CENSUS 2011: What It Really Shows

Original Source : Organiser

– By Dr.JK Bajaj

The recently released data of religious census is an eye opener for many.  While Hindus have first time been enumerated below 80%, Muslims have registered the highest growth rate in the last decade with 24.6%. This trend is consistent from the Independence and many factors are contributing to it. The decadal decline of Hindus is 0.7%, while that of Muslims is 0.8% on the positive side. The Muslim growth rate is consistently higher than the national average. The growth rate is alarmingly higher in specific states namely, Assam, Pashchim Banga, Kerala, etc. These numbers have diverse repercussions on policy matters.  Organiser  comes  with  the  demographic, socio-economic  and  political  imperatives  of  this stark reality in Bharat.

The long awaited  religious  data  of  Census  2011  has  finally  been  published.  The  data  largely confirms what had already become known from the leaked information that has been in the public domain for several months. Briefly, the Muslims have increased their share in the  population of the Bharatiya Union by 0.8%; Christian share in the country as a whole has remained unchanged, but they have gained substantially in the North-East, especially in Arunachal Pradesh, and in several pockets of high Christian influence in central and southern Bharat; the share of Bharatiya Religionists, including Hindus, Buddhists,  Sikhs and Jains, has correspondingly declined.

The Hindus now form less than 80% of the population of the Union. Their share has come down from 80.46% in 2001 to 79.80% in 2011. The share of Sikhs has declined from 1.87 to 1.72%, of Buddhists from 0.77 to 0.70 and of Jains from 0.41 to 0.37%. Share of Other Religions and Persuasions (ORPs), who belong mainly to various Janjati religions, has marginally increased  from 0.65 to 0.66%. The share of those who have not stated their religion has increased from 0.07 to 0.24%; in all, 28.6 lakh Bharatiya have chosen not to state their religion in 2011, in 2001 there were only 7.3 lakh Bharatiya in this category.

Since some decline in the number of Bharatiya Religionists and a corresponding rise in the number of Muslims from decade to decade has become the norm, it is easy to conclude from the data that things are absolutely normal and that no serious change is taking place in the religious profile of the Bharatiya population. This has been the reaction of many journalists and commentators. Some of them have even concluded that the data indicates a slowing down of Muslim growth. And some  extra-secularist  demographers  have  even  started  saying  that the really significant part of the census data is not the relatively higher growth of Muslims but the relatively higher improvement in their gender ratio! But that has been the way of the mainstream Bharatiya demographers; they insist on closing their eyes to the obvious decline of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists and the glaring rise of Muslims in general and of Christians in particular pockets of Bharat. And to divert attention from the elephant in the room, they keep drawing attention to irrelevant and extraneous issues.

An increase of 0.8% in Muslim share is not small
The increase of 0.8% in Muslim share has been generally seen as a small normal increase. The number does seem small in itself. But this increase in the share of Muslims and    a corresponding decline in the Bharatiya Religionists is not a one-time  phenomenon.  It  has  been happening continuously from decade to decade since the beginning of the census period. A change of above 0.8% per decade seems to have become the norm for at least the last three decades. The Muslim share increased by 0.88% between 1981 and 1991, it increased again by 0.84% between 1991 and 2001, and now it has increased by 0.80%. Cumulatively, in the period since Partition, the share of Bharatiya Religionists in the population of Bharat has declined by about 4% and that of Muslims has increased by the same amount. This level of change is not small by any standards.

Muslims form 14.2% of the Bharatiya population now; their share was 13.4% in 2001, 12.6% in 1991, 11.7% in 1981 and only 10.4% in 1951. There are 17.2 crore Muslims in Bharat in 2011 compared to 3.7 crore in 1951. Bharat may now be hosting the second largest population of the world, behind Indonesia, which had 20.7 crore Muslims in 2010, but probably ahead of  Pakistan, whose total population in 2011 was 17.6 crore.

The Gap between Muslim and Hindu Growth remains high

Between 2001 and 2011, Muslims have grown by 24.6 and the Hindus by 16.8%. Sikhs, Jains andBuddhists have registered a much lower growth. The Muslim growth is 46% above that of Hindus and 39% above the national average. This gap is very large. In 2001, the gap between  the Muslim  growth  and  the  national  average  was  somewhat  smaller  at  36.8%,  and it was even smaller in the earlier decades. It seems that with the decline of the growth rates of  all communities the gap between the growth of Muslims and others has been only widening.
It is true that the growth rate of Muslims has declined from 29.5% of the previous decade to 24.6% now, but the national average has also declined from 21.6 to 17.7%. In relative terms, the national average has declined by about 18% and in the Muslim growth by 17%; this has led to awidening not narrowing of the gap. What matters in creating the imbalance between different communities is the gap between their growth rates, not the absolute rates of growth. The imbalance can keep increasing even as absolute rates for all communities decline.

