India to become world's largest Muslim country in..., population will cross..., Hindus will be...
India to become world's largest Muslim country in…, population will cross…, Hindus will be…
Hindu-Muslim Population of India: According to a study that was published in 2015 by the United States-based Pew Research Center, the Muslim population in India is expected to increase to such an extent that it will become the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Currently, Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims. However, India's rapidly growing population, combined with a high growth rate of the Muslim community, may change the scenario soon.
According to the report, by 2050 the total population of India will be 166 crores, in which the population of Hindus is expected to be 130 crores. The population of Muslims will be 31 crores by then. In 2050, the country's share in the total world's Muslim population will be 11 percent. This change will majorly impact demographics and consequently, social, cultural, and political discussions. How Many Hindus-Muslims Between 1951 And 2011?
From 1951 to 2011, in India, the trend of population growth has witnessed a drastic change on the basis of religion. As per Pew Research's data, the fastest growth has been recorded in the Muslims of the country. In 1951, the population of Muslims in India was 3 crore 54 lakh, which has increased to 17.20 crore in 2011. A jump of 386 percent was recorded in the population of Muslims during this period.
Between 1951 and 2011, the Hindu population grew from 300 million to 960 million, a 218% increase. This growth rate was significantly lower than that of the Muslim population. However, the Muslim population's rapid growth is tempered by a concurrently declining fertility rate. Over the same period, the Sikh and Christian populations increased by 235% and 232%, respectively. Decline In Fertility Rates
The Pew Research Report also revealed that there has been a clear decline in the fertility rate in both Muslim and Hindu communities, a positive sign towards population stabilisation.
If we look at the fertility rate among Muslims, the fertility rate of women was 4.4 percent in 1992-93, which recorded 2.3 in 2022. Meanwhile, a decline of 47 percent was recorded.
The fertility rate of Hindu women was 3.3 in 1992-93, which became 1.9 in 2022, with a decline of 42 percent. Is Population Growth A Matter Of Social Concern?
Analysis of religious population data reveals that the growth of the Muslim population in India is attributable to socioeconomic factors like access to education and wealth, rather than being a cause for political or social alarm. A consistent decline in fertility rates is observed across all religious groups. Consequently, India's population is projected to be multi-religious but increasingly socially homogenous by 2050.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
What Ram Vilas Paswan did to Lalu in 2005 must haunt Nitish in 2025 as Chirag enters poll fray
The LJP has said that Paswan will contest from a general, not a reserved seat. He is looking to expand his party's support base beyond the six per cent Paswan votebank. But there is more to it than meets the eye. One must go back 20 years to understand why Nitish Kumar would be wary of Paswan's moves in Bihar. So, what is he up to? He was evasive when I asked him a couple of weeks back about the speculation around him contesting the Assembly poll. His party colleagues were thinking that it would bolster the party's prospects, he said. Plausible but not very convincing. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) is crowded in Bihar. Given that the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Janata Dal (United) are likely to contest around a hundred seats each, barely 35-40 remaining seats in the 243-member Assembly would be available for the other NDA constituents. This includes Paswan's LJP, Jitan Ram Manjhi's Hindustani Awam Morcha (HAM) and Upendra Kushwaha's Rashtriya Lok Morcha. Paswan would, of course, get a lion's share of these remaining seats, but that's still not big enough for him to harbour large ambitions and enter the poll fray. Why would a Union Cabinet minister contest an Assembly election in which his party is a marginal player and the chief ministerial chair is seemingly out of bounds? Many in Bihar political circles are looking for an answer after food processing industries minister Chirag Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) declared on Sunday that he would contest the upcoming Assembly election. It's not casual political bravado, for sure. Look at the way he bounced back from a hopeless political situation after the death of his father, Ram Vilas Paswan, and desertion by his uncle and other party MPs. The 42-year-old leader has a wise head on young shoulders. In the February 2005 Assembly elections, Ram Vilas Paswan ended the Lalu Yadav family's 15-year rule. Three constituents of then ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) contested separately—the LJP, the Congress and Lalu Yadav's Rashtriya Janata Dal. Paswan senior fielded candidates against the RJD, but not against the Congress. The RJD emerged as the single largest party with 75 seats, the LJP with 29 seats, and the Congress with 10. If they came together, Lalu-Rabri's 15-year reign could have continued with the support of smaller parties. The NDA secured 92 seats. With 122 being the majority mark, Ram Vilas Paswan emerged as the kingmaker. He declared that he would join hands 'neither with the communal BJP nor with the corrupt and casteist RJD'. He said he would support a Muslim chief minister. He knew Lalu wouldn't agree. Ram Vilas forced a fresh election that brought Nitish Kumar as the