributions from all part of the country as we define it now.
        kamaal 9y ago
        >> They were never excluded and made a point to include prominent contributions from all part of the country as we define it now. So sufficient enough history is being taught. That should settle the discussion.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

It's not just perception, the data states that Islam is experiencing the most growth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth Not surprising, they have tons of children which you can easily see if you've been to various countries.

thewarrior 9y ago
Disappointed to see this on HN . They are among the poorest and most marginalized communities in the country . Their population growth when correcting for their economic status is not that much higher than the rest.
- dep_b 9y ago
  Correcting for their economic status still doesn't make the statement you reply to untrue.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  What could be disappointing about data? Poor or rich, population changes can cause changes in lifestyle and the social order in general, hence the relevance of knowing that it is real and not just perceived or bias.
  - bildung 9y ago
    I think the point is that this muslim population growth isn't real, in the sense that the implied causation is wrong. Those people don't get more children because they are muslim but because they are poor, as poor people generally get more children all over the world (e.g. African Americans in the U.S. are both over-represented among the poor and grow as a share of the overall population in the U.S.)
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      There are tenets of Islam that encourage increasing their population and/or having multiple wives (see Saudi Arabia and some of the countries around it). So I would not postulate that they have more children only because they are poor. Also the data shows a higher childbirth rate for wealthy Muslims also. There is a similar belief for evangelical Christians and hasidic Jews, and those populations also have more children than average.
dilawar 9y ago
Which is equal to growth rate of Hindu Dalits. Not surprisingly since economic standing of both community is the same.
- newyankee 9y ago
  Not really. Especially amongst economically well off Muslims as well their fertility rate is higher than Hindus.

chauhankiran 9y ago

I don't think it is worried plan. Textbook treats history of india as only Mughals and British. That is not only history of India, they are just adding old history as well.

r_singh 9y ago
I agree with you actually. Having studied ICSE growing up, those 2 topics are the most prominent parts of Indian history in my memory, after which come Maratha and Rajput history.
- newyankee 9y ago
  I remember studying in Pune i had some ICSE friends who did not care or knew much about Shivaji and his contributions. Imagine this happening in Tamil Nadu.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    >>Imagine this happening in Tamil Nadu. So Tamil Nadu, has its own rich history, literary heritage, food habits, clothes, festivals etc etc. Going back to thousands of years. Same with Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka or Kerala. Why do you expect they study Maharashtra's history?
    - newyankee 9y ago
      Even in my MH board i have studied about most South Indian empires from Cholas, Krishnadevaraya, Harihara and Bukka and so on. They were never excluded and made a point to include prominent contributions from all part of the country as we define it now.
      - kamaal 9y ago
        >> They were never excluded and made a point to include prominent contributions from all part of the country as we define it now. So sufficient enough history is being taught. That should settle the discussion.