#muslim population in india

[census2023]

Hindu Religion in India | Statewise Census 2023 | Census 2023

Hindu religion data of all states as per Census 2011 figures—complete Data of all religions and comparison in each state. According to the most recent census data from the Indian government, the Hindu population in India as of 2011 is approximately 79.8%. This makes Hinduism the dominant religion in India, followed by Islam (14.2%) and Sikhism (1.7%). Other religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, and Jainism, comprise less than 1% of the population. It is important to note that census data is subject to change and should be considered an estimate. The Hindu population in India has been growing at a slower rate than other religious groups, particularly Muslims.

The Growth rate of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians is expected to fall more in the upcoming 2023 census while other religions like Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddism are expected to remain stable for the next 2 decades considering the already slowed-down growth rate of these religions.

[peachiyyy]

ind*a’s h*nduv*ta issue needs to be addressed globally bc they essentially want to do the same thing isr*el is doing to non-hindu indians. They’re also one of isr*el’s biggest supporters + isr*el funds the indian occupation in kashmir. B*p and m*di are garbage and I pray for their downfall everyday. Considering the history of 🇮🇳 , being in favor for genocide should be anti-indian but they hate muslims so much that they don’t care. But when I talk about it some yt saviour on here wants to tell me, a DESI- not just south asian, a DESI person, that im ‘racist’ for calling majority of them garbage lmfao.

[kashmirichaiwithmehr]

.

[reasonsforhope]

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is, by some measures, the most popular leader in the world. Prior to the 2024 election, his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) held an outright majority in the Lok Sabha (India’s Parliament) — one that was widely projected to grow after the vote count. The party regularly boasted that it would win 400 Lok Sabha seats, easily enough to amend India’s constitution along the party's preferred Hindu nationalist lines.

But when the results were announced on Tuesday, the BJP held just 240 seats. They not only underperformed expectations, they actually lost their parliamentary majority. While Modi will remain prime minister, he will do so at the helm of a coalition government — meaning that he will depend on other parties to stay in office, making it harder to continue his ongoing assault on Indian democracy.

So what happened? Why did Indian voters deal a devastating blow to a prime minister who, by all measures, they mostly seem to like?

India is a massive country — the most populous in the world — and one of the most diverse, making its internal politics exceedingly complicated. A definitive assessment of the election would require granular data on voter breakdown across caste, class, linguistic, religious, age, and gender divides. At present, those numbers don’t exist in sufficient detail. 

But after looking at the information that is available and speaking with several leading experts on Indian politics, there are at least three conclusions that I’m comfortable drawing.

First, voters punished Modi for putting his Hindu nationalist agenda ahead of fixing India’s unequal economy. Second, Indian voters had some real concerns about the decline of liberal democracy under BJP rule. Third, the opposition parties waged a smart campaign that took advantage of Modi’s vulnerabilities on the economy and democracy.

Understanding these factors isn’t just important for Indians. The country’s election has some universal lessons for how to beat a would-be authoritarian — ones that Americans especially might want to heed heading into its election in November.

-via Vox, June 7, 2024. Article continues below.

A new (and unequal) economy

Modi’s biggest and most surprising losses came in India’s two most populous states: Uttar Pradesh in the north and Maharashtra in the west. Both states had previously been BJP strongholds — places where the party’s core tactic of pitting the Hindu majority against the Muslim minority had seemingly cemented Hindu support for Modi and his allies.

One prominent Indian analyst, Yogendra Yadav, saw the cracks in advance. Swimming against the tide of Indian media, he correctly predicted that the BJP would fall short of a governing majority.

Traveling through the country, but especially rural Uttar Pradesh, he prophesied “the return of normal politics”: that Indian voters were no longer held spellbound by Modi’s charismatic nationalist appeals and were instead starting to worry about the way politics was affecting their lives.

Yadav’s conclusions derived in no small part from hearing voters’ concerns about the economy. The issue wasn’t GDP growth — India’s is the fastest-growing economy in the world — but rather the distribution of growth’s fruits. While some of Modi’s top allies struck it rich, many ordinary Indians suffered. Nearly half of all Indians between 20 and 24 are unemployed; Indian farmers have repeatedly protested Modi policies that they felt hurt their livelihoods.

“Everyone was talking about price rise, unemployment, the state of public services, the plight of farmers, [and] the struggles of labor,” Yadav wrote...

“We know for sure that Modi’s strongman image and brassy self-confidence were not as popular with voters as the BJP assumed,” says Sadanand Dhume, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who studies India. 

The lesson here isn’t that the pocketbook concerns trump identity-based appeals everywhere; recent evidence in wealthier democracies suggests the opposite is true. Rather, it’s that even entrenched reputations of populist leaders are not unshakeable. When they make errors, even some time ago, it’s possible to get voters to remember these mistakes and prioritize them over whatever culture war the populist is peddling at the moment.

