Islam in India - How many converted?

[Big_Tera]

This is a complex topic and im sure has many different view points. I am not going to say I am an expert in this field. But having researched the topic slightly these are my findings. Exactly how many Hindu were forced to convert to Islam under Mughal rule and also Voluntary conversions? There is often a big misconception.

Lets look at the statistics. According to the official 1951 census of India which included present day pakistan. The demographics of India were the following 303 million Hindus and 35 million Muslims constituted the entire country. This was before it was split into two.  Muslims constituted 11 % of the entire population of india at that time. 

These stats lead me to believe that the overwhelming majority of Hindus did not convert to Islam like alot of people think. it was only 35 Million who did. Obviously this is still a big number.  But how did the muslim population increase so substantially after this period? 

The answer is simple. Muslims in India subcontinent on average have 3 kids whereas hindus have 2.  You many think that 1 extra child is not going to make a huge difference. 

But in reality it does.

If theres  100.000 Hindu women and 100.000 muslim women and the muslim woman has just 1 extra child that means theres a 100.000 more muslims being born. That one extra child when added up makes a huge difference. Not only will there be more muslims due to the extra child but then that child will also reproduce and so the population increases further. 

 

 

[Guest Jacfsing2]

Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs had huge birth rates back then, actually it was Sikh fertility rates which were the largest on average. What actually did happen was that no Muslim became a Shaheed for Subcontinental independence, nor did they really fight the British before-hand like Marathas and Sikhs did, and even when they were soldiers for the Brits; they made complaints that the bullets had pork in them, so they didn't give much sacrifice that way either. Birth rates at that time were basically the same; however Shaheedi rates were not. 

[jkvlondon]

31 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

This is a complex topic and im sure has many different view points. I am not going to say I am an expert in this field. But having researched the topic slightly these are my findings. Exactly how many Hindu were forced to convert to Islam under Mughal rule and also Voluntary conversions? There is often a big misconception.

Lets look at the statistics. According to the official 1951 census of India which included present day pakistan. The demographics of India were the following 303 million Hindus and 35 million Muslims constituted the entire country. This was before it was split into two.  Muslims constituted 11 % of the entire population of india at that time. 

These stats lead me to believe that the overwhelming majority of Hindus did not convert to Islam like alot of people think. it was only 35 Million who did. Obviously this is still a big number.  But how did the muslim population increase so substantially after this period? 

The answer is simple. Muslims in India subcontinent on average have 3 kids whereas hindus have 2.  You many think that 1 extra child is not going to make a huge difference. 

But in reality it does.

If theres  100.000 Hindu women and 100.000 muslim women and the muslim woman has just 1 extra child that means theres a 100.000 more muslims being born. That one extra child when added up makes a huge difference. Not only will there be more muslims due to the extra child but then that child will also reproduce and so the population increases further. 

 

 

why would a post-partition census contain Pakistans data ?

[Big_Tera]

9 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

why would a post-partition census contain Pakistans data ?

I guess that exludes pakistan. pakistan population 1950 was 39 million

so total was 303 million Hindus and 75 million Muslims at time of partion.  

[Big_Tera]

9 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs had huge birth rates back then, actually it was Sikh fertility rates which were the largest on average. What actually did happen was that no Muslim became a Shaheed for Subcontinental independence, nor did they really fight the British before-hand like Marathas and Sikhs did, and even when they were soldiers for the Brits; they made complaints that the bullets had pork in them, so they didn't give much sacrifice that way either. Birth rates at that time were basically the same; however Shaheedi rates were not. 

What is also to be noted is that Mughal invaders killed millions of Hindus and Sikhs for not converting to islam.  This was when Hindu and Sikh armies would fight the mughals. 

Also Mughals are not a representation of Islam.  these people killed their own people like isis is doing today. 

[StarStriker]

There was 300m hindus in sub-continent, 92m muslims and 6m sikhs during 1940s/partition.

[genie]

30 minutes ago, StarStriker said:

There was 300m hindus in sub-continent, 92m muslims and 6m sikhs during 1940s/partition.

Interesting stat it shows Sikhs haven't increased there population by very much at all but the others have made huge increases. I put that down to them having a majority population in the newly formed countries. Had we had a Sikhistan/khalistan in 1947 would would have easily had a Sikh population of around 150 Million at least.

Another interesting stat is even if pakistan's+bangaldesh's+india's muslim population were to combine again under a united india they still would not be bigger than the current hindu population of nearly 1 billion.

So hindu's have benefited hugely in terms of just demographics from the creation of a "united" India whereas before they had small majority or minority populations in over the place with 500+ princely state kingdoms before the British rule ended.

 

[Big_Tera]

44 minutes ago, genie said:

Interesting stat it shows Sikhs haven't increased there population by very much at all but the others have made huge increases. I put that down to them having a majority population in the newly formed countries. Had we had a Sikhistan/khalistan in 1947 would would have easily had a Sikh population of around 150 Million at least.

Another interesting stat is even if pakistan's+bangaldesh's+india's muslim population were to combine again under a united india they still would not be bigger than the current hindu population of nearly 1 billion.

So hindu's have benefited hugely in terms of just demographics from the creation of a "united" India whereas before they had small majority or minority populations in over the place with 500+ princely state kingdoms before the British rule ended.

 

What you find in India also is that most muslims are concentrated in the big cities. They go there as there less discrimination for them there theb In rural areas.

Muslims also tend to live in clusters and ghettos. This is because they feel safer living in large numbers with their own. This is for protection puposes as they fear attacks and riots from the majority Hindus which can happen at anytime.

[genie]

24 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

What you find in India also is that most muslims are concentrated in the big cities. They go there as there less discrimination for them there theb In rural areas.

Muslims also tend to live in clusters and ghettos. This is because they feel safer living in large numbers with their own. This is for protection puposes as they fear attacks and riots from the majority Hindus which can happen at anytime.

Thats true, when ever muslims have had a deadly riot against them its usually in some village/town were they have been outnumbered by their hindu neighbors and surrounding area's.

[BhForce]

11 hours ago, genie said:

Interesting stat it shows Sikhs haven't increased there population by very much at all but the others have made huge increases. I put that down to them having a majority population in the newly formed countries. Had we had a Sikhistan/khalistan in 1947 would would have easily had a Sikh population of around 150 Million at least.

How?? How could 6 million become 150 million in 75 years?