Socio-Economic and Demographic Differentials between Hindus and Muslims in India

Author(s): Abusaleh Shariff

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 30, No. 46 (Nov. 18, 1995), pp. 2947-2953
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4403452
Accessed: 26-04-2016 00:54 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:54:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Socio-Economic and Demographic Differentials
between Hindus and Muslims in India
Abusaleh Shariff

This paper reviews the socio-ecotntomiic and demnograiplhic data according to rCeligion7 available fromi various
cenisuses, Naitionial Sample Survey and academic publications sinice the independence of Ind(cia. Indicators sulch as, the
structure anid levels of employment. of livintg antd of educationi according to religioni arle discussed. Thefertility and niiortalit)
indicators, distriibution and growth of populationt are also presetnted. The paper emphasises the nieed to strenigtlhent the data
based wvhich vvould allow a study, of ethnic and religious differenitials in socio-economic and educational achievements.

I Section II of this paper presents the growth 11

Introduction
INDIA is a mtulti-cultural, multi-ethnic and
multi-lingual country. People belonging to
many rellgions, such as Hinduism,
BuddJhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam and
Christi'anity live in this country since time
immemorial. However, there appears to be
substantial dit'ferentials in the socio-
econlomic and demographic protiles of major
religious commilunities in India, mainly
emer'ing from socio-cultural and historical
reasonis. This paper presents various types
of social. economic and demographic data
gathered f'rom various censuses and National,
Sample Survey publications and discuisses
dift'erentials according to religion. It is hoped
thalt this analysis would provide a lead in
and distribution of population according to Population Proftile According to
religion in India and in its major states.
Religious Affiliation
Section III discusses data on employment,
occupation, levels of living and education Now let us take a look at the growth of
according to various religions. The following population since independence. The Indian
section presents some fertility and mortality government as a routine exercise conducts
indicators according to religious affiliation complete enumerationl of population every
and fifth section presents a discussion and 10 years, which is known as decennial census.
some conclusions. The last census was condlucted in 1991 whose
TABLE 1: GROWTH AND DISTRIBt'TION OF PoPrtLA11ON BY MAJOR RELIGIONS IN INDIA%. 1961-81
(Po}/mL/aI[i(m i,, miions,,.)
Census Total Hincdus NMuslimils Christians Others
Years** Poptilation (Includes SCs and STs)
1951 361.1 303.6 35.4 8.3 9.7
1961 428.4 358.8 44.2 I 0.5 14.6
(21.5) (20.3) . (25.6) (27.4)

understanding the contemporary Indian 1971 533.5 442.8 57.8 13.8 19.0
(24.8) (23.7) (30.8) (32.6)
society in a better perspective. The main
1981 665.3 549.8 75.5 16.2 25.8
purpose here, however, is to generate interest
(24.7) 24.2) (30.6) (17.4)
amona the readers to pursue further rcscarch
on this issue. both at the micro-disaggregated Notes: * Excludes the population of Jamminu and Kashmir
and macro levels. ** Excludes the population of Assamil.
At the outset, it must be emphasised that I Figures in parenthesis are percentage change over previous couints.
various religious groups in India, especially 2 The percentage change is compuited after necessary adjustinents by the Registrar General
for 1951-61 and 1961-71.
Hindus, Muslims and Christians are not
3 The percentage change for the tnidentified category nainiely 'Others' has not been calculated.
homogeneous populations. Each onle is Sources: I Census of India. 1981, Series - I paper-4 of 1984.
divided and subdivided into innumerable 2 Census of India. 1971, Series - I part 11-c (i).
castes. sects and cultural groups. Forexainple, 3 Census of India. 1961. Volume 1. part l1-c (i).
the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes,
besides a large number of socially backward TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION ACCORDING To RELI(;IOUS AFFILIATION FOR MAJ(OR STATIES, I981I

castes are a part of the Hindu community. ( opulation in Iik/lis)

Similarly, the Sunilis, Shias, Bohlras and
many other sects or cultural groups constitute
tlhe Muslims. It is my view that studying
socio-ecolnoinic differentials in India at the
level of' religious aggregation is sinmplistic
andl not advisable. However academic
research has to reflect the socio-economic
and cultural rcalities of its age. The
contemiiporary politicisation of religion is
such that a new locus which can be called
as 'political economy and political demo-
graphy of religions' is the need of the hour.
It is in this context, cven at the cost of being
similplistic and seemingly un-academic
perspective, that this paper is conceived
and written. It is necessary that relevant
facts and figures found in the official and
acadenmic records and publications are put
together for an objective assessment of
reality.
State All Hindu Muslimil Chr istian
Population Percentage Population Percentage Population Percentage
Andhra Pradesh 535.5 475.3 88.8 45.3 8.5 14.3 2.7
Karnataka 371.3 329.1 85.9 41.0 11.1 7.6 2.1
Kerala 254.5 148.0 5 8.2 54.9 21.3 52. 3 20.6
Maharashtra 627.8 511.1 81.4 58.1 9.2 8.0 1.4
Tamil Nadu 484.1 430.2 88.9 25.2 5.2 28.0 5.8
Gujarat 340.9 305.2 89.5 29.1 8.5 1.3 *
Rajasthan 342.6 306.0 89.3 24.9 7.3 ().5 *
Punjab 167.9 620.0 36.9 1.7 1t) 1.9 1.1
Haryana 129.2 115.5 89.4 5.2 4.1 (.1 *
UttarPradesh 1108.6 923.7 83.3 176.5 15.9 1.6 *
Bihar 699.1 580.1 83.t) 98.7 14.1 7.4 *
Madhya Pradesh 521.7 485.1 93.0 25.0 4.8 3.5 *
Orissa 263.7 251.6 95.4 4.2 1.6 4.8 1.8
West Bengal 545.8 420.1 77.0 117.4 21.5 3.2 *
Jammu and
Kashmir 59.9 19.3 32.2 38.4 64.2 (.(8 *
All India 6652.9 5497.8 82.6 755.1 11.4 161.7 2.4
Note: * Denotes less than one per cent of the state population.
Source: Census of India 1981. Government of India.

