Why do Indians propagate the myth that Pakistan's minorities went down from 20% in 1947 to 3% today?

[Slog]

Thats the thread you replied to yesterday and got merged with it , we discussed India today of all has actually written an article on it which is unlike them.

True.

One positive from all this is that now proper publications have had to put it and debunk this ridiculous claim.

For many many years online Indian community had been propagating this myth to the point that to the average Indian this had almost become a fact and I’d seen people quote it just because they had themselves heard it so many times (hence why I had made this thread in the first place)

Now that this was said in parliament it’s nice to see it being debunked in publications.

 

[ReverseHit]

Probably to point score? If it sticks, we'll keep throwing it.

 

[Slog]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In Pakistan, the population of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists was 23%. Today, it stands at just 3%. <br><br>Where did these 20% people go? Were they converted? Were they expelled? Did they ran away? The world wants to know: Shri <a href="https://twitter.com/JPNadda?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JPNadda</a></p>— BJP (@BJP4India) <a href="https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/1213395237080420353?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Omg why is an official party page tweeting this.

I can understand illiterate RSS ghundas sayinf this but this is embarrassing

 

[ahsan17]

As I had mentioned before, I expect them to continue to peddle the lie even after knowing it's a lie. Their public does it everyday knowing it's a lie.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

The BJP representative at the Oxford Union debate used the same lie recently to try to argue for the CAB . Unfortunately no one refuted his figures. Would have been hilarious for someone to put the idiot in his place and completely undermine his credibility.

 

[Hermoine Green]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In Pakistan, the population of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists was 23%. Today, it stands at just 3%. <br><br>Where did these 20% people go? Were they converted? Were they expelled? Did they ran away? The world wants to know: Shri <a href="https://twitter.com/JPNadda?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JPNadda</a></p>— BJP (@BJP4India) <a href="https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/1213395237080420353?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Omg why is an official party page tweeting this.

I can understand illiterate RSS ghundas sayinf this but this is embarrassing

Lies about Pakistan, are facts for BJP and some of the Indian posters here. Simple.

 

[kk1992]

Lies about Pakistan, are facts for BJP and some of the Indian posters here. Simple.

Particular poster will be like, BJP said it, it is now gods word, no one can deny it, and what Pakistan say does not matter, either they are fool to believe it if they believe it or they are here muddy the facts in RSS/BJP/Hindtuva favor.

And whats up with obsession with Pakistan? oh yea! need a boogeyman to get the gullible population to keep you in power.

 

[Mamoon]

It is true that the numbers dropped because of our incessant discrimination and shameless racism for 20 years that eventually led to the separation of East Pakistan, not to mention the fact that our military committed the greatest genocide in modern subcontinent history.

However, we keep bringing that up as if it is a justification of some sorts. It is not. Pakistan is still responsible for the reduction of minority population because we couldn’t hold onto our Eastern half because of our own arrogance.

 

[Slog]

It is true that the numbers dropped because of our incessant discrimination and shameless racism for 20 years that eventually led to the separation of East Pakistan, not to mention the fact that our military committed the greatest genocide in modern subcontinent history.

However, we keep bringing that up as if it is a justification of some sorts. It is not. Pakistan is still responsible for the reduction of minority population because we couldn’t hold onto our Eastern half because of our own arrogance.

Yes but the minority population has not decreased due to mass killing as BJP goons and Jahils like to allege and they have been called out everywhere recently but still hold onto their myth because their whole life outlook will be shattered if they accept the truth

 

[Mamoon]

Yes but the minority population has not decreased due to mass killing as BJP goons and Jahils like to allege and they have been called out everywhere recently but still hold onto their myth because their whole life outlook will be shattered if they accept the truth

The truth doesn’t make us look any good either, so I don’t think we should be too passionate about correcting them.

It is a deplorable situation for Pakistan because neither the truth nor the lie shows us in good light.

 

[Slog]

The truth doesn’t make us look any good either, so I don’t think we should be too passionate about correcting them.

It is a deplorable situation for Pakistan because neither the truth nor the lie shows us in good light.

Yes but it’s good to call out a lie and set the record straight.