Larger Muslim gains in specific parts of Bharat
The gap between the growth of Muslims and others is much higher than the national average of 0.8 percentage points in many States of Bharat. Below are some States that have seen the largest gap in the growth rates and the largest change in the share of Muslims and others.

Assam: The share of Muslims in the population of this state has risen from 30.9% in 2001 to 34.2% in 2011. In 1971, the Muslims had a share of only 24.6%; they have gained by 10 percentage points in just four decades.  During 2001-2011,  Muslims  in  Assam  have  registered  a  decennial  growth  of  29.6%;  Hindus,  on  the  other  hand,  have  grown  by  just 10.9%. Christians have also recorded a substantial growth of 18.2%.

Muslims now have a commanding majority in several districts of the State; their share in Dhubri is 80%. It is important to look at the data of Assam up to the level of the sub-districts; in the earlier decade, Hindus in several sub-  districts  of  lower  Assam  had  registered  a negative growth indicating a forced exodus of the non-Muslim  populations.  It  is important to look at the state of those and the neighbouring sub-districts in 2011.

Pashchim Banga: The share of Muslims in the population of Pashchim Banga has gone up  from 24.7 in 2001 to 27.0% in 2011. Muslim share in this State up to 1971 was around 20%; they have gained by about 7 percentage points in these four decades. The decennial growth of Muslims and Hindus in the State during  2001-2011  has  been  21.8  and  10.8%,  respectively. Christians have also registered a significant growth of 27.8%. It would be interesting to look at the changes in the relative shares of the two communities in the districts that have a dominant presence of Muslims.

Uttarakhand: Muslim proportion in Uttarakhand has risen from 11.9 to 13.9%. The decennial growth of Hindus in this State has been 16%, compared to 39% of the Muslims and 40% of the Christians.

Adjoining Districts of Uttar Pradesh: Several districts of Uttar Pradesh neighbouring Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar of Uttarakhand, including Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Bijnor, Moradabad, Rampur, Jyotiba Phule Nagar and Meerut have recorded extraordinary Muslim growth as in the previous decades. This region is on its way to becoming   Muslim-majority;  Rampur already has a Muslim share of 51% in 2011.

NCT of Delhi: Muslim share in Delhi has gone up from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.9% in 2011. In 1951, the proportion of Muslims in Delhi was less than 6%. Between 2001 and 2011, Muslims here have grown by 33%, while Hindus have grown by 20.7%.

Haryana: The most surprising change is in Haryana. The share of Muslims has begun to grow rather rapidly since 1981. Now their share in the State is 7%, it was 5.8% in 2001 and only 3.8% in 1961, when the State was formed. In the newly created Mewat district, Muslims now form 79% of the population. In the taluk of Nuh in this region, the proportion of Muslims has gone up from 71 to 77%, in Tawdu, it has gone up from 49 to 57% and in Hathin, from 54 to 59%. This is high growth indeed.

Kerala: The share of Muslims in Kerala has gone up from 24.7 to 26.6%. The share of both Hindus and Christians has declined. Muslims in the State had a share of only 17.5% in 1951 and about the same in 1901. In the last six decades their share has increased by 9%age points.  During  2001-2011,  Hindus  in  Kerala  have  grown  by  only  2.6%  and  Christians  by  1.4%,  but the Muslims have grown by 12.8%. The growth rates of the three communities during 1991-2001 were 7.4, 7.8 and 16%, respectively.

We have not yet been able to look at other areas of high Muslim growth, especially in the chicken neck area covering several districts of Bihar, Jharkhand and Pashchim Banga. From the above analysis it is clear that though the increase of 0.8 percentage point in all Bharat share of Muslims seems small and ‘normal’, it has implied substantial change in the religious demography of many parts of the country. There is considerable difference in the growth of Muslims and others even in the less obvious States like Punjab, J&K, Himachal Pradesh, etc.

