Hindu decrease in India

[Ranjeet01]

This won't help the Hindus either:

https://qz.com/1232399/siddaramaiah-vs-yeddyurappa-karnataka-gives-lingayats-and-veerashaivas-the-status-of-a-religion/

[jkvlondon]

2 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

This won't help the Hindus either:

https://qz.com/1232399/siddaramaiah-vs-yeddyurappa-karnataka-gives-lingayats-and-veerashaivas-the-status-of-a-religion/

they cannot deny the mulnivasis' belief system, languages and rights although they will try their damndest.

[YOYO29]

3 hours ago, puzzled said:

each couple having around 11 kids

na kar yar

[BhForce]

On 2/26/2018 at 7:30 PM, jkvlondon said:

fact is the majority of the law is inherited from angrez they changed very little thus hindu ...and stupid sloganeering such Hindu Hindi Hindusthan

Well, yes, it is true that when India transition away from British control, the law was not changed suddenly (such as the law on contracts, negotiable instruments, societies, companies, the Indian Penal Code, etc.).

But the Constitution of India was not "inherited from angrez". It was created by Hindus, and they specifically use the term "Hindu" in regards to Hindu religion in the Constitution.

@ipledgeblue, waiting for your response to my post above, bro.

[CharhdiKala]

13 hours ago, MahadrasSingh said:

This is what the rss don't want us to know, the hindu population is losing its will to expand (much like us right now) and their fertility plummets. Our muslim freinds on the other hand have the energy to want to spread so they keep pumping out babies (though their rate is slowing down as well). Our kaum should definitely start having at least 3 kids a family.

Having multiple kids is not the answer at all, all it does is lead to worse living standards and poverty. Are there enough jobs to go around in India for all of these extra kids? The answer is no.

2 kids per woman is enough to maintain a population and in a third world country the last thing people need is more people when resources and land are limited.

You will find that muslims are the poorest and least educated people in India and a lot of that is due to their rapid breeding and going to school in madrassas. Having said that even they are having fewer kids nowadays.

India made a massive blunder in not having population control in the 1950s and 1960s when people were having an average of 5 kids. When India got independence in 1947 the population was 350 million and now it is 1.2 billion! Talk about a massive blunder on the government's part!

Right now the birth rate per Hindu woman is 2.1, for Sikhs it's 1.6, Muslims it is 2.6 and Christians it is 2.

A low birthrate and an extremely poor sex ratio really doesn't look good for Sikhs in the future. Sikhs really need to put an end to female foeticide and get better education. The literacy rate is only 75%.

As for Hindus treating Dalits badly, do you think Sikhs are any better? Ravidas Sikhs are moving away from Sikhism due to the rampant casteism found amongst Sikhs, you know it's true.

[Ranjeet01]

3 minutes ago, CharhdiKala said:

Having multiple kids is not the answer at all, all it does is lead to worse living standards and poverty. Are there enough jobs to go around in India for all of these extra kids? The answer is no.

2 kids per woman is enough to maintain a population and in a third world country the last thing people need is more people when resources and land are limited.

You will find that muslims are the poorest and least educated people in India and a lot of that is due to their rapid breeding and going to school in madrassas. Having said that even they are having fewer kids nowadays.

India made a massive blunder in not having population control in the 1950s and 1960s when people were having an average of 5 kids. When India got independence in 1947 the population was 350 million and now it is 1.2 billion! Talk about a massive blunder on the government's part!

Right now the birth rate per Hindu woman is 2.1, for Sikhs it's 1.6, Muslims it is 2.6 and Christians it is 2.

A low birthrate and an extremely poor sex ratio really doesn't look good for Sikhs in the future. Sikhs really need to put an end to female foeticide and get better education. The literacy rate is only 75%.

As for Hindus treating Dalits badly, do you think Sikhs are any better? Ravidas Sikhs are moving away from Sikhism due to the rampant casteism found amongst Sikhs, you know it's true.

Firstly, when I go to Punjab the average Sikh has 2 kids or more.

I don't know how they come to this 1.6 fertility rate figure. I dispute that figure.

Secondly, even though the muslim fertility rate is coming down (and that is due to them educating their women), even educated Muslim families still have higher fertility rates than the rest of the population. 

Thirdly,  I dispute the fact that Ravidassia are "oppressed " . If Dalits behaved like Ravidassia they would open their own temples and not even bother with the cash and prizes they receive from christian missionaries.  If anything Ravidassia are empowered. Nobody has stopped a Ravidassia going to a Gurdwara and do stuff that a normal sangat member does. Where their issue is with the power grab issues that a tiny minority within their community want. 

Like all politics. 

[jkvlondon]

6 hours ago, BhForce said:

Well, yes, it is true that when India transition away from British control, the law was not changed suddenly (such as the law on contracts, negotiable instruments, societies, companies, the Indian Penal Code, etc.).

