* muslims tend to skew lower SES, and those are the groups that are often the last to switch their demographic trends.

* bangladesh has dropped its TFR to the same extent as india, pakistan though remains far higher, so religion need not be a deterministic variable.

* the christian increase is marginal.

* muslims are suspicious of family planning because their mullahs tell them it will increase their numbers (and they feel threatened) and sanjay gandhi in the 1970s targetted them, along with the low castes, for forced sterilization (so the story goes).

p.s. i'm surprised you turned traitor to your christian antecedants vinod, you should be happy that more indians (fractionally) are coming to christ :)

Hindus Worry Over Christian, Muslim Growth

pretty provocative headline, that. most hinndus don't give a rat's ass about christian/muslim growth - only the hindu nationalists do. anyway, large-scale conversion to christianity is a pretty positive step, IMO. i recall reading that the literacy rate for christians in india is close to 80%.

ps : jains have a literacy rate of over 90% as do the parsis.

The literacy rate among the Hindus at 65.1 per cent was slightly better than the the national average of 64.8 per cent for all religious groups combined.

Among the Muslims, literacy rate was 59.1 per cent and the highest litercay rate was recorded among the Jains at 94.1 per cent followed by Christians 80.3 per cent, Buddhists at 72.7 per cent and Sikhs at 69.4 per cent, the report said.

source:

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/08jain.htm

i recall reading that the literacy rate for christians in india is close to 80%.

well, there is some selection biasing here. christians are not typical of indians, they are more likely to be northeastern tribal or south india, rather than north central india ("cow belt"). if you subtract the cowbelt i would bet that hindu stats looked better.

yeah, i don't think it's a simple 1:1 relationship between conversion to christianity and literacy. Maybe back in Europe during the printing press & the bible this may have held, but not in modern India (though I might be wrong). There are big caste and linguistic differences in literacy within Hindus, for one thing.

well, christians have access to more funds and low caste ones get hooked up into a relatively sympathetic network. the cost vs benefit isn't easy to calculate on the individual scale (individual dalit converts suffer social ostracism, etc.). one thing might be distinguish between christian sects, after all, established protestant and catholic groups probably have better access to social services and educational facilities (since catholics run so many schools in india), but new evangelical groups might be just a christified version of a bhakti devotional cult.

i have nothing against dalits converting to christianity so long as they give up their caste preferences in the bargain.

i have nothing against dalits converting to christianity so long as they give up their caste preferences in the bargain.

hmmm ...
well, they DO have to give up their caste benefits - quotas, reduced fees for education, preferential treatment for loans, etc. which is why the right wing hindu nuts claim (probably correctly this time) that the numbers for christians is underreported, ostensibly cuz dalits are advised against disclosing their true religious affiliation for the fear of losing the aforementioned benefits.

christians are not typical of indians, they are more likely to be northeastern tribal or south india, rather than north central india ("cow belt"). if you subtract the cowbelt i would bet that hindu stats looked better.

OTOH, you could argue that they are not typical in the sense that a preponderance of converts are from the lower castes. keeping that in mind, the 80% figure is SHIT impressive.

yes, christian & muslim converts do not get caste benefits. those who become buddhist though, do, things that make you go hmmmm.... (i tend to look positively on buddhism in comparison to the abrahamic religions or hinduism, but it definitely is probably 'unfair' on the face of it).

and yeah, converts are low caste. but can't ignore the fact that the syrian christian community of kerala is numerous and generally well off, while the northeastern tribals, who are depending on region 50-90% christian, are really not part of the indian social matrix. additionally, there is probably some self-selection going on among the low caste people, i mean, no offense, but what moron would want to remain part of a religion that structurally degrades and denigrates them as part of its nature? (yes, yes, i know enough about hinduism to know that there is more nuance than that, and certainly my muslim relatives are rather classist, but i've heard enough hindus talk about caste to assume a de facto ugliness on this issue that is qualitatively different)

indian religion data sets.

quick examination of the data, and i'm impressed, even in ass-backwards states like UP their literacy rate is high. guess they have to read those bibles.... (though again, self-selection probably plays a role)

what moron would want to remain part of a religion that structurally degrades and denigrates them as part of its nature? (yes, yes, i know enough about hinduism to know that there is more nuance than that, and certainly my muslim relatives are rather classist, but i've heard enough hindus talk about caste to assume a de facto ugliness on this issue that is qualitatively different)

True. I think it would be good for both dalits and the larger community if they converted to christianity and gave up their caste preferences + their resentment. In return, as you say, they are no longer discriminated against. End discrimination, I say! :) The Hindu Right has it all backwards w.r.t. the conversion issue, as they're not thinking ahead from a consequentialist standpoint.