Liberalism strikes back

The Indian constitution is a liberal document: It guarantees equality of all citizens and enshrines measures designed to enshrine said equality into law. The signature goal of Modi’s time in power has been to rip this liberal edifice down and replace it with a Hindu nationalist model that pushes non-Hindus to the social margins. In pursuit of this agenda, the BJP has concentrated power in Modi’s hands and undermined key pillars of Indian democracy (like a free press and independent judiciary).

Prior to the election, there was a sense that Indian voters either didn’t much care about the assault on liberal democracy or mostly agreed with it. But the BJP’s surprising underperformance suggests otherwise.

The Hindu, a leading Indian newspaper, published an essential post-election data analysis breaking down what we know about the results. One of the more striking findings is that the opposition parties surged in parliamentary seats reserved for members of “scheduled castes” — the legal term for Dalits, the lowest caste grouping in the Hindu hierarchy.

Caste has long been an essential cleavage in Indian politics, with Dalits typically favoring the left-wing Congress party over the BJP (long seen as an upper-caste party). Under Modi, the BJP had seemingly tamped down on the salience of class by elevating all Hindus — including Dalits — over Muslims. Yet now it’s looking like Dalits were flocking back to Congress and its allies. Why?

According to experts, Dalit voters feared the consequences of a BJP landslide. If Modi’s party achieved its 400-seat target, they’d have more than enough votes to amend India’s constitution. Since the constitution contains several protections designed to promote Dalit equality — including a first-in-the-world affirmative action system — that seemed like a serious threat to the community. It seems, at least based on preliminary data, that they voted accordingly.

The Dalit vote is but one example of the ways in which Modi’s brazen willingness to assail Indian institutions likely alienated voters.

Uttar Pradesh (UP), India’s largest and most electorally important state, was the site of a major BJP anti-Muslim campaign. It unofficially kicked off its campaign in the UP city of Ayodhya earlier this year, during a ceremony celebrating one of Modi’s crowning achievements: the construction of a Hindu temple on the site of a former mosque that had been torn down by Hindu nationalists in 1992. 

Yet not only did the BJP lose UP, it specifically lost the constituency — the city of Faizabad — in which the Ayodhya temple is located. It’s as direct an electoral rebuke to BJP ideology as one can imagine.

In Maharashtra, the second largest state, the BJP made a tactical alliance with a local politician, Ajit Pawar, facing serious corruption charges. Voters seemingly punished Modi’s party for turning a blind eye to Pawar’s offenses against the public trust. Across the country, Muslim voters turned out for the opposition to defend their rights against Modi’s attacks.

The global lesson here is clear: Even popular authoritarians can overreach.

By turning “400 seats” into a campaign slogan, an all-but-open signal that he intended to remake the Indian state in his illiberal image, Modi practically rang an alarm bell for constituencies worried about the consequences. So they turned out to stop him en masse.

The BJP’s electoral underperformance is, in no small part, the direct result of their leader’s zealotry going too far.

Return of the Gandhis? 

Of course, Modi’s mistakes might not have mattered had his rivals failed to capitalize. The Indian opposition, however, was far more effective than most observers anticipated.

Perhaps most importantly, the many opposition parties coordinated with each other. Forming a united bloc called INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance), they worked to make sure they weren’t stealing votes from each other in critical constituencies, positioning INDIA coalition candidates to win straight fights against BJP rivals.

The leading party in the opposition bloc — Congress — was also more put together than people thought. Its most prominent leader, Rahul Gandhi, was widely dismissed as a dilettante nepo baby: a pale imitation of his father Rajiv and grandmother Indira, both former Congress prime ministers. Now his critics are rethinking things.

“I owe Rahul Gandhi an apology because I seriously underestimated him,” says Manjari Miller, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Miller singled out Gandhi’s yatras (marches) across India as a particularly canny tactic. These physically grueling voyages across the length and breadth of India showed that he wasn’t just a privileged son of Indian political royalty, but a politician willing to take risks and meet ordinary Indians where they were. During the yatras, he would meet directly with voters from marginalized groups and rail against Modi’s politics of hate.

“The persona he’s developed — as somebody kind, caring, inclusive, [and] resolute in the face of bullying — has really worked and captured the imagination of younger India,” says Suryanarayan. “If you’ve spent any time on Instagram Reels, [you’ll see] an entire generation now waking up to Rahul Gandhi’s very appealing videos.”

This, too, has a lesson for the rest of the world: Tactical innovation from the opposition matters even in an unfair electoral context.

There is no doubt that, in the past 10 years, the BJP stacked the political deck against its opponents. They consolidated control over large chunks of the national media, changed campaign finance law to favor themselves, suborned the famously independent Indian Electoral Commission, and even intimidated the Supreme Court into letting them get away with it. 

The opposition, though, managed to find ways to compete even under unfair circumstances. Strategic coordination between them helped consolidate resources and ameliorate the BJP cash advantage. Direct voter outreach like the yatra helped circumvent BJP dominance in the national media.

To be clear, the opposition still did not win a majority. Modi will have a third term in office, likely thanks in large part to the ways he rigged the system in his favor.