 

[ahsan17]

It is true that the numbers dropped because of our incessant discrimination and shameless racism for 20 years that eventually led to the separation of East Pakistan, not to mention the fact that our military committed the greatest genocide in modern subcontinent history.

However, we keep bringing that up as if it is a justification of some sorts. It is not. Pakistan is still responsible for the reduction of minority population because we couldn’t hold onto our Eastern half because of our own arrogance.

Then they should use the correct explanation. When they lie, it removes any credibility they have.

 

[kk1992]

Hold up! did someone try to blame Pakistan for BJP/RSS/Hindutva spreading false information?

Yea, someone did, lol.

Oh yea! we all are aware of history, just because it is repeated to support the lie does not make it any more significant.

This is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Slog]

[MENTION=428]Romali_rotti[/MENTION] needs to go through OP

 

[Abdullah719]

For some of them, it depends on the intentions. Furthering a false narrative can be useful for spreading a certain viewpoint.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">5 million Hindus live in Pakistan , more than 1.5% in 1951 we are now 1.7% . Does that prove WE r Pakistanis First and Foremost . You Sir have become brainwashed because of RSS and your stupid media . <a href="https://t.co/sPNQMKd68V">https://t.co/sPNQMKd68V</a></p>— Dewan Sachal (@essel1) <a href="https://twitter.com/essel1/status/1310894842961113088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Romali_rotti]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">5 million Hindus live in Pakistan , more than 1.5% in 1951 we are now 1.7% . Does that prove WE r Pakistanis First and Foremost . You Sir have become brainwashed because of RSS and your stupid media . <a href="https://t.co/sPNQMKd68V">https://t.co/sPNQMKd68V</a></p>— Dewan Sachal (@essel1) <a href="https://twitter.com/essel1/status/1310894842961113088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

lol, a measly 0.2 percent increase in nearly 70 years . I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

 

[Romali_rotti]

[MENTION=428]Romali_rotti[/MENTION] needs to go through OP

A .2 percent increase in their population shows the trouble they face in Pakistan of surviving, that is a pathetic 0.002 % population increase per year, these are humans you are talking about not a Tasmanian Devil, their population increase being so pathetic, tells me they have been converted to Islam at a healthy rate.. However some credit where it is due, just the fact that there is even a minority still left in Pakistan is a miracle...

If Muslims were at 1.5% in India in 1951 (pure hypothesis), they most likely would have been atleast around 10-15 percent of the current population by now my guestimate. There in lies the difference between Pakistan and India. Also don't come back with the struggles of muslims in India argument to counter act, I know muslims have struggles in India but we are talking about population increases here.

 

[Bigboii]

A .2 percent increase in their population shows the trouble they face in Pakistan of surviving, that is a pathetic 0.002 % population increase per year, these are humans you are talking about not a Tasmanian Devil, their population increase being so pathetic, tells me they have been converted to Islam at a healthy rate.. However some credit where it is due, just the fact that there is even a minority still left in Pakistan is a miracle...

If Muslims were at 1.5% in India in 1951 (pure hypothesis), they most likely would have been atleast around 10-15 percent of the current population by now my guestimate. There in lies the difference between Pakistan and India. Also don't come back with the struggles of muslims in India argument to counter act, I know muslims have struggles in India but we are talking about population increases here.

They're not rabbits jeez man calm down

1% to 10% in 50 to 60 years lol

 

[Romali_rotti]

They're not rabbits jeez man calm down

1% to 10% in 50 to 60 years lol

I did say it was a guestimate, however makes more sense that a .002 increase per year.. What the hell lol, ..

 

[Bigboii]

I did say it was a guestimate, however makes more sense that a .002 increase per year.. What the hell lol, ..

Not really in all honesty

 

[Romali_rotti]

Not really in all honesty

Well in 1951 India had a muslim population of 34 million, now we have around 195 Million. That is quite a healthy increase, however .002 minority population increase per year and an overall pathetic .2% in 70 years will only makes sense if you are a Pakistani and not others... My figures of a 10% increase is exaggerated agreed, however I did say I was guessing (so not factual) however the Indian muslims increased at a healthy rate..