Economiiic ;and Political Weekly November 18, 1995 2947

This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:54:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
p-reliminary resUlts are now becoming
avalilable Hiowever lfor many types of
intformation the latest sources still -ire the
'981 Census publications. Census gives
populltatio tfigures hy major religionis for all
India and states aind union terriitories. The
religious alhtiliaition as reported by the head
o*t he houscholL dluring thecensus operationlls
is lpl-scetLd i l broadll ctetor-ies. For examlple,
all I-lind(u . castes includling,> the schedIledII
CWstCS mdn(1 thle schlelsled tribes aire identli'ied
-is linidus Sil S i'arly, many Muslim sects
dllds s,hects 1ha1ve bcn cIubbecd as MuLslills.
I'ih fioures lare presented in Table 1.
Indic -(ot illdependence in 1947 which
i;lso led tlo partition of the country. A large
number of Ni uslimis imioved over to the thieni
Piakistan. In 195 1 (the first censuss alter
indIepeCdelnce) tlhere were 35 million Muslimis
living in IndJiai. forming the largest miniority.
percentages are some states in the north-
eiastern parts of India.
Overall, about 52 per cent of Muslims in
India reside in three states, namely, Uttar
Pradcsh, Bihar and West Bengal. Another
interesting feature of Muslims is that. with
a tew noteworthy exceptions, on the whole
a larger proportion of Muslimns live in urban
areas, when compared with members of other
religionsi (Table 3). For example, in all the
souLtl Indianl statesthle percelntageofMuslimns
living in urban areas is more than double
that of the Hindu population, excepting in
Kerala. It is likely that the proportion of
Muslinis in urban areas may have increased
over the past four decades. The othier states
where the proportion of urban Muslinms is
substaintially higher thain the staite average
are Rajasthan, Gujarat and Uttair Pradesh.
Conversely, in West Bengal, Bihair, Kerala
and every year, often with a special focus.
The 43rd round surveyed about 1.3 lakh
households spread over about 8.400 sample
villages and 4.600 urban sample blocks in
the whole country. Publications emnerging
out of 43rd round( survey coiltains some
cross-tabulations by inajor religions, whicih
are discussed in this paper. Although
intformnation can he mlade available
separately tor vairious states thle puLblished
statistics are now available onlly at the level
of all-India.
TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS BY
H0usFEiu LD) TYPE (OCcUl PATION) ANM) RELIG.ION:
RuRAL INDIA. 1987-88
P1er- Centi)
Occupation Hinduls Mus- Cr;ist- Others
lionis ian)s

Accordinu, to this census there were 304
million Hiiduts and about 8.3 million
Christiils in India. The Hindu population
(inciluldilnr the schleluled castcs and scheduled
tribhcs) grew at the ra-ite of 20.3, 24.7 and 24.2
pci centi. riespectively, during the past three
decades a;ndl in 198 1 they were 550( millions
or ahbout 82.6 per cent ot India's population.
The Muslims population grew at the rate of
about 25.6. 30.8 ainJd 30.6 per cent during
the same period and by 1981 there were 76
million lMuslim living in India. The growth
of Chrisians was 27.4. 32.6 and 17.4 during
tle correspondi ng periods. The decadal
er(owih rate durim 1971 -1 wassubstanitially
lowcr tlhan thait ol the previous decades, tor
the total populaition as awlwhole. This means
the growth I-itcs of its comiponents. such as
by variOLus Ieli,0ion.s wouid also be lower
comlpated withi iespective rates during
196 1 -7 1. A fiact to note however, is thlat
whilC l-iiildUis were the signiticant majority.
I\Muslim.s Con.siltuted 11.4 per cent aind
Christians constituted abLout 2.4 per cent of
the total populatioll in India. Table 2 provi(les
tile dlistribution of population iiccordinlg to
relicious atlliation for 15 major states in
Indtial.
Exceptling in Jaminu and Kashmir and
PunjLib, the Hindu population is in majority
in all the remaining 13 states consiidered.
Hovever. the Hiiidu population in Kerala
and West Bengal was 58 and 77 per cent
resPectively which is less than the all-India
a\c'rag;e of 92.6 per ceilt. It cani be seein tllat
64 per cent of' population in Jamunii aLnd
Kashmir are MuLslims. This is the only state
wltcre Mmtimsllils are in the majority. T'he ncxt
largest plroportion, atbout 2 1 per cent eaclh,
is Iound in \Vest Bengal anild Kerala. Mtuslims
con.stitute about 16 percent in LlttarPiradeshl,
14 per ceit in 13i lar, I I per cent in Karrinataka
and 1) 9per cent in Maharashitra. The states
where M1uslimi population is about 5 percent
or ict. are Tanil Naidu Orissa, M\adh1ya
PradTle.sh1, Hiaryana and Punjaib. Christians are
mostly concentrated in Kerala, about 21 per
centl aid in Ta.mil Nadu, about 6 per cent
of the stalte pzopulationl. The other areasl where
Chri.stians awre found in sienificant
and Jammu and Kashimir where a sizeable
Agricuiltuire 43.9 36.3 37.9 38.6
number of Muslims live, the proportion in Non-agricultural 11.7 21.2 10).9 22.9
urban areas is either lower than or about the Agricultural
same as the state average. At the all-India labour 28.3 24.4 28.4 21.7
level, however, while only 22 per cent of Other labour 8.3 9.9 10.9 4.6
the Hindus live in urban areas, about 29 per Other occiupation 7.9 8.1 11.9 12.3
cent of Christians and 34 percent of Muslims
Note: Distribution of population who arc in-
do so. Yet a point to be noted is that 66 per
cluded under a certain categoIrV based on
cent of Muslims and 71 per ceit of Christians the household tylpe of worklsource of
still live in lndiain villages. mncome of the lhou.sehold to which they
bclong. These percentages do not repre-
III sent ciemploymiienit levels.
Somc-e: NSS 43rd Round. 1987-88. Table 27R
Socio-Economic Differentials Among (Page S-56).
Populations of Various Religions
TABH-. 5: DITrRIBTI(ON OF PERSONS BY
Socio-econonlic conditionis of a population HOUHOtaOLD) r), E (O(CUPATIItN) AND
cain be assessed by studyinig indicators, such REL.IiGION: URBAN INt)IA 1987-88
as. land ownership, occLipation, worker (Per- Cent)
population ratio, literiacy and school
Occupation HillduLs MuS- (Chist- Otlers
coliniiiuation rates. Such data, tor the first Iih s tanslils
time. haive been made available by tlhe
Nationial Samples Survey Organisation Self-eiimployed 35.9 53.4 21.4 44.6
(NSSO) through its 43rd round survey Regular wage/
conducted during 1987-88. NSSO is probably salaried 46.7 28.9 56.1 38.3
Casual labour 12.1 13.4 12.3 10.5
the most scientitic and( depenidable source
Others 5.4 4.3 10.2 6.6
of datai on various types of' social anid
economic information for both the states and Note: As in Table 4?l
national levels. These surveys are conducted Soulrce: NSS 43rd RounId 1987-88, Table 27U
on a sam)ple of households round the year (Page S-57).
TABLE 3: LEVEL OF URRANISATION AND SEx RATIoS A( COkDING To RELIGI10UIS
AFFILIATION FOR MAJOR INDIAN STATES, 1981
Per Cent Urban Sex Ratio
All Pop Hindu Muslitm Christian Hin(dui Muslim Christian
Andhr;a Pradesh 23.3 20.3 52.9 30.1 1072 1068 10(8
Karnataka 28.9 24.9 53.6 58.0 1024 1041 1013
Kerala 18.7 1 8.8 19.4 1 X(. 1038 1049 1003
Maharashtra 35.0 30.1 61.2 77.8 965 966 986
Taiiiil Nadu 32.9 30.8 62.7 38.5 1065 1 1(0 1065
Gujarat 31.1 27.9 56.6 54.3 1027 995 1(0(8
Rajasthan 21.0 8.4 46.9 61.5 1064 1045 1105
Ptinj;ab 27.7 48.1 35.9 1 8.1 1(91 1070 1(10
Harvana 21.9 22.4 7.7 62.1 1145 1172 1131
Uttar Pradesh 17.9 12.0 32.0 56.6 1151 1149 1117
Bihar 12.5 12.0 1 .2 16,0 1135 11(8 111i
Madhya Pradesh 20.4 17.6 59.8 35.6 1066 1021 984
Orissa 11.8 11.3 37.8 16.5 1061 1077 1(021
West Bengal 26.5 29.7 15.0 30.4 1(19 1054 992
Jaminui and Kashmir 21.0 21.8 20.4 66.8 1102 1(81 110(
All India 23.7 21.9 34.0 29.2 1(98 1134 1178