Yet there is no doubt that the opposition deserves to celebrate. Modi’s power has been constrained and the myth of his invincibility wounded, perhaps mortally. Indian voters, like those in Brazil and Poland before them, have dealt a major blow to their homegrown authoritarian faction.

And that is something worth celebrating.

-via Vox, June 7, 2024.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Where does this curious Hindutva-Zionist solidarity spring from? One origin is from the earliest Hindu nationalists who modelled their Hindu state on Zionism. Hindutva’s founder, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, supported majoritarian nationalism and the rooting out of all disintegrating forces. These included Muslims who supported electoral quotas for their community and left-wing internationalists. As a result, he even condoned the Nazis’ antisemitic legislation in two speeches in 1938 because, as he saw it: “a nation is formed by a majority living therein”. Yet Savarkar was not antisemitic himself. He often spoke favourably of the tiny Jewish-Indian minority because he considered it too insignificant to threaten Hindu cohesion. In fact, Savarkar praised Zionism as the perfection of ethno-nationalist thinking. The way Zionism seamlessly blended ethnic attachment to a motherland and religious attachment to a holy land was precisely what Savarkar wanted for the Hindus. This double attachment was far more powerful to his mind than the European model of “blood and soil” nationalism without sacred space. Today, Hindu nationalists perpetuate this legacy and still look to Zionism as a uniquely attractive political ideology. To Hindu nationalists, some Zionists were engaged in a project to reclaim their holy land from a Muslim population whose religious roots in the region were not as ancient as their own.

[...]

In 2018, Israel passed a law that rebranded the country as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” and delegitimised its non-Jewish citizens. Similarly, India’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019 eased paths to citizenship for immigrants from several religious groups, but not Muslims. Coupled with rhetoric associating millions of Indian Muslims with illegal immigration, human rights groups argue that this law could be used to strip many Muslims of their Indian citizenship. Hindu nationalists have also stoked a culture war to consolidate “Hindu civilisation” and sweep away symbols of Islam. This is very much in keeping with the wish of Israel’s far right to rebuild Solomon’s Temple on the site of the holy Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where al-Aqsa mosque compound currently sits. In 1969, a Zionist extremist burned the south wing of al-Aqsa. And in 1980, the fundamentalist group Jewish Underground plotted to blow up the Dome of the Rock, an Islamic shrine at the centre of the compound. A similar project of demolishing mosques and building temples in their place was suggested by Savarkar and Golwalkar. Hindu nationalist organisations focused their attention on Babri Masjid mosque in Ayodha, since this was the mythical birthplace of the Hindu god, Ram.

[cenvast]

Rin, Kabru, & Toshiro: On Asian Identity

I have a lot of thoughts about Rin's identity as a second-generation Asian refugee and how it impacts her relationships with other characters, especially Kabru.

I see Rin as being Indonesian specifically. The name "Rinsha" is of Muslim Arabic origin. In real life, Indonesia has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, so what might seem like a geographically incompatible name works if Rin is the Dungeon Meshi equivalent of Indonesian.

Rin also says that her parents came from an island that isn't Wa, and Indonesia is a series of islands.

In her Adventurer's Bible entry, she's described as having "no real knowledge or attachment to the East" because "she's second-generation." She also clarifies to Mickbell that she was "born here." From this character description and her dialogue, we get the sense that Rin doesn't really identify with being Asian.

As noted in this Rin masterpost, a large part of this is because she was denied her parents' cultural identity by the elves. They likely suppressed any cultural markers she had and denied her information about her heritage. Since she wasn't born in the Eastern Archipelago and her parents died when she was young, she understandably hasn't inherited a lot of cultural knowledge.

Rin seems to have internalized ethnic self-hatred. Her disconnect from the East and her unwillingness to remedy that disconnect suggests that she has shame surrounding her Asian identity.

Again, she doesn't have many opportunities to interact with people from her parents' homeland, and her trauma also impacts her behavior. Remembering her parents is probably painful, considering the horrible way they died, and since they're her main connection to her cultural heritage, it makes sense that she wouldn't broach the topic.

You could also argue that Rin identifies more with her Northern identity than her Eastern identity since she was born and raised in the North for the first eleven years of her life, and as a result, she doesn't feel the need to connect with her parents' culture. But considering her home was presumptively still steeped in her parents' culture and her main association with the North is probably her parents' murders, this seems unlikely.

It's important to note how different her experiences are from the story's other Asian characters', like Toshiro's, for example. Toshiro travels to the Island as an adult of his own volition (technically, his father's). He's completely culturally Eastern. In comparison, Rin's parents fled from the East. Her family had to assimilate into an unfamiliar Northern culture, and later, she was "raised" by western elves, who are coded as colonizers in text. She seems to have internalized the elves' suppression of her culture and the way assimilating to the North required them to discard parts of their heritage. Her lack of interest in her culture seems learned.