The Hindu Right should be saying to the dalits: "No brother Brer Dalit, please, please don't fling me in the conversion patch...".

Razib wrote that "..i'm impressed, even in ass-backwards states like UP their literacy rate is high".

Perhaps, but correlation-causation worries should be taken into account. It may not be Xtn beliefs/practices, per se, which encourage literacy (the "..need to read the bible..."). The greater literacy of Xtns may (to some extent) be due to the conversion of those who attend Xtn schools. So, some fraction of converts may already be literate (by Indian govt. stds, anyway) before they convert. I'm, of course, not certain of its extent.

gc wrote "...Hindu Right has it all backwards w.r.t. the conversion issue..." Mebbe, but not just the Hindoo Right views conversion with concern. Both now and in the past, some 'Hindus' were also interested in conversion. Saivas vs Jains, Advaitins vs Dvaitins vs Vishistadvaitins, etc. I think too often this strain of Hinduism is underplayed and thought to be a recent pathology emanating from the Hindoo right.

Kumar

1) sure kumar, that's what i meant by selection biasing. there are all sorts of ways that people predisposed to converting in the first place to christianity from a hindu background might be different, ergo, they are more literate than others of similar background. the christian = civilized identity was tried out in papua new guinea, as noted by anthropologist jared diamond, and is part of common folk wisdom there. they think that becoming christian will bring them the benefits of the modern good life, and of course, they aren't correct.

2) as for the 'conversion' issue, well, i think the important point to note is that the RSS and others on the 'hindu right' are *modern* creations that play on same basic hindu motifs and utilize hindu words, but they are very different from what 'hindu' was in the past (which was just an inhabitant of india!). the fixation on particular mythologies, past histories and the great things that hindu science and philosophy have given the world resmeble to me the modus operandi of the abrahamic religions! just like hindu movements like brahmo samaj and arya samaj shaped by their encounter with protestantism, or post-vedic hinduism with the buddhist revolution, so the hindu right exists in the context of its interplay and counterplay with islam, christianity and 'modernity.'

3) i still think it is important to distinguish between espousal of rival hindu sectarian beliefs and conversion to a abrahamic confession. the latter results in a bit change in orientation, and i can attest that my bengali muslim family is often torn betewen 'indian' and 'muslim' inclinations since they are seen as counterposed with each other. while the native indian religious traditions tend to evolve/modify/reform orthodox religious traditions (buddhism, jainism, bhakti devotionalism, sikhism), the abrahamic religions imply an element of rejectionism.

Razib,

Thnx for the response. Yes, of course, the explanation I discussed earlier is a case of self-selection.

Your characterization of the Hindu Right's modern and 'reactive' birth is correct. But given the similar origins of other Indian religions, as you note, this fact alone can't be used to argue against their ideology.

But even if the Hindu Right were to be unique in this regard, such a criticism misses the point that it's all 'theology' in the end. Criticizing is a normative business. I'm sure you'll agree that it's best to wield one's 'theology' openly.

As a traditionalist Hindu, my dismay with the Hindu Right doesn't completely overlap yours, I suspect ;)

As for whether Hindusim was merely a geographical term in the past....well, we could discuss that ad nauseum too. While the past of Hindusim is very different from the present, I think there was a 'theological' tinge to the term (or other equivalent terms) in the past. Briefly, I know this is not the received view, but I beg to differ.

Let me cite one distinguished dissenter from this consensus: The late, great Indologist Wilhelm Halbfass (Kumarlia and Sankara, I believe is the relevant text) thought that the term 'dharma' as used in say Medatithi's commentary on the Manava dharma-shastra betrayed a religious dimension. He was scornfully dismissed, of course, but not successfully refuted (e.g., by Harjot Oberoi).

Additionally, the argument that Hinduism was a merely geographical term ignores the 'theology' attached to mere 'geography' in India. To be truly persuasive, I believe that it needs to be shown that geography had no theological tinge to it, in ancient India. I don't believe that's been shown to be the case.

Kumar

kumar,

well, yes, as an atheist of muslim origin, i guess we would differ a fair amount in the angle that we approach this. i would tend to agree with you that the whole idea that 'hinduism is a modern construction' is probably overplayed.

it is stupid to say that muslim poppulation is increasing. muslims is also practicing the family palnning

whats the percentage of Christians in India? ....2.3% of India's population....HELP THEY MULTIPLIYIN LIKE RATS...THEY WILL FLOOD US ALL...SHOULD WE KILL THEM LIKE WE DID IN ORRISSA?

Man, those 2.3% of christians are definitely a threat to Hindustan! You gotta be careful with these people, you never know when one of these christians might crash a plane into the Shiva Vishnu temple, or blow himself up in a crowded market. You have to especially watch for those nuns wearing suicide vests under those weird burqa looking things.