Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Big_Tera

Islam in India - How many converted?

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, the Muslim population growth rate is 1.8 % / year vs 1.1% for the world population.

But, according to the calculator here:

http://www.endmemo.com/algebra/populationgrowth.php

You would have to have a yearly rate of growth of 4.6% to go from 6mil to 150 mil in 70 years. Having 2.5x the Muslim rate seems quite unlikely.

The calculator here shows you'd have to have a total fertility rate of 8 to move from about 6 mil to 150 mil in 70 years.

Even in the old days, people didn't necessarily have 8 kids. Even the one lady who received a boon from the 6th Master for sons only asked for 7 sons!

I find it quite implausible that every Sikh woman from 1947 to now would have 8 kids given they barely birth two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, StarStriker said:

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

So out of a total of 392 million Hindus, 92 million converted to Islam?

But that still cannot be the correct figure. What was the demographic in the 18th Century or even going back 16th Century in India when the arabic invaders first started to invade and forcibly convert. Im sure the number of Hindus who converted would have been far less then 92 million.

The reason there are so many muslims both in present india and pakistan today is not all due to the past conversions.  Its due to extremely high birth rates of muslims. For instance Pakistans average birthrate was recorded at an incredible 7 children per household. It is well known that the poorer and more uneducated you are, the more kids you are likely to  have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BhForce said:

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

That figure was possible and is derived if you take out all the population reduction tactics that were taken before the Hindu punjabi brahminwad arya samajists and SGPC / singh sabha / akali dal had reduced Sikhs population on basis of khalsa rehit to a very low population of Sikhs. Had a census been carried out pre 1920s the Sikh population would have been relatively high in comparable terms because the nirankari's and other sects were part of the Sikh fold.

Also once a country is created the same tactics the muslims had created out could have been adopted by Sikhs meaning "forced" conversions of non-sikhs and anyone that came under the map of khalistan/sikhistan so the population would have rocketed naturally year on year.

Also the dalit hindus who were in their tens of millions were ready to embrace Sikhism to give Sikhs enough population to demand a separate country. Dalit leader Dr ambedkar had proposed that idea to the castist jatt leaders of SGPC/ akali dal but they rejected it because being the neo-brahmins they were they felt their power base would have been threatened by the sheer amount of dalits converting to Sikhi giving them more rights than they had as a majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

So out of a total of 392 million Hindus, 92 million converted to Islam?

But that still cannot be the correct figure. What was the demographic in the 18th Century or even going back 16th Century in India when the arabic invaders first started to invade and forcibly convert. Im sure the number of Hindus who converted would have been far less then 92 million.

The reason there are so many muslims both in present india and pakistan today is not all due to the past conversions.  Its due to extremely high birth rates of muslims. For instance Pakistans average birthrate was recorded at an incredible 7 children per household. It is well known that the poorer and more uneducated you are, the more kids you are likely to  have. 

erm, im talkin about pre-partition. There was 92m muslims, hence y i wrote 1940s/partition.

go to 2:50. it gives u rough estimate of the populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many big reasons y sikh population hasnt grown as much as we had liked in panjab, is because

1)1947 genocide

2)1977-1995 genocide

3)mass migration of panjabis (mostly sikhs) from 50s-70s to uk

4)current deliberate silent genocide by indian govt (alcohol/drugs/female foeticide etc)

5)another mass illegal migration (late 90s-present) from panjab to australia/canada/usa/uk/italy etc

6)akal takht jathedar also idiotically askin the jantha to have less kids

sikhi was fastest growimg dharam in panjab before partition hit. With the highest conversions n birthrates, had we got our homeland at partition n not had the subsequent genocides, we wud easily b sitting on 80/90m at present, no question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • There are so many questions regarding Sikh Maryada, but don’t know who to ask. It’s very difficult living abroad and no one to approach when you want to ask something. I have seen contact numbers at the end of some videos of very well known kathavachaks and kirtaniyes in the past but never bothered to note them down anywhere. It is difficult. Do you find everyone has their own interpretations regarding Sikhi questions when asked, which leads to nothing but confusion? 
    • I'm interested to know why they do havan too? People have been using fire in worship for 1000s of years, Native Americans, Zoroastrians, Pagans, Vedic traditions.  Wouldn't be surprised if the cave people, who used to light fires with stones, whatever their beliefs were probably used fire too.   As the only Singh in my family i get parents, uncles/aunts, cousins, neighbors asking me these of questions all the time! how the hell am i supposed to know! it's as if i all a sudden became an encyclopedia on Sikhi and have the answers for everything. A lady family friend came around once and asked me why people use instruments in Nagar kirtans?  "i don't know"   why do Sikhs in India do prabhat pheri? "i don't know"   one i get asked often is why nihungs cut goats heads off "i don't know". My cousin came around yesterday and asked me "oh why did that nihung cut the police mans hand off"   "i don't know" ! The worst is when some Singh does something stupid and theres a video being passed around, they all send me the video or ask me about it as if i have an answer or explanation for the stupidity, its as if your being held responsible for it!    Even the ancient North Indian festival of Lohri has a fire in the center of it. I read how in the Vedic period they used to do fire sacrifices with horses! how barbaric is that!   
    • I think you’d be better off asking Giani Thakur Singh Ji @Khaaik at the end of his youtube video on this bani. I have seen their contact number in many older videos but can’t remember exactly which ones though.
    • Do you mean the Ascending Masters by any chance?
    • How, where and when did your baba Ji meet Sant Ji? Was he young himself when he first met him?  It would be so nice to know his experiences with Sant Ji. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use