Her strong attachment to Kabru further complicates her relationship with her Asian identity. I see Kabru as Indian or Nepalese; his name derives from a mountain on the border between India and Nepal. On top of being the only person who treats her like a human being during her childhood, Kabru is the only other significant Asian person in her life. They share the trauma of their parents having been brutally murdered and being raised imperfectly (much more severely in her case) by elves. While in the elf's care, they're both othered as tallmen— this aspect is strongly emphasized in the text — and in the main story, they're othered as Asian people in its European-inspired setting. Their shared experiences as Asian refugees are the foundation of their close bond.

It's not a stretch to assume that Rin consequently views Kabru as her main connection to being Asian. While they're from very different parts of fantasy Asia, their experiences as Asian refugees still overlap significantly as seen above, and the way she clings to Kabru suggests she wants to connect more with her culture, but for the previously stated reasons, she doesn't prioritize it. Besides, she doesn't have good models for what embracing one's cultural identity as a refugee/immigrant looks like. Just like her, Kabru doesn't seem to have many cultural ties, similarly because of his upbringing with the elves.

Toshiro could completely topple Rin and Kabru's original dynamic. Rin doesn't seem to like Toshiro. Their personalities would probably clash at first, because just like him, she's prone to judgment, out of self-preservation, and she's quiet. One of their canonical interactions is being captured by the orcs together; they don't even speak to each other in this scene.

Kabru and Toshiro become friends by the story's conclusion. Deep down, Rin might feel threatened by this. She's been Kabru's closest Asian friend up until this point. Toshiro, as an Asian person who was born and raised in his culture, might seem like a "better Asian" and thus, Kabru's replacement for her. This would be the worst projection of her buried insecurity over her disconnect from being Asian and how it potentially separates her from other Asian people. Given her personality, I doubt she would express this beyond acting wary around Toshiro.

With time, Rin, Kabru, and Toshiro could resolve her fears and the deeper issues they point to by all becoming friends. Interacting with other Asian people would heal her. She appears unphased by Mickbell's microaggression, implying it isn't an uncommon occurrence; she seems to only hang out with Kabru and their party. Being around other people of color would lessen the amount of othering she experiences and grant her a break from defending her identity.

Beyond the potential for cultural exchange and bonding over being Asian in fantasy Europe, Rin and Toshiro are also very similar in character. They're both anxious, quiet, and caring. If they made a little effort, they'd relate to each other and get along well.

Ideally, Rin would also befriend Hien, Benichidori, and the other girls in Toshiro's party. Kabru and Toshiro have their own issues with their treatment of women, so without positive Asian female friendships, she'd have another issue on her hands. Still, Kabru could be the bridge to a friendship with Toshiro, and Toshiro could be the bridge to friendships with his retainers. And with mutual growth, they could all enjoy each other's friendships.

Rin herself points out the vast cultural differences and language barriers between different parts of the East. The Asian characters of DunMeshi might not always share culture, but because of the story's setting in fantasy Europe, many of them experience being nonwhite in a mostly white locale. A support system of other people of color could allow Rin the space to explore her identity and culture and begin healing from her childhood trauma.

[metamatar]

im asking this out of pure ignorance but I've always wondered how does hinduism handle people who are not hindu? i know Christianity is essentially 'be the right kind of christian or go to hell' (so much as to beleive that Jewish people are literally devils, for example) but i was wondering how hinduism deals w people who are in proximity but not of the same religion. also if a dalit or lower caste person converts from hinduism to another religion, how does that affect thier life and how they're treated? appreciate your answer if u feel like explaining ^__^

it depends, in some parts of the country the non hindu has the same status as the lower caste dalit by default – so exclusion but in most places its a detente where religious and caste endogamy is strictly maintained. housing and employment discrimination is v common. its actually much harder to marry under the special mariage act and violence against interfaith and intercaste couples by their own families is common. in 2023, the muslim is the designated enemy of the state. the christian was fooled by the british and/or money to give up their culture or is literally a foreign agent. if you're looking for a textual answer, the equivalent of the "infidel," there isn’t really one because the streamlining of the canonical religious texts and construction of the hindu is recent. hinduism has aimed to appropriate instead of convert.

in modern india, legally anyone who is not a christian or a muslim is treated as a hindu. you are hindu by default in india to the state, governed by hindu codes for marriage and inheritance. for indigenous tribals it is a matter of coercing their children to feel shame at the (state sponsored but outsourced to private religious groups, love privatisation!!!) residential schools about their animist practices and making them worship the proper gods. for sikhs, jains and buddhists their is marginally more toleration. but they are basically seen as wayward hindu sects. this does change when they're in conflict with the majority in a way that resists "national cohesion" – see sikh pogroms in 1984 and the recent moves against sikhism due to the invocation of khalistan in the farmers protests. when dalits convert to buddhism many right wingers will invoke the spectre of predatory conversions.

since you are supposed to be hindu by default, christians and muslims are then seen as invasive outsiders and conversions are regulated very strictly by many states. it is historically true that christian missionaries brought christianity as part of a broader civilising mission, but imo it says something really depressing about hinduism that its epithets for christians is 'ricebag converts' bc people apparently converted for a bag of rice. islam's foothold in the continent is older, accompanying immigration from the west as well as the sultanate and the mughals. returning these christians and muslims to the fold, or "ghar wapsi" is a major project of the hindutva right. note that india is home to one of the world's largest populations of muslims (~200mil).

lower caste dalits have long converted to christianity and islam but caste violence follows them there anyway. caste may have textual origins in religion and focus on ritual purity but it is a socioeconomic form of subjugation. this means that while still subject to caste violence, dalit christians and muslims will be denied redressal through state protections like legislations against anti caste violence or reservations because those are restricted to hindu dalits.