 

[Slog]

A .2 percent increase in their population shows the trouble they face in Pakistan of surviving, that is a pathetic 0.002 % population increase per year, these are humans you are talking about not a Tasmanian Devil, their population increase being so pathetic, tells me they have been converted to Islam at a healthy rate.. However some credit where it is due, just the fact that there is even a minority still left in Pakistan is a miracle...

If Muslims were at 1.5% in India in 1951 (pure hypothesis), they most likely would have been atleast around 10-15 percent of the current population by now my guestimate. There in lies the difference between Pakistan and India. Also don't come back with the struggles of muslims in India argument to counter act, I know muslims have struggles in India but we are talking about population increases here.

Clearly math, or common sense, isn’t your forte...

 

[Slog]

Well in 1951 India had a muslim population of 34 million, now we have around 195 Million. That is quite a healthy increase, however .002 minority population increase per year and an overall pathetic .2% in 70 years will only makes sense if you are a Pakistani and not others... My figures of a 10% increase is exaggerated agreed, however I did say I was guessing (so not factual) however the Indian muslims increased at a healthy rate..

Man you literally do not know how math works. Or how rate of growth affects percentages. I am baffled that we have what is an adult man making such posts.

 

[Abdullah719]

lol, a measly 0.2 percent increase in nearly 70 years . I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…

I don’t mean to be rude, but I gotta ask. Do you know how percentages work?

Here are some possible reasons which could have led to the percentage of Hindus increasing more in Pakistan.

a). Many people of other religions convert to Hinduism.
b). Large swathes of Hindus from other countries migrate to Pakistan.
c). Hindu households with a higher fertility rate than other demographics.

I don’t see A or B happening too often. So your complaint is that Pakistani Hindus aren’t having enough children?

 

[Bigboii]

I don’t mean to be rude, but I gotta ask. Do you know how percentages work?

Here are some possible reasons which could have led to the percentage of Hindus increasing more in Pakistan.

a). Many people of other religions convert to Hinduism.
b). Large swathes of Hindus from other countries migrate to Pakistan.
c). Hindu households with a higher fertility rate than other demographics.

I don’t see A or B happening too often. So your complaint is that Pakistani Hindus aren’t having enough children?

I think he is saying that growth is not happening because of forced conversions

 

[BreadPakoda]

A .2 percent increase in their population shows the trouble they face in Pakistan of surviving, that is a pathetic 0.002 % population increase per year, these are humans you are talking about not a Tasmanian Devil, their population increase being so pathetic, tells me they have been converted to Islam at a healthy rate.. However some credit where it is due, just the fact that there is even a minority still left in Pakistan is a miracle...

If Muslims were at 1.5% in India in 1951 (pure hypothesis), they most likely would have been atleast around 10-15 percent of the current population by now my guestimate. There in lies the difference between Pakistan and India. Also don't come back with the struggles of muslims in India argument to counter act, I know muslims have struggles in India but we are talking about population increases here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 0.2% increase in share of overall population mean that population of Hindus increased at almost the same rate (in fact a bit higher) as that of the rest of the country's?

 

[BreadPakoda]

I think he is saying that growth is not happening because of forced conversions

But if they are growing at the same rate as the rest of the country, then what is the problem? Not saying that there isn't discrimination towards minorities in Pakistan, but this isn't the right data to prove it.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I think he is saying that growth is not happening because of forced conversions

Thank you, finally, someone read my post with eyes open..

 

[Slog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 0.2% increase in share of overall population mean that population of Hindus increased at almost the same rate (in fact a bit higher) as that of the rest of the country's?

I don’t think he understands mathematics or how percentages work very well. And I am being generous here.

Obv state of Hindus in Pakistan isn’t ideal by any means but he literally has no idea what he’s talking about. I’m still a bit baffled as how he can mix up rate of increase of population with increase in percentage with the share of population to come up with the Mumbo-jumbo he has in that post of his.

 

[Romali_rotti]

But if they are growing at the same rate as the rest of the country, then what is the problem? Not saying that there isn't discrimination towards minorities in Pakistan, but this isn't the right data to prove it.

.002 % increase in Hindu population a year is the same rate of yearly growth as the muslim population of Pakistan a year ?

 

[Slog]

I think he is saying that growth is not happening because of forced conversions

But growth is happening. Like since 1951 share of Hindus in Pakistan population has increased and share of Muslims has decreased actually.

Obv no denying there may be forced conversions etc but the crux of his argument literally makes no sense with the evidence he is using.

 

[Abdullah719]

I think he is saying that growth is not happening because of forced conversions

Well, to assume that, we need to assume that the fertility rate in Hindu families is higher. How likely is that?

In the 1951 census, West Pakistan’s population was 33.7 million. If 1.5% of that was Hindus, that’s around 500,000.

If they are 1.7% of the current population (220m), that’s around 3.7 million. Last year, the Pakistan Hindu Council even claimed there are 8 million Hindus in Pakistan (seems like an exaggeration).

So how do these numbers show forced conversions? Even by the low estimate, Hindus multiplied 7x, which is pretty similar to the overall population.

 

[Romali_rotti]

a). Many people of other religions convert to Hinduism.
b). Large swathes of Hindus from other countries migrate to Pakistan.

lol... I am out of words... Large swathes of Hindus from other countries migrate to Pakistan... Good Lord... Is there any data to show this ? Heck I could be wrong, but can you prove criteria b) ?

 

[Slog]

.002 % increase in Hindu population a year is the same rate of yearly growth as the muslim population of Pakistan a year ?

Oh bhai you are confusing share of hindu population as part of Pakistan’s total population with the growth of hindu population.

As per stats Hindu population has actually grown at a slightly higher rate than national average since their share of population has increased

 

[Slog]

lol... I am out of words... Large swathes of Hindus from other countries migrate to Pakistan... Good Lord... Is there any data to show this ? Heck I could be wrong, but can you prove criteria b) ?

Oh my God. Are you slow? Did you even read his whole post? He just gave those two as possible scenarios and himself rules them out in the same post. Bro I think you’re have a bad day and probably should take a break at this point. You’re embarassing your intellectual capability here.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Oh bhai you are confusing share of hindu population as part of Pakistan’s total population with the growth of hindu population.

As per stats Hindu population has actually grown at a slightly higher rate than national average since their share of population has increased

Oh wow, thanks for the clarification

But

Where did I say the Hindu population of Pakistan did not increase ?, Did I deny the measly 0.002 % increase of their population per year ?

 

[Slog]

Oh wow, thanks for the clarification

But

Where did I say the Hindu population of Pakistan did not increase ?, Did I deny the measly 0.002 % increase of their population per year ?

Do you understand and accept that Pakistan’s hindu population in fact grew at a higher rate than Pakistan’s muslim population from 1951 (west Pakistan numbers in that case) onwards to today?

 

[Bigboii]

lol... I am out of words... Large swathes of Hindus from other countries migrate to Pakistan... Good Lord... Is there any data to show this ? Heck I could be wrong, but can you prove criteria b) ?

Damn man read!!! Please!!!!

And talking about data you clearly mixing data to propogate your biases

Even a child can tell you're misquoting and misusing data to "fix" your side of the argument

Calm down, take a break and read

 

[Slog]

I’m literally baffled at this whole exchange. Like this actually happened lol

 

[Romali_rotti]

He just gave those two as possible scenarios .

Bro,

I think you need more caffeine today than me, lol . How in the world is criteria b) a possibility?, he made the statement, now show me how this possibility can occur because I am lost for words.. If you are just making a blanket statement that is no true (absolute zero evidence to back it up) then manufacturing a possibility to win the argument, then it is weak as hell...

Ahhh the

 

[Abdullah719]

I don’t know what else to say. I’m out.

 

[Slog]

Bro,

I think you need more caffeine today than me, lol . How in the world is criteria b) a possibility?, he made the statement, now show me how this possibility can occur because I am lost for words.. If you are just making a blanket statement that is no true (absolute zero evidence to back it up) then manufacturing a possibility to win the argument, then it is weak as hell...

Ahhh the

Dude he literally said that only there can be 3 possibilities for arguments sake and then dismissedthe first two. He never said it was fact or even claimed it as a real possibility. It was just for sake of argument.

We had already established that math and percentages wasn’t your forte. Seems like neither is English comprehension. To give you benefit of doubt I dont think you are that clueless and lost which is why I’m assuming you’re having a bad day and in need of a break.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I don’t know what else to say. I’m out.

Ok ok You win, I didnt read the full post where you said, Option A & B was not much of possibility....

But still

.002 % increase, I stand my ground, forced conversions the reasons for this measly increase, unless ofcourse they are infertile..

 

[Slog]

I don’t know what else to say. I’m out.

I am literally lost for words. It is baffling.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Dude he literally said that only there can be 3 possibilities for arguments sake and then dismissedthe first two. He never said it was fact or even claimed it as a real possibility. It was just for sake of argument.

We had already established that math and percentages wasn’t your forte. Seems like neither is English comprehension. To give you benefit of doubt I dont think you are that clueless and lost which is why I’m assuming you’re having a bad day and in need of a break.

Noted, My mistake, I didnt read the full post...

 

[Slog]

Ok ok You win, I didnt read the full post where you said, Option A & B was not much of possibility....

But still

.002 % increase, I stand my ground, forced conversions the reasons for this measly increase, unless ofcourse they are infertile..

You can stand your ground on whatever loony conspiracy theories you have it wouldn’t make a difference to facts.

I have a question which you sidestepped earlier. Do you understand that the rate of growth of Hindus since 1951 to today in what constitutes Pakistan today is greater than the rate of growth of Muslims in the same period? Obv not saying Hindus don’t have their troubles etc but Do you understand that Hindus have grown in a higher rate than Muslims in Pakistan in the past 70 years?

 

[Romali_rotti]

You can stand your ground on whatever loony conspiracy theories you have it wouldn’t make a difference to facts.

I have a question which you sidestepped earlier. Do you understand that the rate of growth of Hindus since 1951 to today in what constitutes Pakistan today is greater than the rate of growth of Muslims in the same period? Obv not saying Hindus don’t have their troubles etc but Do you understand that Hindus have grown in a higher rate than Muslims in Pakistan in the past 70 years?

We know Pakistan's Hindu population increased at 0.002% per year once Pakistan was formed, I had no idea the muslim population of Pakistan was growing at lesser rate in comparison..

 

[Slog]

We know Pakistan's Hindu population increased at 0.002% per year once Pakistan was formed, I had no idea the muslim population of Pakistan was growing at lesser rate in comparison..

No. You have your math wrong and are using wrong metrics to come to your number.

What you have done here is taken the difference between 1.5% (Hindu share of population currently) and subtracted that for 1.3% (hindu share in 1951) to come to 0.2%. And you are calling it a 0.2% increase in hindu population. And then you are coming to an annual increase of 0.002%. I am not sure how you are coming to 0.002% but I assume it is by dividing 0.2% by 70 years. That actually gives a 0.0029% so in any world when you round you will give a 0.003% figure and not the 0.002% figure you have been parroting. BUT THIS IS ALL BESIDES THE POINT. It is irrelevant. The 0.2% is increase in share of hindu population as percentage of total population. It is NOT the increase in hindu population.

The increase in hindu population would be done in the following way. Hindu population in 1951 was approx. 500,000. Today at the lowest end of the estimate it is 3.7mm. However Pakistan Hindu Council says that the population is actually 8mm. But for right now let’s go with 3.7mm. So if you use a CAGR then the annual rate of increase would be about 3% not the 0.002% you quoted. And this 3% is significantly lower than the overall rate of increase in population.

I hope this long post showed you how math works and your claims and beliefs make no sense statistically. Obviously I am not claiming that Pakistan is in anyway heaven for Hindus and that the community doesn’t face persecution. But the metric you are using does not support the claim you are making.

 

[ahsan17]

We know Pakistan's Hindu population increased at 0.002% per year once Pakistan was formed, I had no idea the muslim population of Pakistan was growing at lesser rate in comparison..

Why are you mixing up two different statistics and using one statistic in the context of the other?

You are using the increase in Hindu population as a percentage of total population in the context of increase in overall Hindu population. Obviously if Hindu population grows as fast as rest of the population, their population growth as a percentage of total population will be 0%. In this case they are actually growing faster than rest of the population. What issue do you find in that?

Now, if you are unable to understand the difference between the two statistics, I wouldn't be able to help you.

 

[Slog]

Now, if you are unable to understand the difference between the two statistics, I wouldn't be able to help you.

[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] and I have tried... doesn’t seem to be making much difference though.

Atleast [MENTION=146594]BreadPakoda[/MENTION] I think sees where we are coming from.

 

[ahsan17]

[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] and I have tried... doesn’t seem to be making much difference though.

Atleast [MENTION=146594]BreadPakoda[/MENTION] I think sees where we are coming from.

I wonder if this is their way of proving Hindu population went from 20% to 3% of total population.

 

[BreadPakoda]

[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] and I have tried... doesn’t seem to be making much difference though.

Atleast [MENTION=146594]BreadPakoda[/MENTION] I think sees where we are coming from.

Yeah, I do. Had a long day. Not in a mood to get into explaining this concept. lol

 

[Slog]

I wonder if this is their way of proving Hindu population went from 20% to 3% of total population.

No I think Romali Rotti lives in his own world.

Their actual way of proving was to originally use figures of both East and West Pakistan in 1951 and compare that to figures of Pakistan today which would obv give a wrong picture since East Pakistan in 1951 had >20% Hindus. That claim they had obviously has been debunked now by even their own newspapers.

The Indian ruling party messed up big
Time here though. It used to be an internet myth which indians would peddle year after year and they would live in their own echo chamber. But then last year BJP made the mistake of quoting these fake stats in a parliament session. That obv brought the stT attention in the mainstream and people started checking the numbers behind BJp claim. And due to that the fake stat has been busted for good.

 

[Romali_rotti]

No. You have your math wrong and are using wrong metrics to come to your number.

What you have done here is taken the difference between 1.5% (Hindu share of population currently) and subtracted that for 1.3% (hindu share in 1951) to come to 0.2%. And you are calling it a 0.2% increase in hindu population. And then you are coming to an annual increase of 0.002%. I am not sure how you are coming to 0.002% but I assume it is by dividing 0.2% by 70 years. That actually gives a 0.0029% so in any world when you round you will give a 0.003% figure and not the 0.002% figure you have been parroting. BUT THIS IS ALL BESIDES THE POINT. It is irrelevant. The 0.2% is increase in share of hindu population as percentage of total population. It is NOT the increase in hindu population.

The increase in hindu population would be done in the following way. Hindu population in 1951 was approx. 500,000. Today at the lowest end of the estimate it is 3.7mm. However Pakistan Hindu Council says that the population is actually 8mm. But for right now let’s go with 3.7mm. So if you use a CAGR then the annual rate of increase would be about 3% not the 0.002% you quoted. And this 3% is significantly lower than the overall rate of increase in population.

I hope this long post showed you how math works and your claims and beliefs make no sense statistically. Obviously I am not claiming that Pakistan is in anyway heaven for Hindus and that the community doesn’t face persecution. But the metric you are using does not support the claim you are making.

Ok, appreciate the breakdown and to be honest I have never bothered to look at it in-depth level and yes it does partly make sense in regards to the minority population.. I will do more of my own research and provide a detailed breakdown, I will do it in time and post it here in this thread. Also NO, I am not one of those individuals who believe the reason for the minority population of Pakistan dropping from 20% to 1.7% was only due to religious persecutions, I am aware of the demographic shift..

 

[Slog]

no. You have your math wrong and are using wrong metrics to come to your number.

What you have done here is taken the difference between 1.5% (hindu share of population currently) and subtracted that for 1.3% (hindu share in 1951) to come to 0.2%. And you are calling it a 0.2% increase in hindu population. And then you are coming to an annual increase of 0.002%. I am not sure how you are coming to 0.002% but i assume it is by dividing 0.2% by 70 years. That actually gives a 0.0029% so in any world when you round you will give a 0.003% figure and not the 0.002% figure you have been parroting. But this is all besides the point. It is irrelevant. The 0.2% is increase in share of hindu population as percentage of total population. It is not the increase in hindu population.

The increase in hindu population would be done in the following way. Hindu population in 1951 was approx. 500,000. Today at the lowest end of the estimate it is 3.7mm. However pakistan hindu council says that the population is actually 8mm. But for right now let’s go with 3.7mm. So if you use a cagr then the annual rate of increase would be about 3% not the 0.002% you quoted. And this 3% is significantly higher than the overall rate of increase in population.

I hope this long post showed you how math works and your claims and beliefs make no sense statistically. Obviously i am not claiming that pakistan is in anyway heaven for hindus and that the community doesn’t face persecution. But the metric you are using does not support the claim you are making.

fixed. “3% is significantly higher”

 

[Giannis]

We need more Momins, not Muslims.

 

[Madplayer]

A .2 percent increase in their population shows the trouble they face in Pakistan of surviving, that is a pathetic 0.002 % population increase per year, these are humans you are talking about not a Tasmanian Devil, their population increase being so pathetic, tells me they have been converted to Islam at a healthy rate.. However some credit where it is due, just the fact that there is even a minority still left in Pakistan is a miracle...

If Muslims were at 1.5% in India in 1951 (pure hypothesis), they most likely would have been atleast around 10-15 percent of the current population by now my guestimate. There in lies the difference between Pakistan and India. Also don't come back with the struggles of muslims in India argument to counter act, I know muslims have struggles in India but we are talking about population increases here.

Man, it was already very hard to take you seriously

 

[Slog]

Ok, appreciate the breakdown and to be honest I have never bothered to look at it in-depth level and yes it does partly make sense in regards to the minority population.. I will do more of my own research and provide a detailed breakdown, I will do it in time and post it here in this thread. Also NO, I am not one of those individuals who believe the reason for the minority population of Pakistan dropping from 20% to 1.7% was only due to religious persecutions, I am aware of the demographic shift..

Asides from demographic shift there’s this little thing called separation of East pakistan into Bangladesh. East Pakistan has >20% Hindus and west pakistan (what is pakistan today) has 1.3% in 1950. Hopefully you can do the math there as to what impact independence of Bangladesh has on % of Hindus in Pakistan

 

[Romali_rotti]

Asides from demographic shift there’s this little thing called separation of East pakistan into Bangladesh. East Pakistan has >20% Hindus and west pakistan (what is pakistan today) has 1.3% in 1950. Hopefully you can do the math there as to what impact independence of Bangladesh has on % of Hindus in Pakistan

Noted...

 

[Slog]

Thread is about numbers and factually incorrect claims. No one is making case for good or bad treatment and there are other threads to discuss that.

People should discuss topic in hand and how indian claims in thread title have been thoroughly debunked

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

1951 Census of Pakistan - Hindus are 1.6% of population of West Pakistan

if you go to pg 1 of the census you will see Caste Hindus at 0.5% and Scheduled Caste Hindus at 1.1% gibing the total of 1.6%.

http://lsi.gov.in:8081/jspui/bitstre...2_1951_POP.pdf


1998 Census of Pakistan - Hindus are 1.85% of population in Pakistan.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140402...k/Religion.htm

http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/...tion/16-16.pdf

The newest census of 2017, has not been released as yet. However from the Census we can tell that from 1951 to 1998 there was no reduction in the Hindu population.

 

[CricketCartoons]

1951 Census of Pakistan - Hindus are 1.6% of population of West Pakistan

if you go to pg 1 of the census you will see Caste Hindus at 0.5% and Scheduled Caste Hindus at 1.1% gibing the total of 1.6%.

http://lsi.gov.in:8081/jspui/bitstre...2_1951_POP.pdf


1998 Census of Pakistan - Hindus are 1.85% of population in Pakistan.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140402...k/Religion.htm

http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/...tion/16-16.pdf

The newest census of 2017, has not been released as yet. However from the Census we can tell that from 1951 to 1998 there was no reduction in the Hindu population.

The census for scheduled castes is not reliable. Is it true that they have a separate box to tick but are not aware of it, so tick the hindu box?

 

[Buffet]

Pakistan's minority population should be considered from 1971 as a base. If you want to dissect from an earlier period then it will require a lot more normalization to do an apple to apple comparison.

 

[Slog]

Pakistan's minority population should be considered from 1971 as a base. If you want to dissect from an earlier period then it will require a lot more normalization to do an apple to apple comparison.

Even then the minority population has increased. But why can we look at from 1951 for west pakistan since that is exactly what constitutes pakistan today.

Anyway the point of the thread is not to claim that Hindus aren’t discriminated in Pakistan or that Pakistan is heaven for them. The point of the thread is to wholly debunk an oft-quoted ