"Population is a development issue, an issue between a husband and wife. It has nothing to do with religion," says a politburo member of CPM. This is in response to RSS chief KS Sudharshan's advice to Hindus against the two-child norm. Sudharshan's opinion that one may reject is not the issue; but the hard facts which must have disturbed Sudharshan to talk perhaps unlike him are not in issue at all.

Sudharshan was releasing a book on Religious Demography, a meticulous research work by a Chennai-based socio-economic research body, the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS). The CPS came out with the first study of religious demography in India in 2003 and revised it in 2005. The study disclosed that the share of Indian religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism - in the population of the Indian sub-continent has come down from 79.32 percent in 1881 to 67.56 percent in 2001. A decline of 11.76 percent in 120 years; in the last decade alone 1.16 percent! Such a steep 12 percent decline of a faith in a century is extraordinary, says the CPS study. It is the decline of Indian religions, disproportionately in some areas, that invited the partition of India in 1947.

The partition of 1947 was, undeniably, based on religious demography. That explains why Muslim majority areas became part of Pakistan and Indian religions' areas were included in India. See what happens, after partition, in Pakistan in the West and in the East, later Bangladesh. In the census of 1941, Indian religions in West Pakistan were 19.69 percent. Their numbers today? Hold your breath, just 1.84 percent -- it means 9 out of 10 Indian religions have disappeared from West Pakistan! Look at the East - Bangladesh - which was born courtesy the Indian Army. In 1941, Indian religions were 33.93 percent, more than a third of Bangladesh. Their numbers today? Again, hold your breath, just 10.03 percent -- meaning that more than 2 out of 3 Indian religions have disappeared from Bangladesh.

Reduction in Indian religions causes partition first, and next partition exterminates the Indian religions - a perfect sequence. Look at Kashmir and Mizoram for the faith cleansing capabilities of religious intolerance, despite the secular Constitution in force. Between 1981 and 2001, Indian religions in Kashmir valley went down from 5.03 percent to 2.77 percent, that is, almost half of them have disappeared from the valley. Again in Mizoram in which other religions, not the Indian religions, are in majority, the 50,000-strong Reang tribe has been driven out of the state as refugees elsewhere.

When Indian religions were being cleansed out in Pakistan and Bangladesh, as a contrast, in India, Indian religions, not others, are down from 87.22 percent in 1951 to 84.22 percent in 2001 - a decline of 3 percent in 50 years. Others religions are up from 12.78 percent to 15.78 percent at the same time! Their growth is consistent with India's ancient traditions which, perhaps wrongly in hindsight, never looked at the religious profile of any one. Thus whether it were the Parsis, or the Jews or the early Christians or Shia Muslims who driven out of their places by religious intolerance, they were protected by Indian religions when there was no secular Constitution!

This is the measure of the difference between 'doctrinally tolerant' religions like the Indian religions and 'doctrinally intolerant' religions, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica would classify them. So, the concern is not that the other religions are rising in numbers faster. The concern is that history seems to warn that a Pakistan or a Bangladesh might be repeated, particularly in the border districts of Bihar, Bengal and Assam where other religions are disproportionately rising. The concern is that what happened in Pakistan or Bangladesh to Indian religions after partition may repeat in those areas. Would that not lead to further Kashmirs, or more Mizorams is the question. This concern should not be that of only the Indian religions. It should be of others too. They too will be concerned if responsible leadership explains the issue to them.

These concerns are real. Since secular India sweeps under the carpet all hard facts, the realities of 'doctrinally intolerant' religions, others are forced to talk. Facts cannot be ignored, as ignoring them in the past has cost the nation before the very eyes of the present generation. Sudharshan's opinion may be criticised as an extreme reaction, but what about the facts disclosed by the CPS study which drove him to express an extreme view? Facts cannot be ignored and should not be. But, why then does secular India run away from these hard facts, from debating the issue?

Courtesy: www.newindpress.com, November 24, 2006