[frithwontdie]

the average immigrant is smarter and harder working than you and your crowd of inbred entitled conspiracy theorist crackers<3

Not even close. Very few are, most no. I've worked with immigrats. Some of them were really hard working. Like the Asians I actually enjoyed working with. Who were hard working and smart. And some Hispanics. But most of the others, were incompetent, entitled, arrogant, rude idiots. Most mooch off of our welfare programs, are a net loss to the economy. Claiming they're smart when we had to lower our standards, test scores and things too easy for them. Each proved to be a failure. Oh, and you really need to see who's truly inbred in this scenario. Don't like it? Chimp out about it.

Although rare in the Americas and modern Europe, consanguineous marriage is notably common in North Africa and the Middle East, where it is a traditional and respected aspect of many Arab and Muslim cultures.

Today, 70 percent of all Pakistanis are inbred and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants”). A rough estimate reveals that close to half of everybody living in the Arab world is inbred. A large percentage of the parents that are blood related come from families where intermarriage has been a tradition for generations.

A BBC investigation in Britain several years ago revealed that at least 55% of the Pakistani community in Britain was married to a first cousin. The Times of India affirmed that “this is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.”

The BBC’s research also discovered that while British Pakistanis accounted for just 3.4% of all births in Britain, they accounted for 30% of all British children with recessive disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality. It is not a surprise, therefore, that, in response to this evidence, a Labour Party MP has called for a ban on first-cousin marriage.

[callimara]

Important PSA

Criticizing Israel is NOT antisemetism or an attack on Jewish people because

ISRAEL =/= ALL JEWS

And while I am not saying that there is no antisemitism because there is plenty of that too, this is not a case of that. But grouping all Jews together as Israeli and presenting them as a monolith erases their individuality and identity. It's like calling all Asian people Chinese, and that if you criticize China, then you hate all Asian people. It doesn't make sense.

I am so frustrated seeing people who are trying to raise awareness about Palestine be called antisemetic and disgusting by people who cannot perceive Jews and Muslims as anything but a monolith. That's the reason why so many people are having trouble distinguishing between Hamas and Palestinian civilians, because to them, they're all the same.

And that's why they don't see an issue with collective punishment.

And you know what? Palestine is NOT just the Jewish holy land. It is also the Christian holy land, and the Muslim holy land. Palestine wasn't even the first choice for a Jewish homeland because it was heavily contested by Jewish rabbis at the time.

Turning Palestine (I say Palestine because the entirety of what is now Israel used to be Palestine) as an exclusively Jewish ethno-state means that people of Christian and Muslim faith all over the world are stripped of their holy land. The oldest church in the world, dating back to the times of Christ is located in Gaza, and who are the ones protecting it? Palestinians.

And you know who bombed it? Even though it had 500 refugees of both Muslim and Christian faith inside? Israel.

Even the slogan used for the founding of Israel itself, "A land without people for a people without a land." Is blatantly revisionist and erases the existence of Palestinians already living there. It erases all the historic religious sites that stand there and are frequented regularly by their respective devotees. Or worse, does not consider the Palestinians as 'people.'

Some people tend to forget that religious belief is NOT the same as race, and so you CANNOT claim indigeneity just because you are a certain religion. I am an Indonesian Muslim. Born Muslim, raised Muslim, and every generation of my family have been Muslim. That doesn't mean I can say I'm indigenous to Saudi Arabia. Let alone that Saudi Arabian land is my birthright.

If a white American woman born and raised in Seattle decides to convert to Hinduism, can she then say she is now indigenous to India? Or if she has a child, and that child had a child, and they were all raised as a Hindu, but have always lived in the US all their lives, can they claim that they are indigenous to India?

No.

And the fact is, the first Jewish settlers during The First Aliyah (great Jewish migration to Palestine) came from Eastern Europe and are genetically closer to Russians and other Slavs than they are to the Jews who remained in the Middle Eastern region after their exile (and I guess some people forget that you can convert into Judaism even if you didn't come from "The Promised Land." Like for marriages and stuff.) That's why they feel the need to distinguish themselves from the word "Arab."

Granted, there were also Yemeni Jews that migrated with them (whom I would say have stronger claims to indigeneity), but even in the transition camps, there was a clear divide between the European Ashkenazi Jews and the Yemeni Jews, who literally had their kids taken from them to give to the Ashkenazi Jews.

