>large Muslim majority areas were there at the heart of India
Such as?
>a country based on religion is a stupid idea for the 20th century (BTW that goes for Israel too.)
It was in the 20th century that Germany was a modern, liberal, constitutional democracy. Then Hitler got elected, and his government murdered millions of people belonging to a religious minority. So it's not surprising that religious minorities in other places feared for their well-being.
The Gujarat riots show that Muslim fears of state-sponsored anti-Muslim violence were not unreasonable.
>Riots happened on both sides but they were a lot worse on the Pakistani side.
Eyewitnesses have told me they were worse on the Indian side. Show me the data.
>What I do hate are the Muslim League and its philosophy which caused the partition and am virulently opposed to any philosophy which says people of different religions cannot stay together.
The Muslims of India justifiably feared that they would be disadvantaged as a religious minority. As for the philosophy of the Muslim League, here are the words of its leader, Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan: You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.
Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.
Even though the GDP per capita of Pakistan is higher than India it is skewed horribly.
Wealth and income are more unequally distributed in India (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality). According to Forbes, India has 36 billionaires, while Pakistan has none. India has a higher percentage of underweight children than Pakistan. Even though Pakistani women have more children, more Pakistani families nevertheless have the incomes to adequately feed their children than in India. According to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7398750.stm According to Unicef's latest State of the World's Children's report, India has the worst indicators of child malnutrition in South Asia: 48% of under fives in India are stunted, compared to 43% in Bangladesh and 37% in Pakistan.
>There is a class of feudal lords the Bhuttos, the Sharifs etc
Sharif isn't a feudal lord. His father, who came from a middle-class family, grew a cast-iron parts foundry into an industrial empire.
You've made a number of provocative statements, but I will limit myself to responding to your attemped refutation of my central point.
>The Muslim population of India is growing much faster than that of Pakistan.
Where's the evidence to support your claim? Consider:
1. Firstly, calculate the growth rate of the Muslim population of India, using the last two Indian censuses, excluding J&K state, which was not enumerated in the 1991 census. The decadal growth was 29.3%, which works out to an annual rate of (1.293^0.1 - 1) = 2.6%.
2. The growth rate of the Pakistani population based on the last two censuses was 2.69%.
Which population is currently growing faster? We don't know, but it is unlikely that one is growing "much faster" than the other. An article in the leading Indian newspaper, The Hindu, notes that "the growth rate is decelerating, much faster for Muslims (by 3.6 percentage points since 1981-91) than for Hindus (2.8 percentage points)." http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2120/stories/20041008004702000.htm
>Look your Analysis fails. Here's why. You took the percentages from an old census while the numbers are current.
You raise a valid point, but it doesn't invalidate my analysis.
1. The percentages are from the most recent general census, the 2001 Census of India.
2. The 2001 Census of India puts the 2001 Indian Muslim population at 138,188,240.
3. The growth rate of the Muslim population has very probably fallen (see The Hindu article referenced above), but lets assume for arguments sake that it is still 2.6%. Lets take that as the upper limit.
4. Then the upper limit for the current Muslim population of India is 138,188,240 * (1.026^(2008-2001)) = ~165 million. Which is still less than the Muslim population of Pakistan.
It should also be noted that India's census includes the population of the disputed territory of Kashmir, while Pakistan's census does not include it. Subtracting that population would reduce the Indian Muslim count by ~6.8 million.
What you're saying is sheer speculation, and it happens to be wrong.
>all newborn are registered automatically as muslim.
No they're not. The birth registry in Pakistan doesn't record the newborn's religion.
>turkey for example. supposedly it has 95% muslim population, yet only 50% of them ever cares about any mosque, and only 30% actually practice. the only things about islam many will see in their lifetimes are funerals when someone die.
I don't know if what you say about Turkey is true, but it's irrelevant: Pakistan isn't Turkey. Please Google "Outgroup Homogeneity Bias". Here: http://www.google.com/search?q=outgroup+homogeneity+bias.
Surveys in Pakistan have consistently shown that Pakistanis consider religion to be very important.
The figures I presented in my original post are from Pakistan's Census, not its newborn registry. Additional confirmation comes from Pakistan's National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), which manages its National ID Card, which every adult citizen is required to have. The application for the ID card asks the applicant to declare his/her religion.
If you still think that Pakistan has, say, less than 95% Muslims, you are welcome to present your evidence.
4. So the Muslim population of India is 13.4% of 1,147,995,904 = ~153.8 million.
5. And the Muslim population of Pakistan is 96.28% of 172,800,048 = ~166.4 million
6. So Pakistan has ~12.5 million more (roughly 8% more) Muslims than India.
It's also often said that India has the second-largest poulation of Muslims (after Indonesia), when actually Pakistan has the second-largest population.
Slashdot Mirror
>large Muslim majority areas were there at the heart of India
Such as?
>a country based on religion is a stupid idea for the 20th century (BTW that goes for Israel too.)
It was in the 20th century that Germany was a modern, liberal, constitutional democracy. Then Hitler got elected, and his government murdered millions of people belonging to a religious minority. So it's not surprising that religious minorities in other places feared for their well-being.
The Gujarat riots show that Muslim fears of state-sponsored anti-Muslim violence were not unreasonable.
>Riots happened on both sides but they were a lot worse on the Pakistani side.
Eyewitnesses have told me they were worse on the Indian side. Show me the data.
>What I do hate are the Muslim League and its philosophy which caused the partition and am virulently opposed to any philosophy which says people of different religions cannot stay together.
The Muslims of India justifiably feared that they would be disadvantaged as a religious minority. As for the philosophy of the Muslim League, here are the words of its leader, Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan:
You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.
Even though the GDP per capita of Pakistan is higher than India it is skewed horribly.
Wealth and income are more unequally distributed in India (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality). According to Forbes, India has 36 billionaires, while Pakistan has none. India has a higher percentage of underweight children than Pakistan. Even though Pakistani women have more children, more Pakistani families nevertheless have the incomes to adequately feed their children than in India. According to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7398750.stm
According to Unicef's latest State of the World's Children's report, India has the worst indicators of child malnutrition in South Asia: 48% of under fives in India are stunted, compared to 43% in Bangladesh and 37% in Pakistan.
>There is a class of feudal lords the Bhuttos, the Sharifs etc
Sharif isn't a feudal lord. His father, who came from a middle-class family, grew a cast-iron parts foundry into an industrial empire.
You've made a number of provocative statements, but I will limit myself to responding to your attemped refutation of my central point.
>The Muslim population of India is growing much faster than that of Pakistan.
Where's the evidence to support your claim? Consider:
1. Firstly, calculate the growth rate of the Muslim population of India, using the last two Indian censuses, excluding J&K state, which was not enumerated in the 1991 census. The decadal growth was 29.3%, which works out to an annual rate of (1.293^0.1 - 1) = 2.6%.
2. The growth rate of the Pakistani population based on the last two censuses was 2.69%.
Which population is currently growing faster? We don't know, but it is unlikely that one is growing "much faster" than the other. An article in the leading Indian newspaper, The Hindu, notes that "the growth rate is decelerating, much faster for Muslims (by 3.6 percentage points since 1981-91) than for Hindus (2.8 percentage points)." http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2120/stories/20041008004702000.htm
>Look your Analysis fails. Here's why. You took the percentages from an old census while the numbers are current.
You raise a valid point, but it doesn't invalidate my analysis.
1. The percentages are from the most recent general census, the 2001 Census of India.
2. The 2001 Census of India puts the 2001 Indian Muslim population at 138,188,240.
3. The growth rate of the Muslim population has very probably fallen (see The Hindu article referenced above), but lets assume for arguments sake that it is still 2.6%. Lets take that as the upper limit.
4. Then the upper limit for the current Muslim population of India is 138,188,240 * (1.026^(2008-2001)) = ~165 million. Which is still less than the Muslim population of Pakistan.
It should also be noted that India's census includes the population of the disputed territory of Kashmir, while Pakistan's census does not include it. Subtracting that population would reduce the Indian Muslim count by ~6.8 million.
What you're saying is sheer speculation, and it happens to be wrong.
>all newborn are registered automatically as muslim.
No they're not. The birth registry in Pakistan doesn't record the newborn's religion.
>turkey for example. supposedly it has 95% muslim population, yet only 50% of them ever cares about any mosque, and only 30% actually practice. the only things about islam many will see in their lifetimes are funerals when someone die.
I don't know if what you say about Turkey is true, but it's irrelevant: Pakistan isn't Turkey. Please Google "Outgroup Homogeneity Bias". Here: http://www.google.com/search?q=outgroup+homogeneity+bias. Surveys in Pakistan have consistently shown that Pakistanis consider religion to be very important.
The figures I presented in my original post are from Pakistan's Census, not its newborn registry. Additional confirmation comes from Pakistan's National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), which manages its National ID Card, which every adult citizen is required to have. The application for the ID card asks the applicant to declare his/her religion.
If you still think that Pakistan has, say, less than 95% Muslims, you are welcome to present your evidence.
>Now in fact, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan
Actually, no. This is a surprisingly common claim, given that it's easily verified that it's false.
1. According the Census of India, 13.4% of the Indian population is Muslim. See http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/religion.aspx
2. According to the Census of Pakistan, 96.28% of the Pakistani population is Muslim. See http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_religion.pdf
3. CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html) says the current population of India is 1,147,995,904 and the current population of Pakistan is 172,800,048. (July 2008 numbers for both)
4. So the Muslim population of India is 13.4% of 1,147,995,904 = ~153.8 million.
5. And the Muslim population of Pakistan is 96.28% of 172,800,048 = ~166.4 million
6. So Pakistan has ~12.5 million more (roughly 8% more) Muslims than India. It's also often said that India has the second-largest poulation of Muslims (after Indonesia), when actually Pakistan has the second-largest population.