2948 Economic and Political Weekly November 18, 1995

This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:54:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 O CCUPATnON AND WORK PARTICIPA1io1(N
Some rare data on occupation and work
pal-ticipation rates both for rural and urban
is presenited in Table 4. Accordingly, in rural
Indiai. about 44 per cent of Hindus (includes
scheduled castes a-nd scheduled tribes)
under-take agricultural occupations as
opposed to only 36 per cent of Muslimns.
However, 22 per cent of rural Muslims are
engaged in noni-agricultural and non-labour
occupations as opposed to only 12 per cent
HIndus. Nevertheless, over one-third of both
religious populations work as agricultural/
manual labourers in rural areas.
In urban areas, whereas 47 per cent of
Hinidus (includes the scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes) are employed in regular
wage/salaried occupations in organised sector
(Table 5) only 29 per cent ot Muslims are
thus einployed. Majority ot Muslims are
selfI-emlployed, lor example, 53 per cenlt of
themii as opposed to 36 per cent of Hindus
are self-emilployed in urban areas. However,
1 2-13 per cent ol all the religious categories
worki .-is casual labourers in urban areas.
Information on type of employment and sex
spec tic work participation rates are difticult
to tind. This information in three broad
categories of employment, namely, self-
emilployed, regular workers and casual
workers was made available in the NSS 43rd
round publicaitions. 'Self-employed', are
those who earil their livelihood by working
on their owin traditional occupations and
enterprises including own agriculture.
'Reoular workers' are identitied as those
who work on long-term salaried jobs. All
the model-n public and private service sector
jobs are inclulded in this category 'casual
workers ar-c those who work lor walges on
ai day-to-day ba.sis.
Table 6 priesents structure of employment
and 'work participation rates' (WPR) tor
va-riou.s religious groups, by sex and residence
(i e. whetiler livinoin rural and urban areas).
Note that the WPRs for malles in botil rural
anild urbani areas for all religions are tairly
higlh. The male WPR is marginally higher
for- ll reli'ious Troups in rural areas. The
differeniltials between religious groups for
males is also marginal. The female WPRs
are substantially lower in both rural and
urbanl atreas. Besides, the disparities in WPRs
betwecn religious groups are substantial.
Forexaiple, the WPR amoig urban Muslim
femnales is as low as I I per cent while this
rate is 16 per cent for Hindus and 24 per
cent tor Christians. Similarly the rural WPR
tor femiiales is only 20 per cent for Muslims,
while it is 34 per cent and 37 per cent for
Hindlu.s anld Christians respectively. Apart
froImi thel laick ol work opportunities tor
tematcs tile cultural Ifactors such as practice
of purdha anid femaile seclusion might have
aftectcd the temale WPRs in India.
Wheni we take a look at the distribution
of em ployed persons by category of' work
it i.s interecstine to note that over 53 and 60)
pecr cent of malel atnd femnale Musilims,
Econoilc itnid Political Weekly November 18, 1995 29 4 9
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:54:09 UTC
respectively, in urbanl areas and 59 and 68 iireas, respectively. There are substantial
per cent of males and females, respectively. ditteretces in levels of living between rural
and urban aireais and among the dlitferent
in rural iareas are 'self-em)ployed'. This
percentage is substantially lower for both
TAItLI 7: D)ISTRIBI 1ON ()PI:kRSNS BY SIZE.
Hindu and Christian males and 1emiiales in
CLASS ()I iFtv xi ti) LAND) .\Ni) Riol-GION:
urban areas. On the contrary Hindus' and
RURs. lNI)Il\. 1987-88
Christians' share in 'regular-workers'
category is substantially higher for both Area in Hindus Mtusllims C(hristlials Others
males and females in urban areas. Muslims' Acres
employment in regular wage/salaried jobs is
(.0 28.0 34.7 30.4 40.7
marginal. This presents a very dismal pictiure
< 1 17.3 24.4 27.5 12.1
especially for Muslim females since their
1-2. 5 18.3 17.5 8X.9 8.5
WPRs are very low to start with and ot them 2.5-5 16.3 12.1.) i 4. 3 12.0
only an insignificant proportion is in regularly 5+ 20.1 105 8.(9 26.7
paid jobs. One possible reason for this may
Source: NSS 43rd RounlId. 1987-88. Table 23.7
be the lack of secular education among the
Indian Muslim females (see Tables 10- 13 and (Page S-53).
a discussion below). In the 'cassual workers'
TABLE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF PERsONS BY
category Muslims' share ot' employment is HOUSEHOLDn MON1THLY P'R CAITIA ExPIFNDITURE
comparable to other religious categories. AND) RELIGItON: RURAI. INI)IA. 1987-88
(Uer Cen,t)
OWNERSHIP OF LAND
HH MPCE Hindluis Mus- Christ- Others
Distribution of land ownership describes
(Rs) Iiins ians
the intensity of resource base especially of
a rural population dependent upon < 8) 13.7 12.0 1 2. 5 9.6
agriculture. Table 7 presents land ownership 8(0-11( 22.8 23.1 1 5.? 1I.7
data for the all-India rural population. 110-160 31.3 33.6 27. 1 26.4
160)+ 31.6 3).5 4 3.2 46.7
Excepting the 'other religions category
(which is ai relatively smaller proportion of
Nole: The percentagc na;zy not add uip to 100
the total population) relative landlessness is becau.se the non-rcported part of the per-
more among Muslims. As opposed to only centage is not presented.
28 per cent of Hindus 35 per cenlt Muslims Source: NSS 43rd Round, 1987-88, Table 25R
are landless. Hindus also have a relative (Page S-54).
advantage in owning land in large size class.
TABLE 9: DISTRIBlUION OF PERSONS BY
For example, while one-fifth of Hindus own
HOUSEHIOLD) MONTHLY I'Ek CAPITA EXPENDITURE
live acres or more of land, only one-tenth ANI) RELIGtION: URIIAN INDIA, 1987-88
of Muslims belong to this category. tWer Ce,ii)
RELATIvtE LEVELS o: LivING HH MPCE Hindutis Mu.s- Christ- Others
(Rs) limiis lalns
The NSSO is known to provide data
relating to the monthly per capita < 110 13.1 22.0) 11.0 11.7
expenditures (MPCE) for both rural and IMl-160) 22.5 31.3 17.2 15.2
urban populations of India. The MPCE is 160-310 41.2 35.6 33.4 38.1
considered a better index of levels of living 310)+ 22.5 1).7 35.5 34.0)
than the monthly per capita income GDP
Vole: The percentage nay not ad( ) p to I100
figures. Distribution of population according
because the noln-reported part of tlc per-
to MPCE presents a reasonable picture of' centalge is not presented.
the relative levels of living. Such information Source: NSS 43rd Round, 1987-88. Table 25U