And let's not forget that when Jewish migrants from Ethiopia came, they were given contraceptives without consent to make sure they didn't impact the "desired" population.

Wake up. This isn't a religious war. This is European colonization.

[census2023]

Muslim Religion in India - Statewise Census 2011 to 2023 - Census 2023

The population Growth rate of various religions has come down in the last decade (2001-2011). Hindu Population Growth rate slowed down to 16.76 % from the previous decade's figure of 19.92% while Muslim witness a sharp fall in growth rate to 24.60% (2001-2011) from the previous figure of 29.52 % (1991-2001). Such a sharp fall in the population growth rate for Muslims didn't happen in the last 6 decades. Christian Population growth was at 15.5% while the Sikh population growth rate stood at 8.4%. The most educated and wealthy community of Jains registered the least growth rate in 2001-2011 with a figure of just 5.4%.

The Growth rate of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians is expected to fall more in the upcoming 2021 census while other religions like Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddism are expected to remain stable for the next 2 decades considering the already slowed-down growth rate of these religions.

[sayruq]

Though the Indian government has treaded cautiously, the country’s Right Wing ecosystem, which has a robust social media presence, has wasted little time in deciding its stand on the present conflict. Sharing borders with Muslim countries that they perceive as hostile, and having a Muslim minority population at home, India and Israel mirror each others’ demographic anxieties. In the last 10 years of the Hindu-nationalist BJP’s rule in India, this anxiety has transformed into rampant Islamophobia and communal hatred visible in almost every sphere of life. In 41% of all the fact checks that Alt News did in 2022, the target of misinformation/disinformation was Muslims. The ongoing conflict has provided the Right Wing with an opportunity to amplify that Islamophobia. Consequently, the massacre of Palestinians — an overwhelming majority of whom are Muslims (see here and here) — by Israel in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack has found strong support among the Hindu Right. A large share of tweets with the hashtag #IStandWithIsrael came from Indian users and thousands of Indian accounts added the flag of Israel next to their X handles.

[mapsontheweb]

Second Largest religion in Pakistan

Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis, Scheduled Castes and others (including Sikhs and Parsis) are officially and constitutionally recognized as religious minorities. Pakistan has various religious minorities. According to the 1941 census of India, there were 5.9 million non-Muslims in the territories that came to form Pakistan in 1947 (West Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). During and after Pakistan’s independence in 1947, about 5 million Hindus and Sikhs emigrated to India, with Punjab alone accounting for migration of 3.9 million people.According to the 1951 census conducted by the Government of Pakistan, Pakistan had 1.6% Hindu population.In East Pakistan (Bangladesh), the non-Muslims comprised 23.2% of the total population. By 1997, the percentage of Hindus remained stable at 1.85% in Pakistan,while Bangladesh has witnessed a decline with Hindus migrating from it because of insecurity due to fear of persecution, conflict, communal violence (as a result of newly created Bangladesh’s assertion of its Muslim identity) and poverty. The demolition of the Hindu temple site serves as a poignant illustration of the ongoing discrimination endured by the Hindu community in Pakistan. In Pakistan, women, religious minorities, and transgender individuals remained subjected to violence, discrimination, and persecution. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws illustrate one of the most extreme instances of this issue: Since 1990, over 62 individuals have fallen victim to vigilante violence linked to blasphemy accusations

by map_nerd

[arkipelagic]

Asian slaves, indigenous Americans, and identity in colonial era Mexico

The Spanish Philippines had a diverse slave population for local labor and export, including Filipino Indians [i.e. natives; indios], Muslim war captives (moros), and foreign slaves from as far away as Portuguese India.

… Upon their arrival, chino slaves [i.e. any Asian slave, not just Chinese] were absorbed by the urban economy of Mexico City, where they mainly worked as domestic servants or in textile mills (obrajes) … For their part, working in the city provided chinos with some possibilities for manumission. Chinos in domestic service were especially apt to embrace the limited opportunities available to them and to experience some social mobility. In the obrajes, chinos had few of the freedoms given to domestic servants, but they did benefit from government oversight of the industry. During official visits, chino slaves appealed for protection from overt exploitation by claiming that they were Indians (even if they were from Portuguese India). Remarkably, visiting inspectors listened to their complaints, and they often responded by liberating individual chinos under the assumption that they were indeed native vassals and could thus not be held in bondage. The overall experience of chinos in the viceroyal capital confirms the benefits of living close to the center of colonial power.