But the Constitution of India was not "inherited from angrez". It was created by Hindus, and they specifically use the term "Hindu" in regards to Hindu religion in the Constitution.

@ipledgeblue, waiting for your response to my post above, bro.

Ambedkar wrote the human rights related stuff, however it is not his work alone, there were instances where he refused to do INC's bidding and they replaced him with others willing to draft up certains sections . Of course the law he studied was American and United Kingdom laws that would have coloured his ideas e.g. working hours, women's rights etc . Ambedkar did not agree with many parts of the constitution and even said he would burn it .

Given the thought processes of the man I suspect section 25 is not one of his penned ideas as it was encroachies on freedom of every man, woman and child should have to self-identity ...he was just used a convenient scapegoat just as the RSS use a dalit today to say look see we care about all Indians not just Brahmins we have a Dalit as President . They learnt well from Congress who used Zail Singh and Later Manmohan Singh and even to disguise their true motives.

 

[CharhdiKala]

1 minute ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Firstly, when I go to Punjab the average Sikh has 2 kids or more.

I don't know how they come to this 1.6 fertility rate figure. I dispute that figure.

Secondly, even though the muslim fertility rate is coming down (and that is due to them educating their women), even educated Muslim families still have higher fertility rates than the rest of the population. 

Thirdly,  I dispute the fact that Ravidassia are "oppressed " . If Dalits behaved like Ravidassia they would open their own temples and not even bother with the cash and prizes they receive from christian missionaries.  If anything Ravidassia are empowered. Nobody has stopped a Ravidassia going to a Gurdwara and do stuff that a normal sangat member does. Where their issue is with the power grab issues that a tiny minority within their community want. 

Like all politics. 

I can see where the 1.6 comes from. A lot of Sikh women go abroad to marry NRI Sikhs, leaving less women behind. 

The whole fertility rate of Punjab is 1.6, so it's not only the Sikhs who are having less kids, even the Punjabi Hindus. 

Punjab is a relatively more affluent state so people may be having less kids in general, whereas in places like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar etc people have more and this is what props up the Hindu population.

Maybe due to the drink and drug culture in Punjab less people are getting married?

At the end of the day Khatri, Jat, Rajput and Ramgarhia Sikhs still look down on low caste people, it's changing with the younger generation but those who are 50 and above will use disgusting terms for low caste people. I have seen this in Punjab and here in the UK, even Amritdharis are guilty of this. If you are being treated badly and not being accepted by a group then obviously you will want to move away from that group, only a fool would stay. This is why Islam was able to get a foothold in India and also Christianity.

[ipledgeblue]

On 2/26/2018 at 1:26 PM, BhForce said:

Meanwhile, bro, the average Hindu on the street, when asked what what religion/dharam/mazhab he belongs to will say "I am a Hindu". The term is used in the Constitution of India (Hindu religion).

If the basic law of the country uses the terminology of Hindu religion, why do you feel the need to object? It's like trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. The Sikhs, Muslims, or Christians did not impose the Constitution on the Hindus, the latter imposed it on the former.

Just wondering, how do you define "ism"?

 

7 hours ago, BhForce said:

Well, yes, it is true that when India transition away from British control, the law was not changed suddenly (such as the law on contracts, negotiable instruments, societies, companies, the Indian Penal Code, etc.).

But the Constitution of India was not "inherited from angrez". It was created by Hindus, and they specifically use the term "Hindu" in regards to Hindu religion in the Constitution.

@ipledgeblue, waiting for your response to my post above, bro.

the ism makes the geographical term into a religion.

with sikhi, the ism turns a dharmik panth into another colonial religion construct.

I think the hindu term has become more religion focussed these days, but it can still apply geographically, But hindustani is more relevant these days,

[Ranjeet01]

2 hours ago, CharhdiKala said:

I can see where the 1.6 comes from. A lot of Sikh women go abroad to marry NRI Sikhs, leaving less women behind. 

The whole fertility rate of Punjab is 1.6, so it's not only the Sikhs who are having less kids, even the Punjabi Hindus. 

Punjab is a relatively more affluent state so people may be having less kids in general, whereas in places like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar etc people have more and this is what props up the Hindu population.

Maybe due to the drink and drug culture in Punjab less people are getting married?

At the end of the day Khatri, Jat, Rajput and Ramgarhia Sikhs still look down on low caste people, it's changing with the younger generation but those who are 50 and above will use disgusting terms for low caste people. I have seen this in Punjab and here in the UK, even Amritdharis are guilty of this. If you are being treated badly and not being accepted by a group then obviously you will want to move away from that group, only a fool would stay. This is why Islam was able to get a foothold in India and also Christianity.

I have to disagree with the 1.6 because that would mean that Punjab has a fertility rate on par with western countries. 

There are also plenty of non NRI people getting married so I do not buy into that. There is no shortage of brides or bridegrooms with all the palaces and hotels telling us otherwise.