is given in Tables 8 and 9 for rural and urban (Page S-55).
TABLE 6: PATTERN OF EMPILOYMENT BY RELIGION IN INDIA, I 987-88
Residence/Sex Self- Regular Casual All Work Participation
and Religion Employed Workers Workers Ra.te
Urhan miiales
Hindus 39.1 46.4 14.5 100.0 O52.()
Muslimns 53.3 29.9 16.7 1 (0(.0 49.1
Christians 29.7 53.4 17.0 10(0.( 48.9
Urban feinales
Hindus 45.0 27.7 26.4 100.0 15.9
Muslimlis 60.0 15.7 24.3 I (X).(O 11.4
Christiains 34.3 51.5 14.2 100.() 2 3.6
Rural mlales
Hindus 58.5 10 . 1 31.4 100.0 54.2
Muslills 59.0 7.5 33.5 100.0 50.5
Christians 52.1 12.0 35.9 1000.()
Rural 1femiales
HindJus 59.9 3.6 36.5 10((.0 33.7
Muslims 67.9 3.0 2"9.1 1((0.(0 1 9.6
Christians 57.6 9.9 32.4 10((.0 37.3
Source: NSS 43 Round, 1987-88 (SchedLuled- IO).
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
religions in urban India. The relative
difference between the Hindus and Muslims
is marginal in rural areas, but the difference
is considerable in urban areas. For example,
while 53 per cent of Muslims fall into the
category of less than Rs 160 MPCE, this
percentaoe is only 36 among Hindus. At the
higher per capitai expenditure classes the
pFoportion of Hindus is considerably larger.
It mav' he recalled that most of the Muslims
in urhan areas are selt-employed as opposed
to ai majority of Hin(lus who are employed
in teie organised/salaried sector. It is likely
thiat the levc1s of income generated by self-
employment is substantially lower than the
average income originating from the
organiised sector. The Christian population
both in ruiral ainl urbanl areas has a relatively
better distribution of the MPCE.
RimAli A1 LEVELS OF EDUCATION
Levels of literacy and percentage of
younger population continuing in edu-
cational institutions are considered good
ilndicator-s of social development. Tables 10
and 11 present information on levels of
eduJCactioll iacihieved by males and females
accor-ding to religious categories. It is
revealillg tlhit in rural areas Christians are
by far thc mnost educated. While illiteracy
am10on1g Muslilml inenl is 58 per cent, it is 51
pci cenlt amiong Hindus and only 34 per cent
amnonLz Cihr i sitians. For f emales, respective
pecelritalges of illiteracy are 76, 75 and 43.
Christians r-etaini thcir leIad even in higher
educltilon catcgories. torexample, 9 pcrcenlt
ot Chrlstiln miiales and 8 per cent of females
are seconidar-y e(lucated, whereas these figures
lor the Hindus (includes the SCs and STs)
and the Muslimiis respectively are 5.7 and 1.7
per cent, and 3.4 and 0.8 per cent. Further,
\vhile nonl-negligible proportion of Muslim
femiales and only 0.6 per cent of Muslim
malles arc found in graduate and above
category. these proportions are 0.2 and 1.2
per cent for Hindlus, and 1.5 and 1.8 per cent
f'or Clhristilills.
Relatixe to rurLal areas, in urban areas the
literate con!slittilc a. fair proportion ainong
all tile religious categories. The male
illiteratcs in urhban aireas are only 19 percent.
25 per ceint aind 42 per cent lfor Clhristians,
Hindus aindl Musli ms, respectively, and
femnale illiterates zire 23 per cent, 42 per cent
and 59 per ceit, respectively. Literacy rates
at the level of' secondclary education in the
samne order are als follows: 20 per cent, 1 7
per cenit land 8 per cent for males, and ftor
feimileles, 21 per cent, II per cent and only
4 per cent. Higher ecducated proportions are
relatively better among Christian anid Hindu
malcs, 8 per cent eacil, but only 2.3 per cent
of Muslim males atre reported to he graduates
an(d above. This achievement among females
is 5.5 per cent anmong Christians, 4.2 per cent
for Hindus and only 0.8 percent for Muslims.
Tabhles I 2 andl 13 present data on continuing
educationl by religious categories for rural
a1nd urbanl area.s. Education continuation rates
both in rural alnd urban alreas are better
9 5() Economic and Political Weekly November 18 1995
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:54:09 UTC
among Christian males as well as females. all religious categories. However, at each
The enrolment and continuation rates are level and in both rural and urban areas Muslim
also better in urban than in rural areas for rates are substantially lower than Hindus.
TABLE 10: DISTRIBUTION OF PERSON BY GENERAL EDUCATION, SEX AND RELIGION: RURAL INDIA, 1987-88
(Percetntage)
Educational Level Hindus Muslims Christians Others
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Not Literate 51.3 75.0 58.2 76.1 33.7 43.1 45.3 61.4
< Pnmary 19.( 11.8 18.6 13.1 20.5 17.8 17.9 15.7
Pri-Middle 22.7 11.2 19.1 9.9 35.4 29.2 25.5 19.4
Secondary 5.7 1.7 3.4 0.8 9.3 8.1 9.( 3.1
Graduate + 1.2 0.2 0.6 - 1.8 1.5 2.3 0.3
Source. NSS 43rd Round, 1987-88, Table 31.4 (Page S82, 83).
TABLE I 1: DISTRIBLMON OF PERSON BY GENERAL EDUCAnON, SEX AND RELIGION: URBAN INDIA, 1987-88
(Percentag'e)
Educational Level Hindus Muslims Christians Others
Male Femnale Male Feinale Male Felnale Male Felnale
Not Literate 25.3 42.2 42.4 59.5 18.8 22.7 18.0 31.2
< Primnary 18.8 17.2 20.9 18.5 16.0 17.5 15.6 14.7
Pri-Middle 30.5 25.3 26.3 16.8 36.7 33.4 30.0 8.5
Secondary 17.2 10.7 8.0 4.3 20.1 20.8 23.6 17.5
Graduate + 7.9 4.2 2.3 0.8 8. 1 5.5 11.7 7.9
Source: NSS 43rd Round, 1987-88, Table 31.4 (Page S85, 86).
TABLE 12: DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS CURRENTLY ArrENDING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
ACCORDING TO AGE GROUP, SEX AND RELIGION: RURAL INDIA. 1987-88
(Per Cenit)
Attendinig Hindus Muslims Christians Others
School/Age group Male Fein Male FeI Male Fein Miale Femin
5 - 9 53.5 40.6 42.1 32.8 67.4 66.9 60. 1 50.5
10(- 14 66.9 41.3 56.6 37.0 75.6 70.1 62.6 65.4
15 - 19 37.7 12.6 26.9 8.8 47.7 43.3 31.3 13.7
20+ 8.8 1.8 7.4 1.4 14.0 10.4 9.3 1.7
N.R. 3.2 1.2 15.0 15.9 50.9 - 8.7 16.7
Source: NSS 43rd Round, 1987-88, Table 37 (P age S 106. 107)
TABLE 13: DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS CURRENTLY ATTENDING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACCORDING, TO
AGE GROUP, SEX AND RELIGION: URBAN INDIA, 1987-88
(Per Cent)
Attending Hindus Musliins Christians Others
School/Age group Male Fein Male Fem Male Femn Male Fein
5 - 9 76.3 70.7 56.0 52.1 89.2 86.1 88.0 85.6
10 - 14 83.2 74.6 63.6 53.6 93.3 9(.( 89.8 82.7
15 - 1'9 56.1 42.4 34.8 19.3 60.6 57.1 63.7 60.2
20+ 21.8 10.2 12.1 4.7 18.2 17.0 35.8 17.2
N.R. 31.3 29.4 6.4 - 67.4 13.6 3.0 40.7
Source: NSS 43rd Round, 1987-88, Table 37 (Page S109, 110)
TABLE 14: HOLISEHOLI) SIZE ACCORDING TO RELIGIoUS AFFILIATION FOR MAJOR INDIAN STAlTES, 1981