The presence of free indigenous immigrants from the Spanish Philippines in Mexico reinforced the idea that all chinos were Indians. The complex governing structure of colonial Mexico involved two republics or political communities (the república de indios and the república de españoles); this organization separated the indigenous majority from everyone else to facilitate the collection of tribute and the ministry of the Catholic Church … [N]ative immigrants from the Philippines purposely sought to confirm their membership in the Republic because corporate status provided personal advantages. They asked to be tallied in tribute rolls in Mexico to benefit from concomitant privileges, such as trading rights and legal representation through the General Indian Court. At the same time, free Filipinos were frequently confused with chino slaves - a situation that had serious consequences for Filipinos' relations with colonial institutions and enslaved individuals. Some immigrants resented having their indigenous identity questioned and sought to maintain a sense of their Indian-ness by keeping their distance from chino slaves. The majority, however, expressed solidarity with chino slaves. Filipino artisans, for example, took on chino slaves as apprentices and taught them marketable skills. Similarly, Filipino traders incorporated chinos into their own credit networks to facilitate self-purchase.

Individual chinos who were manumitted also embraced an Indian identity, regardless of whether they were from Goa, Macau, or other places in South and Southeast Asia. In this way, chinos challenged official attempts to define them solely as former slaves. Instead, they sought to join the free republic. The possibility for this kind of social integration caused widespread concern among slave owners. To defend their property rights, masters started to brand chino slaves on the face, rather than on the chest or arm as they did with Africans, in order to dissuade them from fleeing and "passing" as free Indians. This horrifying development shows that Indian communities welcomed runaway chino slaves and, by extension, that slave owners sought visible markers of their slaves' status.

Excerpt from the Introduction to “Asian Slaves in Colonial Mexico: From Chinos to Indians” (2014) by Tatiana Seijas

[daughterofruins]

How dare you say India is not my country, when my ancestors chose this Land, this Nation, this Mother over all other "religious" and political factors?

How dare you think that I am any less of an Indian because I am Muslim, and you are more of an Indian because India is also called Hindustan?

How dare you even think that Hindustan is called Hindustan because of the Hindu population, and not because of the river Indus?

How dare you even think that, I, a Muslim, cannot be a patriot when all my live I have sungs songs of Patriotism and sung praises of Bharat Mata?

How dare you even think of comparing two children of a Mother who has thousands and is loving each of them, living in each of them, thriving in each of them?

How dare you think that my religion makes me any less of an Indian, when all it does is makes me all the more of an Indian?

How dare you?

[incorrectmahabharatquotes]

Genuinely curious, because you seem to hate the Ram Mandir... or how you think one party/ruling government is using it for political gain/votes or how it's wasting money etc.

What do you have to say about the Waqf board act? Or the infamous Shah Bano case and the way the Rajiv Gandhi government went against the decision of the Supreme Court to favour Muslim patriarchy. Or the fact that the Congress government banned books like the Satanic Verses to please a certain community. Is this not politics of appeasement?

You say that the ruling party is playing politics over religion, but hasn't every party done it? It's not like BJP was even hiding it, they've been campaigning for the Ram Mandir rebuilding for decades. It doesn't make it automatically a bad move.

Besides, Ram Mandir is built through devotee donations, so why so much vitriol against it? If Hindus are giving money to construct a temple, it's solely their own decision. I genuinely don't understand why there's so much hatred for it. If a community is reclaiming their holy land, which had been forcibly ruined and rebuilt into another type of building, it's not a bad thing. Plus, a big chunk of land was given to the Sunny Waqf board to build a beautiful mosque in Ayodhya itself, which has begun construction this year (iirc). Both communities will have their interests restored.

Why can't we move on and celebrate the Ram Mandir rebuilding and inauguration? Is decolonization and reclaiming of a place of cultural significance not important?

(I know that some people are being too aggressive about it, but the majority isn't. They're simply celebrating and praying. And some of them actually got attacked for it.)

Okay. Since you're genuinely curious, I'll answer this.

"Why am I criticising the current ruling party for playing politics of appeasement and not any of the other parties?" I'm criticizing them BECAUSE they're the ruling party. They have been in power for close to 10 years now. That's more than 1/3rd of my whole life. This is a hilarious question because I would've been criticizing the same action if it would've been taken by any other political party. I don't have a problem with the party, I have a problem with what they're doing. All citizens are SUPPOSED to do this, my friend. Criticizing your government on what they're doing wrong is a fundamental part of a democracy.

"Politics of appeasement." I hope you understand the difference between appeasement and religious nationalism. The ruling party isn't appeasing anyone. Their acts are guided by their political ideology of Hindutva. I fundamentally disagree with their ideology. I do not agree with them when they say being Hindu is integral to being an Indian. I do not believe in maintaining a Hindu hegemony in India. I simply refuse to accept an ideology that was LITERALLY INSPIRED BY FASCISM AND THE IDEAS OF RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

"What do you have to say about so-and-so?" You know, I would've criticised things I believe are harming our country and power when the governments you speak of were in power. Unfortunately, in certain cases I was not alive then to criticize them and in a few cases, I was a child and I did not know how to form complex sentences. I do not believe in essentialism, you understand? I do not believe that any religion or political party is essentially good or bad. I believe in judging them for what they do.

"They've been campaigning for the Ram Mandir for decades. It doesn't make it automatically a bad move." It's imperative for you to understand this, it is politically a good move and in all other ways a HORRIBLE move. They get the support of all the Hindus who make up the majority of the population? Decent political move. Who could begrudge them for using DIVIDE AND CONQUER as a strategy? But in doing so, what kind of monster have they created? Have they created a billion people who think religious-nationalism is an okay direction for the country's future? Is that a good move, I ask you.

"Ram mandir is built through devotee donations so it's okay." That's close to ₹1,800 crores. (Estimated amount because of course, there's no transparency in the donation system so that we know who donated what amount.) Do you seriously believe all that money came out of the pockets of average working class Indians? Or did the ultra wealthy businessmen fund this religious project and get massive tax breaks in the process? But yes, I'm sure there's no fuckery going on with the money because it's out of DEVOTION. That makes it okay, I guess.

Now we come to the part that is the worst part of this anon message, according to me.

"Reclamation and decolonization." You use these words so lightly and I find that offensive. These words are HIGHLY tied to power structures. Who has the power right now? Is it the mythic evil Islamic conquerors of 400 years ago? Or is it a political party that believes in hindu nationalism and is funded by the ultra wealthy billionaires because said party helps them get even richer? Who is reclaiming what here? I want you to ask yourself this. Can a powerful majority claim reclamation when they tear down a building to build another building there?

"They tore down the temple and built a mosque there" And now you've torn down the mosque and built a temple there. Congratulations, you've won the game. Where do we go from here? Will everyone be happy now? Has peace been restored? A great evil destroyed? What story are we telling ourselves here? Will the religious fanaticism go away now? Will the hatred that has been cultivated in the hearts of Hindus against Muslims be sated? Or will it find more avenues to spread itself?

Decolonizing the mind, right? I wonder why we're only focused on decolonizing against the islamic past and not anything else. But it's okay that India is currently colonising Kashmir. We don't believe in decolonisation when it comes to Kashmir. We don't believe in decolonizing from the system of capitalism that is choking the lives out of us. HELL, WE DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN RECLAMATION SEEING HOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GIVING THE BARE MINIMUM RESERVATION TO CERTAIN COMMUNITIES AS A REPARATION FOR THE HARM THEY'VE HISTORICALLY AND CURRENTLY SUFFERED AND ARE STILL SUFFERING.

I don't want people to talk to me about reclamation, reparation and decolonisation before they accept their own hypocrisy.

Anon, you say have so much vitriol and hate towards a mandir. I should let people celebrate. Did I stop you personally from celebrating? Did I beat up somebody for trying to shove their religious agenda on me? All I did was talk about how sad I am that this is what we've decided to do with our country's resources. Why is one voice of dissent such a big deal to you? Do you want me to shut up and fall in line? Will that be acceptable?

- Mod S

[opencommunion]

The geopolitics of labor: Israel's quest to replace Palestinian workers with Indians

"Canadian immigration attorney Aidan Simardone, speaking to The Cradle, compares the situation to historical colonial practices in North America where marginalized European religious groups, like the Puritans, were brought in to service colonial interests. 

Israel, he points out, is adopting a similar strategy by recruiting economically disadvantaged Hindu Indians from regions like Uttar Pradesh, aiming to manage demographic and political challenges seamlessly. 'The move is also an attempt by Israel to pull the rug out from under one of the thorns on the side of colonialism. Colonialism requires squeezing blood out of a stone, yet this squeezing depends on the sweat and tears of those who are at the bottom of the barrel.'

Simardone notes the inherent risks for the colonizer in relying entirely on an indigenous labor force, as workers will rebel when colonialism reveals its true nature.

'To steer clear of this predicament, colonizers bring in labor from other parts. These laborers are often pushed to the sidelines as well, but unlike the Indigenous population, they go with the flow rather than swimming against the tide when it comes to the colonial project.'

... A Haaretz report claims that Indian candidates seeking work in Israel were, in many cases, made aware that the jobs were not available to Muslim Indians, a move that undermined the rights of the Muslim minority in India.

Simardone explains that Islam is seen as a mutual threat by the right-wing ethnocentric regime currently leading Israel and Hindutva-dominated India: 'For both countries, the very existence of Muslims undermines their fascist ethnonationalism, which seeks to build a country solely for Jews in Israel and Hindus in India. That is primarily the reason that job recruiters in India who are posting positions in Israel have specifically required Hindus and excluded Muslims, who are more likely to sympathize with the plight of Palestinians.' ... However, the partnership faces criticism domestically, especially concerning the program to shift thousands of workers into an insecure environment. The Construction Workers Federation of India (CWFI) has voiced strong opposition to sending Indian laborers to Israel, arguing that such actions tacitly support Israel’s controversial policies in Palestine. 

The association reflects the views of a much broader Indian worker demographic who naturally reject collaboration with an oppressive occupation state that so clearly exploits the Palestinian working class. Instead, CWFI has urged New Delhi to leverage its diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv to advocate for the observance of UN resolutions and to reconsider Israel’s labor-import demands."