Aljazeera's Revolutionary New Method For The Analysis of Population Data
Shrikant G. Talageri
I passed my SSC (Secondary School Certificate) examination in 1975 in Mumbai. It was a transitional year in which the old educational regime of 11th standard SSC was replaced by a new educational regime of 10th standard SSC. That year, 1975, was the last year of the old 11th standard SSC and also the first year of the new 10th standard SSC. At that time, I remember the phrase "New Mathematics" being bandied around as being the mathematics which was being taught to the 10th standard SSC students. I don't know (or don't remember) what exactly was the "new" part, but I remember the phrase New Mathematics.
Fortunately, I am at present living at a revolutionary point of time in history when a genuinely New Mathematics has been invented by Aljazeera.com at least for the analysis of population demographics.
I just came across the following article in Aljazeera.com about demographic changes in the religious population in India from 1951 to 2015, in reference to what it calls "A new government report" that "claims that the country’s Muslim population share has increased 43 percent since 1950, fuelling an unfounded conspiracy theory":
The article of course contains the usual crap one would expect in an article on this (or any other Muslim) subject from Aljazeera: rejecting the conclusion of the "new government report" on the ground that this report is a pre-election ploy by the BJP (not an implausible conclusion), and then quoting all kinds of leftist and anti-Hindu academics from all over the world who want us to reject the actual data and to believe in a conspiracy theory (that a false report is being circulated). [Strangely, the article itself uses the phrase "conspiracy theory", but only to suggest that it is Hindu elements who are promoting a conspiracy theory to show that Muslims are taking over India!]
I am not concerned with, and will ignore, the rest of the crap in this article. What struck me was the Totally New Mathematical Method invented by Aljazeera to show that it is not Muslims but in fact Hindus who are growing at a faster rate in India.
I think this is a really revolutionary way of looking at population demographics to show which religious population is stealing a march over which other religious population in the matter of growth. And Aljazeera, or else the writer of this article (who else but a leftist "Hindu") Yashraj Sharma, should be given some kind of Nobel Prize (perhaps in a newly invented category) for this new and revolutionary method.
The funniest thing about the article, in its attempt to show that the Muslim population in India is not exploding, is that it mentions, but later ignores, the basic facts about the Muslim and Hindu populations in India: "the share of the Muslim population in India increased by 43.15 percent, from 9.84 percent to 14.09 percent. By contrast, it says, the share of the majority Hindu population decreased by 7.82 percent between 1950 and 2015, from 84.68 percent to 78.06 percent." These basic facts are not what some stray report "says": it is exactly in line with what every recorded census since 1951 has shown.
The article tries to discredit the population figures saying they are not based on the official census: "The report relies on data from a survey, not the decadal national Census that was last conducted in 2011." But this is a brazen lie: check the data anywhere. Type "religious population of India census 2011" on Google and you will get the following: "According to the 2011 census, 79.8% of the population of India practices Hinduism, 14.2% adheres to Islam, 2.3% adheres to Christianity, 1.7% adheres to Sikhism, 0.7% adheres to Buddhism and 0.4% adheres to Jainism".
The figure of 78.06% for Hindus may be the estimate of the "new report" taking 2015 as the base. But we need not take the data in this report. The Census of 2011 gives us the following figures: "the share of the Muslim population in India increased by 69.29 percent, from 9.84 percent to 14.2 percent. The share of the Hindu population decreased by 6.92 percent between 1950 and 2011, from 84.68 percent to 79.8 percent."
In short: Yes, as per the official census figures, the rise in percentage of Muslims and the fall in percentage of Hindus between 1951 and 2011 definitely shows that the population of Muslims in India has "exploded".
But then comes this revolutionary New Mathematical Method of judging the results: "The paper, its critics say, overlooks the actual rise in the Hindu population in this period – and how that compares to the Muslim population increase in this period. Between 1951 and 2011, the Muslim population rose from 35.4 million to 172 million. The Hindu population rose from 303 million to 966 million in the same period – a five times greater increase."
According to this paper, you are not supposed to draw conclusions on the basis of percentage figures: you are supposed to draw conclusions on the basis of actual figures in numbers.
Thus:
a) Muslims increased from 35.4 million to 172 million: this is only an increase of 136.6 million.
b) Hindus increased from 303 million to 966 million: this is a whopping increase of 663 million.
c) Therefore Hindus have a "five times greater increase" as compared to Muslims.
d) And therefore it is the population of Hindus in India that has "exploded", and not that of Muslims.
I am sure the Nobel Prize committee will take note of this revolutionary new technique of arriving at the correct results of demographic changes in population, and invent a suitable category of Nobel prize to award to Aljazeera or to Yashraj Sharma.