States All India Hindus Muslim.s Christians
Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
Andhra Pradesh 4.87 5.08 4.87 4.90 5.19 5.99. 4.51 4.87
Karnataka 5.80 5.81 5.78 5.61 6.0)5 6.69 5.29 5.54
Kerala 5.70 6.02 5.48 5.69 6.48 7.38 5.62 5.85
Maharashtrai 5.41 5.29 5.43 5.08 5.77 6.29 5.23 4.82
Tamil Nadu 4.61 4.92 4.59 4.83 . 5.10 5.70 4.77 5.08
Gujarat 5.81 5.2'9 5.82 5.48 5.93 6.42 4.97 4.64
Ra ; jasthan 5.92 5.74 5.91 5..56 .6.21 6.81 4.67 4.01
Punjab 6.27 5.72 5.99 5.62 6.46 6.09 6.19 5.57
Haryana 6.79 5.55 6.79 5.54 6.79 5.28 5.45 4.32
Uttar Pradesh 5.71 5.89 5.68 5.61 6.17 6.71 5.59 5.59
Bihar 6.03 6.08 6.04 5.89 6.14 7.26 5.62 5.50
Madhya Pradesh 5.62 5.50 5.61 5.31 6.06 6.80 5.57 4.74
Orissa 5.30 5.01 5.30 4.97 6.07 5.92 5.22 4.87
West Bengal 5.71 5.32 5.65 5.25 5.90 5.84 5.63 5.71
Jalninu and Kashinir 6.37 6.37 5.94 5.55 6.66 7.00 5.52 5.83
All India 5.59 5.45 5.54 5.27 6.06 6.45 5.30 5.23
Sourc e: Various Census Documents.
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
For example, in age group 15-19 in urban
areas, 56 per cent Hindu boys are continuing
education as opposed to only 35 per cent
among Muslims. These percentages are 42
and 19 for females. For age groups 20 years
and over, the respective percentages are
323 and 12 for Hindus and 10 and 15 for
Muslims. In rural areas the scenario is
similar but at much lower levels for all
religious categories.
Thus far we know that in terms of all the
socio-economic parameters discussed above
the Muslims are relatively worse-off than
the majority Hindus which includes the SCs
and STs and the Christian population in both
rural and urban areas in India. In the f'ollowing
some evidences on the demographic aspects
according to major religions in India are
preselnted. Demographic transition theories
have informed that the socio-economic
tactor-s influence the demographic parameters
to a larg,e extent. Accordingly socio-
econom-C icmprovement of a group or a region
would depress fertility, reduce mortality
leading to an overall improvement in the
quality of life.
IV
Demographic Differentials and
Future Growth of Population
FERTILITY AND MORALITY DiffERENTIALS
A comparative picture of the household
size 'or three religious populations according
to place of residence is presented in Table
14. Overiall the household size for Muslims
both in rural and urban areas is higher than
that of the Christians and Hindus for all
states and for all India. A larger household
size among the Muslims suggests: (a) a
relatively higlher practice of living in joint
faamily situations, and (b) that actual family
size per couple is also relatively high among
Muslims. Various census publications
contain datai which present differentials in
fertility and mortality of religion. Tables 15
and 16 contain this data for 14 major states
in India.
General marital fertility rate. (GMFR)
presents the number of children born in a
year per thousand married women in the age
group 15-49. The total marital fertility rate
(TMFR) presents the total numberof children
expected to be born to a married woman
during her whole reproductive period starting
at age 15 and ending at around 50 years. The
child mortality rate (q2) presents number of
childen who are born alive but dying before
their second birthday per thousand live born
children. Since the child mortality depend
upon the socio-economic development of a
group, it is considered a composite and
summary index of development and standard
of living.
The data presented on the above indices
suggest that both in the urban and rural areas
in almost all states, the GMFR and TMFR
are consistently higher among the Muslims
when compared with the Hindus and the
Christians. Fertility among the Christians of
Economic and Political
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:54:09 UTC
Kerala is the lowest. On the other hand -the TABLE 17: MEAN NUNIIER k1F LIVE BIRTHS ANL)
q2 for rural Muslims in almost all states has PROPORTION SURVIVING, ACCORDING TO
been fairly lower than for Hindus and in RELIGION, EDUCATION ANI) INCOME:
many states lower than for Christians. In ALL INDIA, 1988-89
urban areas as well, with the noteworthy Hindu Muslim Others All
exceptions of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West
Bengal, the q2 for Muslims is lower than All 3.09 3.51 2.83 3.13
(i) Mean Live Births by Levels of Education
the Hindus. A combination of a positive
Illiterates 3.37 3.72 - 3.50 3.41
growth of population and a low infant
Up to Primary 3.16 3.57 3.19 3.22
mortality rate (also low death rate) might
Secondary and+2.33 2.71 2.83 3.35
have enabled a growth rate of population as (ii) Mean Live Births by Levels of Income
a whole. Nevertheless, one wonders as to <Rs 500 3.20 3.47 3.64 3.21
what could be the possible reasons for low Rs 501-750 3.28 3.74 3.46 3.34
child mortality among Muslims while the Rs 75 1 - I,00() 3.0)7 3.56 3.11 3.13
fertility rates are supposedly higher, and that Rs 1,001-1,500 3.03 3.53 3.05 3.08
they are also socio-economically worse-olf. Rs 1,501+ 2.65 3.21 2.49 2.68
(iii) Proportion Surviving by Levels of Incoine
It may be possible to provide valid reasons
<Rs () X.805.7 845.2 880).7 811.8
for such a paradox through a three way
Rs 501-750 822.1 875.3 856.2 82(9.6
classification and also through multivariate
Rs 751-1,000 870.6 888.2 885.8 873.7
analytical methods. Such data are not yet Rs 1,001-1,500877.6 911.2 911.2 886.6
made available by the censuses. However, Rs 1,501+ 908.7 906.8 935.7 910.7
some relevant data of this sort is published All 840.4 873.3 893.3 846.0
by the Operations Research Group. Baroda
Source: Operations Research Group 1990,
who have been undertaking National Family pp 10, Iand 17.
TABLE 15: FERTILITY AND MORTALITY INDICES BY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION FOR MAJOR STATE:
RURAL INDIA, 1981
States GMFR TMFR q2
Hindu Mus Chris Hindu Mus Chris Hindu Mus Chris
Andhra Pradesh 121 142 136 3.8 4.5 4.3 117 106 116
Karnataka 119 150 130 3.5 4.6 4.2 114 95 94
Kerala 120 162 118 3.9 4.8 4.0 57 59 45
Maharashtra 143 116 114 4.5 5.2 3.9 132 110 76
Tamil Nadu 127 148 159 4.2 4.7 5.2 117 91 107
Gujarat 138 166 104 4.1 5.0 3.3 123 113 104
Rajasthan 197 206 225 6.3 6.5 6.5 166 156 108
Punjab 155 173 191 4.8 5.7 5.9 111 1(8 119
Haryana 179 184 203 5.4 5.3 7.2 132 174 96
Uttar Pradesh 144 169 154 4.7 5.5 4.8 167 152 118
Bihar 126 139 130 4.0 4.4 4.5 117 116 114
Madhya Pradesh 165 204 150 5.2 6.3 4.8 117 149 98
Orissa 131 169 141 4.2 5.4 4.6 155 134 171
West Bengal 144 168 143 4.4 5.1 4.2 110 119 105
All India - - - - - - - - -
Notes: Where applicable graduated figures are incorporated.
GMFR: General Marital Fertility Rate.
TMFR: Tctal Marital Fertility Rate.
q2: Mortality of Children by the age of 2 years.
Source: Occasional Papers on 'Fertility and Child Mortality Estimates' for various States, Census of
India 1981, Governmnent of India.
TABLE 16: FERTILITY AND MORTALITY INDICES BY RELIGIOUS AF:FILIATION
FOR MAJOR STATE: URBAN INDIA, 1981
States GMFR TMFR q2
Hindu Mus Chris Hindu Mus Chris Hindu Mus Chris
Andhra Pradesh 114 133 125 3.4 4.1 3.9 74 58 77
Karnataka 95 130 89 2.9 3.9 2.9 79 72 59
Kerala 104 146 108 3.6 4.2 3.7 40 57 42
Maharashtra 112 138 79 3.4 4.2 2.9 78 72 48
Talnil Nadu 123 152 138 3.9 4.6 4.6 83 78 -7
Gujarat 116 139 87 3.3 4.2 2.6 77 771 4
Rajasthan 152 172 122 4.5 5.2 3.4 01 '(I 69
Punjab 118 186 137 3.5 5.8 4.0) 62 80 65
Haryana 146 182 143 4.2 5.5 4.0) 76 83 47
Uttar Pradesh 130 168 104 4.0 5.3 3.3 91 94 -
Bihar 118 128 113 3.6 4.0 3.8 70 78 54
Madhya Pradesh 146 168 113 4.3 5.1 3.9 106 92 58
Orissa 128 161 134 4.0 4.9 4.3 104 99 81
West Bengal 85 121 81 2.9 3.8 3.0) 59 70 54
All India - - - - - - - - -
Note: as in Table 15.
Source: as in Table 15.
Weekly November 18, 1995 2951
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Planining Surveys at intervals ot about a
decade since 1970.
Distribution of the mean number of live
births (MNLBs) ianld proportion surviving
according- to reliaion, education and income
are presented in Table 17. These f'igures are
the national average from a survey of about
45.0(X) householJds spread over all the states
aniid union territories found in the mainland
Intdia. Mean number of live births for the
country .Is a whole is 3.13. Overall the
Hindus hlve about 13 percent lower MNLBs
than the Muslims. Women's education has
a negative etfect on tertility among all the
religious categories. However, the fertility
ditlerenitial between the Hindus and Muslims
still rem-aini. A fact to be noted, however,
is that while the tertility aniong the well
educated (secondary level and over) Hindus
was 31 per cent lesser than the illiterates,
among the Muslims also this differential was
as muclh over 27 per cent. Besides, with an
increase in education of women, fertility
difterenices between the Hindus and the
Muslims decreases considerably. This
suggests that educating women will depress
fertility irrespective of religious atffiliation.
TAIBLE I8: CllRRENT CONTRACEPTIVE USERS
Ac ()R)IN( rO REIHGIOUS CATEGORIES:
ALI. INDIA, 1998-89
(Millionls)
HindLu Muslim Others No of
Couples
Sterilisation 88.7 6.5 4.7 4.2
IUD 78.7 1. 1 11.2 2.6
Conventional
contracel)tives 79.6 11.2 9.3 7.1
Oral pills 8(.1 16.8 3.64 1.9
Tradilional 82.4 10.2 7.3 6.7
All iimetlods 86.1 8.0 6.7 60.3
Percentage
in tolal
population 85.2 10.6 4.2 134.1
Source: Operations Research Group. 1990, p 94.
Simila.rly an increase in levels of family
income depress fertility albeit of lower
magnitude among all the religious categories
(Panel ii, Table 17). Neverthieless, the eft'ect
of education decreasing fertility levels both
among Muslims and Hindus is substantially
larger than the depressing effect on fertility
of increase in levels of income.
The survival status of children is relatively
better among the Muslims (Panel iii,
Table 17), and this relative advantage is
higher in lower income levels. An increase
in the level of incomes will lead to improved
survival amon'g the Hindus. However, an
appareint 4 per ce.nt advantage in survival
among the Muslims seems to be marginal.
USE OF MODERN CONNTRACEPTIVES
The use of modern contraceptives is
marginally lower among the Muslims when
compared with the Hindus. However, the
usership rates are substantial than what one
is given to understand or generally talked
about. For example, while the proportion of
the Hindus is 85.2 per cent of sample
population (Table 18), their percentage in
contraceptive users is 86.1 Whereas, the
Muslims constitute 10.6 per cent of the
sample population, their share in the
contraceptors is only 8 per cent. Further, the
regular users of contraceptives are 50.3 of
all eligible women among the Hindus and
this percetntage is 40.7 per cent for Muslims.
Although the usership rates are relatively
low, Muslims are not averse to acceptance
of family planning as it is normally portrayed
in the print media.
Panel (i) of Table 19 presents change in
the family planning usership during 1970-88
according to religious categories. From a
developmental point of view it is interesting
to note that the family planning use which
was only 14 per cent and 9 per cent for the
Hindus and Muslims, respectively, during
1970 has increased to 46 per cent and 34
per cent, respectively, in 1988. Thc
percentage change duiring 1970-80 was 22
and 14 percentage points for the Hindus and
the Muslims, respectively, but during 1980-88
this percentage change was 10 and 11
respectively, relatively more among the
Muslims. Panel (ii) of Table 19 presents
change in the inter-spousal communication
of family planning among the religious
groups. It is noteworthy that this change has
been highest among the Muslims, recording
a 20 percentage point higher than in 1980
which is more than an increase among the
Hi,ndus which is only 16 percentage points.
However, as far as Muslims are concerned,
the treind in acceptance of family planning
is encouraging, indeed the percentage change
is relatively larger than the Hindus between
1980-88. This evidence allays a coinmon
allegation that Muslims are against the use
of tamily planning. Indleed the evidence is
to the contrary.
FUTURE GROWTH OF MUSLIM POPt lATION
The available evidence suggests that in
spite of declining fertility anid mortality for
the population as a wvhole anltd also for all
its religious componenits, the relative fertility
is higher and relative chilId mortality is lower
among the Muslims compared to other
religious populations in India. Does this
inean that over a period of time the Muslim
population would exceed the Hindu
population in India? An answer to this can
be found in simulation exercises unidertaken
in aresarchconducted attheGokhale Institute
of Politics and Economics, Pune [Mistry
19901. Table 20 reproduces the results of
this simulation exercise. It can be seen that
if the base population of minority community
is 10 per cent, and if the difterential in the
exponential growth rate is -0.004 (rate of
growth of total population - r' minus rate
of growth of minority population - r2) then
the percentage of minority population will
be 12 per cent in 50 years duration. 14.2 per
cent in 100 years, 16.8 per cent in 150 years,

TABLE 19: CHANGE IN USERSHIP AND

INTER-SPOItSE COMMUNICATION ON FAMILY
PLANNING DURING 1970-88 ACCORDING TO
REI-IGIOUS CATEGORIES: ALL INDIA
(Per Cetnt)
TABLE 20: PERCENTAGE OF MINORITY GROLUP (P,) IN A TOTAL POPULATION (P.) BY MEAN ANNLIAL
DIFFERENTIAL GROWTH RATE AND BY DLURATION: A SIMULATION EXERCISE
Formula: (I /q) = I + (P, /P, ) Exp [(r, -r, )]
Initial Percentage of Duration Mean Annual Exponential Growth

Year Hindu Muslim Others Population of in Years (t) Rate Differential (r, - r,)
Minority Group( (p2) - .002 - 004 - 006
(i) Ftoiln l Phlnning Userslil)
1970 14 9 25 P= 10.0 0 10.( 1(.() 10.0
198( 36 23 48 50 10.9 12.0 13.0
1988 46 34 62 1(K) 12.0. 14.2 16.8
Percentage point 150 13.0 16.8 21.5
change during 1970) 200 14.2 19.8 27.0
to 1980 +22 +14 +23
P,= 25.0 0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Percentage point
50 26.9 28.9 31.0
change durin& 1980 100 28.9 33 2 37.8
to 1988 +10 +11 +14
150 31.0 37.8 45.1
(ii) hier-spoise contmnunicaltion
200 33 .) 42.6 52.5
011 foil' (I lning
198() 36 25 45 P, = 50.0 0 50.) 50.0 50.0
1988 52 45 58 50 52.5 55.0 57.4
Percentag,e point 100 55.0 59.9 64.6
chalnge tfom')X( 1980-8X+16 +20 +13 150 57.4 64.6 71-1
200 59.9 69.0 76.8
CSOurc(e: Opera;tion1S Researc:h Group. 1990.)
p 106(. Source: Mistry (1990).

2952 Economic and Political Weekly November 18, 1995

This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:54:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
19.8 in 200 years and so on. Note that these
percentagcs are achieved only if the growth
rate diftercntial remains unchanged over a
200-year period. But normally the growth
rate diifferential s do not remain static and the
tendenicies are towards a secularequalisation
of growth rates among all the groups of
human popu,lations.
Howe ver, the present Hindu-Muslim
fertility and population growth rate
ditferenltials are not large and are likely to
narrow down in future [Mistry 19901.
Besides, any minority can become a majority
only wheni three coniditions are jointly met;
that the miinority constitutes a significant
proportioin of the total population, the
populationi trow th rate difflential is large ald
the duration is substantially long. Since
Musliiims constitute only about 12 per cent
ot the total population and that the growth
rate dilfferential is about 0.005, at the national
level it is not possible that the Muslims can
outnumber the Hindus in India for a
consideratble period of time to come.
V A simulation exercise reproduced in this
Conclusions
This paper reviews some socio-economic
antid demographic characteristics of
population according to religious affiliation
in Inidia. The Hindus are the signiticant
majority in all states excepting in Jaminu
and Kashliir and Punjab, where Muslims
and Sikhls respectively outnumber them.
Amonlg the 14 majcor states, the Christians
are toundl in substantial percentage only in
Keralai. It is found that the growth of
Muslim.s is higher than tlhat of the other
religious populations. Muslims are found
to be dwelling relatively more in urban
areas than tihe other sets of people. Muslims
are mostly self-employed and their share
in regular paid jobs is low. Hindu popul:8-tion
is relatively better employed in regular
employmlenlt in urban areas. The work
participationi of Muslim females is extemely
low. The land holding is relatively better
among the Hindus than the Muslims, and
Muslims work on non-agricultural occu-
pations in substantial proportions in rural
parts of India. Muslims by tar are least
educated wlien compared with Hindu and
Christian populations in India. The scenario
is sa.me iflone stuLdies the student population
both in rural and urban areas as well. Muslim
women atre the least educated of all the
possible categories discussed in this paper.
Although the MPCE compares well between
the Hindus and Muslims in rural areas, it is
highly lopsided tfavouring Hindus in the
urban areas. On the whole the Muslims are
socio-econiomilically worse off in all parts of
the country.
The levels of fertility as measured by
GMFR and TMFR are higher for Muslims
in both rural and urban areas. But the child
mortality among both the urban and rural
Muslims is comparatively low. A combi-
nation of a positive growth of population
Economic and Political Weekly November 18, 1995 2953
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:54:09 UTC
and a low child mortality seem.s to have
enabled a marginally higher growth of'
Muslim population in India. More recently.
however. there has been a noteworthy
increase in the acceptance ol' t'ami ly planning
methods among the Muslims. In tact the
percentage change in the f'amily planning
use is marginally higher than for the Hindus.
The inter-personal cominunicationl retarding
the family planning use hias also increased
substantially among the Muslims in India.
There, however, seeins to be a paradox.
Muslims in India are relatively poorer thani
the other populations, they have recorded
relatively low levels ot' MPCEs, do not
work as regular wage earners, are mostly
illiterates, have relatively high fertility but
contrary to the expectation they maintain
a low chiild mortality. A question arises as
to what could be the possible reasons for
low child mortality among Muslims while
the fertility rates are supposedly higher.
Social scientists and demographers need to
present a reasonable answer to this
contradictory demographic phenomenon.
paper suggests that the Muslim population
will not overtake the Hindu population in
India during a foreseeable future. The recent
type of the communal and anti-secular
minded opinion being expressed that
Muslims soon will outnumber Hindus in
DISCUSSION
Candour about the T'wice-Born
Sudhanshu Ranade
CANDOUR has a way of cropping up in the
most unexpected places. In a Hindustan Lever
ad, for instance, that I saw in the EPWa few
years ago, the message was something like
this: we do not sell products, we sell feelings
(cosmetic feelings, the ad might have said,
but didn't) like beauty. self-confidence.
freshness, vigour, etc. More recently there
was, once again in the EPW, an article by
Paul Brass (September 9) in which, while
making a case for increased access to sensiti ve
areas for A merican academics, Brass referred
to the "nearly two centuries long political
drive by upper class elites to establish a
'national culture' for India based on their
own values and interpretation of Indian
history". The sub-title of the article, 'Virtue
Unrewarded', nicely sums up one of its
themes, and nothing further needs to be said
in this matter, except that it would be
interesting to know whether the sub-title was
inserted by the editorial staff of the weekly,
or Brass had himself put it there, 'up front'.
But the case for liberalised access was not
based solely on virtue. Other things figured
as well, like commerce, and the need to free
academics from the 'Four Faces of Indian
Bureaucracy'. Such a proliferation- of
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
India does not stand the test ot the scientilic
and academlic enquiry. This paper, however,
concludes hy emphasising the need to
strengthen the data base which would allow
a study ofethnilic and religious differentials
in socio-economic and educational
achievemenlts. The Census of India can take
a lead in this direction by publishing the
cross tabulations of litcracy by religion and
distributionl of workers by religion anld
industry at the level of India. states and
various districts. Furthier, there is a need
to undertake focuse( micro-studies to
clearly understand the nature, type and
magnitude of socio-econonlic problems
faced by various conimunities in rural and
urban India.
References
Mistry. M B (1990): 'Hindu-Muslim Fertility
Differentials in India', M Phil Dissertation,
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics,
University of Poona.
National Sa;mple Survey Organisation (1990):
Sirivekshiana: Results of the Foturth Quiii-
quenniatl Suirvey, oJ1 Emplovymnent an,,d
Unemnl4ovinent, NSSO. Ministry of Planning,
Governimient of India, New Delhi.
Operations Research Group (1990): Family
Plaunning' Practices /in Indi(a: 71l,Ird All
ltitlinda Sur- e!, Oper-ations Research Group.
Baroda.
arguments is, of course, only to be expected.
As John Lewis put it once, once you have
decided, for some reason, to support a cause
like, say, human rights in China, it makes
sense to broad-base yourself by adducing all
sorts of other reasons as well. The example
is mine; Lewis's reference at that time was
to poverty alleviation in the days when the
World Bank, under the stewardship of former
secretary of state McNainara, was espousing
this cause of poverty alleviation 'directly'
rather than 'indirectly' as at present.
But let us return to the point about 'upper
class elites' attempting to establish 'a national
culture in their own image'. The quote on
this was, in the article, immediately preceded
by a statemenlt that those studyinlg the glory
of India's past were being allowed free access
because their output 'feeds into' the
hegemonic enterprise. A sound move, from
the point of obtaining additional support
from liberal circles in India for lifting
restricti.ons on access. And, in an apparent
attempt at leaving no stone unturned while
reaching out-to the already anguished hearts
in this lobby, Brass immediately followed
up the 'national culture' formulation with
the warning that "time may yet be coming...