CM, ending Lalu Yadav's reign. Also read: BJP has a new Muslim strategy up its sleeve. Saugat-e-Modi isn't just about Bihar election What's happening now Cut to 2020. Declaring himself as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hanuman, Chirag Paswan went after Nitish Kumar in the Assembly election, fielding candidates in constituencies where the JD(U) was contesting. Paswan didn't field candidates against the BJP, just as his father had stayed away from constituencies contested by the Congress 20 years ago. His party won only one seat in 2020 but was instrumental in the defeat of the JD(U) candidates in three dozen seats. Nitish Kumar was smarting as the JD(U) ended up with a mere 43 seats and the BJP emerged as the big brother with 74 seats. Nitish managed to become the CM, though. Now, in 2025, Prime Minister Modi's self-proclaimed Hanuman is in his Cabinet at the Centre. Paswan and Kumar are both part of the NDA. He has often praised the CM from public platforms. But that's hardly assuring for Nitish Kumar. Only last week, Paswan shot off a letter to the Bihar CM, targeting the state administration for the gang rape and murder of a nine-year-old Dalit girl in Muzaffarpur. 'This horrific crime is not only the brutal killing of an innocent life but also highlights a deep breakdown in law and order, social consciousness, and the public health system of Bihar,' wrote Chirag Paswan. Nitish Kumar couldn't have expected a more scathing indictment of his administration even from the Opposition. So, what is Chirag Paswan up to? His declaration to contest the election has come ahead of the seat-sharing negotiations. In 2020, the LJP got more votes than the JD(U) in 32 seats. Paswan would obviously stake a claim for these seats and more. Nitish Kumar would find it difficult to assert. His party had a very poor strike rate in 2020; it could win only 43 out of 115 seats that it contested. The BJP did much better—74 out of 110. So, who should give up seats if Chirag's demand has to be accommodated? Nitish Kumar, obviously. It may or may not happen, given Kumar's indispensability for the NDA in this election. But seat-sharing is just the beginning. Think of a scenario when Nitish Kumar ends up with less than 43 MLAs in the 2025 elections, the BJP maintains its 2020 strike rate, and Chirag Paswan's party ends up with 20-odd seats. Like his Late father in 2005, Chirag would emerge as the kingmaker. Goes without saying that the LJP chief would like to end Nitish Kumar's reign, just as his father ended Lalu's. In this hypothetical scenario, Kumar would obviously threaten to return to Lalu's camp if the numbers add up and if Lalu is willing to prop him up as the CM again. There are too many ifs here. And if Lalu Yadav is not willing to oblige Kumar, the BJP, with Paswan's backing, would love to realise its long-cherished dream of having its own CM in Bihar. Let's not overlook the fact that Nitish Kumar of 2025 wouldn't be in a position to keep his flock together if the BJP were to mount an offensive. Most of the top JD(U) leaders have worked very closely with the BJP. What if Chirag Paswan also has the numbers to take the opposition mahagathbandhan's tally to the majority mark? After all, Paswan has maintained a 'brotherly' relationship with Tejashwi, too. One can argue that Paswans are usually antagonistic to the RJD's core votebank, and so, Chirag is a better fit in the NDA. He also has a Cabinet berth at the Centre. But politics is all about possibilities. At least, that's what the BJP interlocutors would tell Nitish Kumar if Chirag happens to be in a kingmaker's role. Think of all these scenarios. You can't blame Bihari politicians if they see Modi's Hanuman's tail on fire as he enters the Bihar poll fray. DK Singh is Political Editor at ThePrint. He tweets @dksingh73. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Justice Yadav's Speech At VHP Event: Opposition's Impeachment Motion May Be Rejected, Say Sources
Last Updated: Of the 55 submitted signatures, eight did not match, three remain unverified, and two were duplicates The Rajya Sabha Secretariat is likely to reject the impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav on technical grounds, senior government sources told News18. Opposition leaders submitted the motion, accusing Justice Yadav of hate speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. However, of the 55 submitted signatures, eight did not match, three remain unverified, and two were duplicates. Despite repeated requests from the Rajya Sabha Chairman for verification, opposition leaders have not addressed these discrepancies. The government informed the Supreme Court that the matter falls under Parliament's jurisdiction, as it concerns judicial conduct, not a serious allegation such as corruption. Sources also told News18 that if those members willing to sign were to resubmit the motion in the prescribed format, the Rajya Sabha Chairman could consider it. Rules stipulate a minimum of 50 signatures for such a petition. Once correctly submitted, the chairman is obliged to form a three-member committee to examine the charges. This committee would comprise a sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge, a distinguished jurist, and a legal expert. On December 8 last year, Justice Yadav made remarks targeting the Muslim community at a VHP event in Prayagraj. These comments sparked widespread protests from opposition leaders, who questioned the impartiality of the judicial system. Parliament is also expected to address an impeachment motion against Justice Verma in the upcoming monsoon session. The government has initiated discussions with opposition leaders to secure support for this matter. First Published: June 10, 2025, 12:27 IST