And in case the Nobel Prize Committee (or rather Committees, since I am told there are more than one) is likely to spend a lot of time pondering over this, let me give my own revolutionary contribution to the process of arriving at the correct results of demographic changes in the Indian population (Hindus vis-à-vis Muslims) and put myself forward as another candidate for the Prize (although unfortunately my method is also based on the old-fashioned method of using percentages rather than the revolutionary new method of using actual figures in numbers):
1. In 1951, the percentage of Hindus in India was 84.68% and the percentage of Muslims was 9.84 percent. So there were 8.60 Hindus for every one Muslim in India in 1951.
2. In 2011, the percentage of Hindus in India was 79.8% and the percentage of Muslims was 14.2 percent. So there were 5.61 Hindus for every one Muslim in India in 2011.
3. So, between 1951 and 2011, the number of Hindus for every one Muslim has fallen from 8.60 to 5.61:
4.This means 2.99 Hindus (for every one Muslim still living) have been wiped out from India in this period of 60 years.
It also means that the percentage of Hindus (for every one Muslim still living) in India has fallen by 34.767% in this period of 60 years.
5. And remember: all this is only about India. The figures for the whole Indian Subcontinent (or Akhanda Bharat) will be even more stark.
😀😀
ReplyDeleteHi respected Shrikant Talageri ji, I know this is not directly related to the above post. But I wouldl like to bring this to your attention. Forgive me if you were aware of this, I am a frequent visitor to your blogs. I haven't notice any rebuttal, a serious one for that matter, about the information that I shared with you below regarding the so called debunking of 'OIT'.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link. When opened, please zoom in if font is too small:
https://pikleblog.blogspot.com/2023/11/debunking-out-of-india.html
In this blog the author claims to provide evdience debunking the OIT model. He sites you specifically in the blog. Your elephant and OIT homeland is discussed which he tries to find loopholes in. He discusses many more such things like genetics and so on.
You are right. Your comment has nothing to do with this article and is totally out of place.
DeleteAlso, I think it is really time people stopped sending me the garbled writings of every Tom, Dick and Harry who picks up his keyboard and starts typing out something which includes a reference to the OIT and to my name. At this rate I will have to create a super search machine to search out every single internet article, blog, tweet and even private email which refers to me even in passing, and then seriously write out "replies" and "refutations" to all of them. Even one whole life continuously spent in this will not be enough. The blog article you are citing is a perfect example of this kind of crap which overflows on the internet,
As I have repeatedly said, it is time for others to read in detail the massive evidence given by me and try to reply to it. My work is basically over, unless someone surprisingly manages to bring out some new point.
The monkey whose blog you are citing correctly notes at the end of his article that I refer to people like him who talk about "peer-reviews" as monkeys, He has clearly not read a word I have written in so many articles about why peer-reviewed articles on this subject are utter rubbish written by academics who have read only one or two standard articles on any subject and have done no individual or original-source research.
In fact, this monkey has clearly not read anything written by me (or any critic of mine) after Witzel's review of my 2000 book in 2001 (which he cites frequently) − not even my detailed word-by-word and data-filled replies to this "review". He has in short, read nothing written by me in the last 22 years, and is "refuting" me!
Since you have sent me the link, a few comments:
Delete1. This monkey refers to me and Koenraad Elst as "fanatics".
2. He even resorts to blatant lies which make me doubt his sanity: "Talageri even tried to associate the Angles and Saxons with the Vedic Sanskrit word “anguli,” based solely on the fact that the words look similar". When and where have I written anything of this kind?
3. In the matter of elephants, he has not read one word of my massive article on the subject and writes all kinds of utterly discredited rubbish about elephants in Syria and Mesopotamia!
4. About the peacock he feels that the peacock motifs in Syria cannot be attributed to the Mitanni because the motifs are found from 2100 BCE while the Mitanni appeared in Syria-Iraq miraculously out of thin air only at the stroke of 1st January 1500 BCE, because 1500 BCE is when they established their major kingdom there. Obviously he has not read anything written by me on this subject (after the year 2000).
5. He does not know a word about the evidence of the dāśarājña battle about which I have written so much.
6. He does not know about my comparative chronology of the Rigveda-Avesta-Mitanni, and quotes 25+ year old words written by Witzel about the Mitanni. Curiously, he is so totally ignorant about IE linguistics that he takes the Mitanni words pinkara and parita (against Vedic pingala and palita) as representing an older stage: "pinkara is actually older than pingala", totally unaware that the l-forms are older and the "l" is supposed to have later become "r" in Indo-Iranian (including Mitanni).
7. This highly outdated monkey cites Witzel's 24-year old argument that if the IEs had gone from India they would have retained all of the words from "substrate languages known to be native to India" and the "typically Indian words (lion, tiger, peacock, lotus, etc.)" and the fact that they didn't disproves "the autochthonous theory", totally unaware that the Romany (gypsies) who left India just 1000 years ago (as admitted even by Witzel) also did not retain all these words from "substrate languages known to be native to India" and the "typically Indian words (lion, tiger, peacock, lotus, etc.)".
I could go on and one, but this monkey is not worth any more attention. Please stop asking me to comment on and reply to every monkey who takes the trouble of typing out a few sentences and putting them on the internet.