Christians have continued to increase in various pockets
According to  all-Bharat  figures,  Christians  have  grown  somewhat  slower  than  the  national average. Between 2001 and 2011, they have recorded a decennial growth of 15.5%, compared to 16.8% of the Hindus and 17.7% of the total population. The share of Christians in the population of the country has remained nearly unchanged at 2.3%. But they have recorded substantial increase in specific pockets of the country, while their proportion has declined in States like Kerala, Goa and Andhra Pradesh. Below, we list some of the States where Christians have made deeper inroads in the last decade:

Arunachal Pradesh: The share of Christians in the population of Arunachal Pradesh has gone up from 18.7% in 2001 to 30.3% in 2011. This is very high growth indeed. Decennial growth of Christians in the State has been 104% compared to 31% of the Muslims and just 6% of the Hindus. Unlike several other States of Northeast, Arunachal Pradesh had remained outside the Christian reach until 1971. In 1971, they formed just 0.79% of the population; their share increased to 4.3% in 1981, 10.3% in 1991, to 18.7% in 2001 and now it has reached 30.3%. Many districts of Arunachal Pradesh have now become Christian majority. They form 75% of the  population in Tirap district now; several tribal communities in the State have been nearly fully converted to Christianity.

Meghalaya: In Meghalaya, the proportion of Christians has risen 70.2% in 2001 to 74.6% now. This is another State where those tribal communities that had remained outside the fold of Christianity are being converted in large numbers from decade to decade. In 1991, the proportion of Christians in the State was 64.6%; it was 52.6% in 1981 and only 35.2% in 1961. The State now seems to be on the way to getting fully Christianised in the manner of Nagaland and Mizoram.

Manipur: In Manipur, Christians have shown a surprising rise in their share from 37.3% in 2001 to 41.3% in 2011. The Christian share here in 1971 was 26% and it was less than 20% in 1961. The Christian presence in Manipur is limited to the hill districts, while the valley remains largely Hindu. Even then the share of Christians has been rising from decade to decade.

Tripura: Tripura did not have much Christian presence till recently. Their share rose from 1.7 to 3.2% between 1991 and 2001 and has now gone up to 4.4%. Their presence in the State still remains limited, but it is rising.

Sikkim: Like Tripura, Sikkim also had little Christian presence till 1971, when their share in the population was counted at 0.79%. Their share began growing after that; it rose to 2.2% in 1981, 3.3% in 1991 and 6.7% in 2001. In 2011, 9.9% of the population of the State has been counted  as Christian. This is a significant rise and indicates that like Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim may also be on the way to rapid Christianisation.

Besides the northeast, there are pockets of high Christian presence in Tamil Nadu, Orissa and inthe central Bharatiya States. Christians have registered significant increase in their proportion in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu, where they are on way to acquiring a majority. In Odisha, their share in Gajapati, Kandhmal and Rayagada districts has increased considerably. Gajapati is now 38% Christian. Their presence in the older pocket of Christian influence in Sundargarhin the north of the State has remained nearly unchanged at around 18 to 19%. Christian share has grown marginally in Jharkhand and has remained unchanged in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.

Contextualising the religion figures
The data thus provides a clear picture of the increasing Muslim presence in the whole subcontinent and of the grossly increasing Muslim or Christian presence in several parts of the Bharatiya Union. It shall be of great interest to relate the numbers of different communities with other socio-economic parameters like literacy,  work-participation  rates, etc.  The 2001 Census had for the first time provided such detailed information on the basis of religion. That information gave us many insights. For example, we learnt that Muslim female literacy in at least 9 larger States of Bharat, including Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,  Jharkhand, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra was higher than that of Bharatiya Religionists; in many of these States, the difference between the female  literacy of Muslims and Bharatiya Religionists was of more than 10 percentage points in favour of the Muslims. According to Sachar Committee, in most of these States, poverty amongst Muslims was lower than the average and the average bank deposits of Muslims were higher than others. Yet in all these States, the growth rates of Muslims were also higher than that of  others. This clearly contradicts the pet theory of the demographers that the higher growth rates of Muslims are merely a reflection of their relative poverty and illiteracy. The data  provided by the Census of 2001 and the Sachar Committee does not seem to have encouraged the demographers to revisit their theories and prejudices; yet it would be useful to get similar  religion-wise socio-economic data for the Census 2011.

Given the critical importance of the religious demography for understanding the changing  social, political and geographical balance within Bharat, the Census should consider making thereligion data part of the Primary Census Abstracts, so that these numbers become available up to the town and village level and can be correlated with various other socio-economic aspects of the population. Making religion data part of the PCA would also take away the  various compulsions that sometimes lead to unnecessary delays and speculation about these  figures.

Dr JK Bajaj (The writer is director, Centre for Policy Studies)

M.F.Husain Debate – The Double Standards

Weak to the Strong, Strong to the Weak

–  An Article by Arun Shourie

In painting Goddess Saraswati naked M.F. Hussein, his secularist advocates argue, is merely exercising his Fundamental Right to freedom of expression, he is merely giving form to his artistic, creative urge. The first question is: How come the freedom and creative urge of the thousands and thousands of artists our country has have never led even one of them to ever paint or draw a picture of Prophet Muhammad in which his face is manifest? I am not on the point of dress or undress, the features could have been made as celestial and handsome as our artists could have imagined — why is it that they never got the urge to draw or sculpt even the handsomest representation of the Prophet?

The rationalization is that doing so would have hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslims, the Prophet himself having forbidden all representations. The reason, as distinct from the rationalization, is different: were an artist to make such a representation Muslims would be ignited by their controllers to riot, they would not let that artist live in peace thereafter.

Notice first that in the lexicon of those who are shouting for Hussein the point about not hurting religious sentiments manifestly does not apply to the Hindus: in their case the alternate principle of the right of the artist to paint as he pleases takes precedence. The Hindus notice this duality more and more.

Indeed they notice the length to which some are prepared to exercise their right to give full rein to their creative urge, disregarding what Hindus might feel as a consequence. As recently as August last year, the art gallery of the INDIA TODAY group, ART TODAY held an exhibition of “modern Indian miniatures”. Prominent among the paintings on display was one that showed a naked ( that is, completely naked ) Radha astride a naked ( that is, completely naked ) Lord Krishna — the two fornicating in a garden. Posters with this painting prominently featured were put up inviting viewers to the gallery. The August, 1995 issue of the magazine, INDIA TODAY carried an advertisement — urging readers to purchase prints of paintings which were on display at the gallery, the advertisement too featured prominently the same painting of Radha laying Lord Krishna in a garden. Some persons protested. No one heeded them. A demonstration was then held outside the gallery, the demonstrators entered the gallery. The painting was taken down. Friends who heard of the incident denounced the demonstrators: “Hindu bigots”, “The saffron brigade on the look-out for issues,” “Fascist goons who want to impose their constipated brand of Hinduism on everyone.” To establish the principle, and even more to demonstrate the scorn in which they held “these goons” another publication, ‘The India Magazine’, as demonstrative about its secular credentials, put that very painting on its cover. That this was done with full knowledge that doing so was likely to offend others is evident from the fact that, simultaneously with putting the painting on the cover, the person most prominently associated with ‘The India Magazine’ applied for anticipatory bail.

Now, the collections of hadis contain scores and scores of descriptions of the Prophet, as they contain accounts — accounts in the words and on the testimony of the Prophet’s wives themselves — about his relations with his wives; how is it that none of our artists have ever felt the creative urge to portray even accurately any of those descriptions, to say nothing of these magazines ever inviting their readers to purchase colorful reproductions of the paintings or putting the paintings on their covers and posters. Indeed I have not the least doubt that if they received even an article — which, after all, can never be as tantalizing as a Hussein painting — an article which did no more than reproduce verbatim those accounts, they would refuse to print it: all the great principles about not hurting the religious sentiments of others, all the provisions of law — sections 153A, 295A, 298 — will be invoked in justification. But when it comes to a painting of a naked Radha astride a naked Lord Krishna fornicating in a garden, carrying it in advertisements, putting that on the cover is a Fundamental Right, to object to it is to throttle an artist’s right to give expression to his creative urge.

It is not the freedom of expression these worthies are committed to. They are committed to their having freedom alone: can you recall a single liberal protesting against the ban on Ram Swarup’s Understanding Islam Through Hadis — a book so scrupulously academic that it was but a paraphrase of the Sahih Muslim, one of the canonical compilations of hadis — to say nothing of any one of them deigning to put in a word against goondas — claiming to represent the Muslims — who tried to get at me in Hyderabad or the goondas — claiming to speak for the other lot these worthies champion, the “Dalits” — who did get at me in Pune? Not one deigned to do so. They are not the champions and practitioners of free speech, they are the practitioners of a very special brand of the dialectic: Strong to the weak, Weak to the strong. And that is what the Hindus are noticing: neither the gallery nor the magazine spared a thought for the religious sentiments it might offend till the “goons” marched into the gallery, but they had but to march in and the painting was immediately taken down; Hussein was all defiance one day, but the moment some paintings of his were burnt, he was suddenly sorry….

“But nude representations are a part of our tradition. Look at Konark, look at Khajuraho,” the advocates have been shouting. But what has the figure of a woman being had by a dog in Konark have to do with worship ? What basis is there for declaring the women portrayed there are Saraswati or Sita or Lakshmi ? And then, as a reader points out, there is the other consideration : depicting women completely naked has for centuries been very much a part of European painting and sculpture tradition; but do the artists not stop at using this tradition for portraying Virgin Mary naked?

And as for Saraswati being depicted naked, her image is set out in our iconography, in the mantras by which we invoke her; in all these she is referred to as “….yaa shubhra vastraavritaa….”, as one “draped in white”. That white dress draping her is one of the four distinguishing marks of representations of Goddess Saraswati — the other three being that she holds beads in one hand, a book in another and the vina in a third.

“But I have every right to portray her as I will,” a secular friend protested when I repeated to him this iconographic description to which one of the best known and sagacious authorities on our art had drawn my attention. Assume you do, but then you can’t simultaneously claim that what you are doing is in accord with that tradition. Second, if painting Goddess Saraswati naked is an intrinsic part of our tradition because sundry women have been depicted naked and fornicating in Khajuraho and Konark, then, my dear friend, what about the Dasham Granth of Guru Govind Singh and its 300 treyi chitra? How come not one of you has ever been stirred by his creative urge to put on canvas any of those — most vivid and vigourous — pen-portraits? Is the work of Guru Govind Singh any less a part of the Sikh tradition than the Gita Govind? What about the scores and scores of hadis I mentioned earlier ? Alongside the Quran, they are not just any old element of Islam, they are the very foundation. Let us see you affirm the right of artists to depict images — not imagined ones, not ones that depart from the mantras as the painting in question does, just the most scrupulously faithful and exact images — of what is described therein.

The next argument of our artists and intellectuals is just as much a manufacture of convenience: “All our religions, everything about our past is the common heritage of all of us, it belongs to each of us equally,” they have been saying. This presumably has been done to preempt those who would say that Hussein is particularly in the wrong to have painted Hindu goddesses naked because he is a Muslim. Fine. But how come so many of you are up in arms when I write on Islamic law? In particular, how come you work up such a fury even though, unlike a painter, I am not conjuring up an image and am instead documenting every single sentence and paragraph with the exact text of the sacred works of Islam? What happens at that time to this principle of all our religions and everything in our past being the common heritage that belongs to each one of us equally? Then these very magazines and intellectuals are full of sanctimonious sermons: If members of one religion start commenting on the practices and beliefs of other religions, there will be hell to pay, they proclaim.

It is this double-standard which outrages the Hindus more and more, it is this which these inchoate outbursts are revolts against.

Many Hindus also notice the other thing — the one I mentioned as the reason as against the rationalization for no artist ever being galvanized by the creative urge when it comes to painting the features of the Prophet. They notice that the artists do not do so, not because these masters cannot do so, nor because their muse never goads them in this direction, but because they know that, were they to do so, they would be set upon. And that the State — which is weak, and which also has internalized the same double-standards to rationalize its weakness — will not come to their rescue. Therefore, more and more Hindus are concluding that we too should acquire the same reputation, we too should acquire the same capacity. In a word, three things are teaching the Hindus to become Islamic: the double-standards of the secularists and the State, the demonstrated success of the Muslims in bending both the State and the secularists by intimidation, and the fact that both the State and the secularists pay attention to the sentiments of Hindus only when the Hindus become a little Islamic.

The secularists’ shout, “But these things destroy the very basis of our culture.” The Hindus see that argument as being no better than the Devil quoting the Scripture, or, to put it in words the secularists would find more persuasive, than my quoting the Quran: for they know that these are the very persons who have been deriding them for living a life rooted in that culture, they are the ones who have been denouncing that culture and every thing associated with it — the idols, the beliefs, the rituals — as being nothing but devices which the Brahmins have forged to perpetuate inequity, to perpetuate exploitation of the poor masses.

The arguments of the secularists therefore are mere pretense. Yet I believe that it was plain wrong to break the window-panes and burn the paintings. Free speech is vital for our country. If it is curbed, what will be killed is not a painting but reform — for all reform offends as it is a voice against the way things are at that moment. I believe that even if one’s singular concern is Hinduism and its rehabilitation, free speech is the best guarantee: the more Eastern religions — Hinduism, Buddhism and others — are subjected to critical inquiry the more their luminescent essence shines forth; by contrast the Semitic religions — down to Marxism-Leninism — wither at the first exposure to exegesis and inquiry: and the controllers of these religions have been very conscious of this, that is why they have for centuries together put inquiry down with a lethal hand. The twin principles which the champions of Hussein’s right to paint as he will have been proclaiming are the exact pincer which will work — the principle that there must be freedom of speech and that every religion, and the principle that every aspect of our past is the common heritage of each of us equally. All we should ensure is that these principles hold good for all equally. And when someone paints like Hussein did in this instance, instead of burning his paintings we should use them to document the double-standards which mar current policies and discourse, and demand that either the standard apply to all or to none. Thus : education, not burning; parity, not suppression.

In Hussein’s case in particular, I feel that the youngsters who took offence missed a very vital point — not just about his painting but about his life. He is and has continued to be a Muslim. Now, as anyone who has read anything about the Prophet knows, the Prophet cursed and detested those who made representations of things. He put pictures at par with dogs, and, remember, he had all dogs killed. “The angels do not enter a house,” he declared on the authority of the angel, Gabriel, “which contains a dog or pictures.” Abu Huraira, the source of a large proportion of the hadis, states that God’s Messenger narrated that Gabriel had promised to visit him one day but didn’t turn up, and so, when he came the next day, the Prophet inquired as to what had happened. Gabriel, the Prophet narrated, said, “I came to you last night and was prevented from entering simply by the fact that there were images at the door, for there was a figured curtain with images on it and there was a dog in the house. So, order that the head of the image which is at the door of the house be cut off so that it may become like the form of a tree; order that the curtain be cut up and made into two cushions spread out on which people may tread; and order that the dog be put out.” “God’s Messenger,” the hadis concludes, “then did so.” His wife, Aisha tells us, “The Prophet never left in his house anything containing figures of a cross without destroying it.” She recalls how the Prophet reprimanded her for two cushions she had made because they contained pictures. The Prophet declared that those who made representations of things “will receive the severest punishment on the day of resurrection,” that “Everyone who makes representations of things will go to hell.” He declared them to be “the worst of God’s creatures.” He put them at par with “the one who kills a prophet, or who is killed by a prophet, or kills one of his parents.” [ Several other hadis, and of course several instances can be cited; for the few which have been quoted see, Mishkat Al-Masabih, Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Volume II, Book XXI, Chapter V, pp. 940-44. ]

Hussein on the contrary has made painting images his very life. Therefore, in a very deep sense, his entire life is an endeavour to open an aperture in that wall of prohibitions. It has been a banner for liberalism, indeed for liberation.

In sum, I am for Hussein, not for his champions;

The position which Hussein’s champions have taken up is just the one which our society needs;

We should hold them to their word, and have them stick by it in the case of one and all;

And we should await the day when their muse will lead them to exercise their creative urge, “that one talent which is death to hide,” paint as freely and with as much abandon themes from all our religions and traditions.

Finally, a forecast : the more the secularists insist on double-standards, the more Islamic will the Hindus become.

End of article

P.S: MF Hussain not only painted Saraswati, Radha-Krishna in the nude but also Bharat Mata, Sita, Hanuman. Speaks a lot of the perversion of the debate.

One more interesting article on this subject – “Why are Hindus Offended to MF Hussain’s Art

People Have Been Misguided About Sanskrit – Joe D’ Cruz

Source Link

Noted Tamil writer and Sahitya Akademi award winner, Joe D’ Cruz, on Friday charged that people have been “misguided for 60 years” about Sanskrit and had been kept away from learning it.

Speaking at the inauguration of the three-day ‘ Samskrit for Samanya’ , a conference at the Meenakshi College for Women here that seeks to take the language to the common people, Mr. D’Cruz asserted that Sanskrit was the window to India’s culture.

“Where is the great knowledge, culture of this country? We have been taken away from it,” he said.

The writer said there was a notion that Sanskrit was the preserve of the higher echelons of the society and it was the language of the Hindu texts. “But I must tell you it is great literature. You will find our heritage, culture through it,” Mr. D’Cruz pointed out.

It was not as though Sanskrit was being taken to a lower level to help the downtrodden access it. Rather, he said, it had always been a language of everyone and gave examples of Vyasa, Valmiki and Kalidasa and their great contribution to literature.

“Unless we know our history, how will we progress,” he asked.

ఓట్ల వేటలో రాజ్యాంగానికి తూట్లు

“SC/ST Reservation Parirakshana Vedika” ,an organisation working for the welfare of the SC-ST community sent us this document . The article is in Telugu and being reproduced for wider debate

ఓట్ల వేటలో రాజ్యాంగానికి తూట్లు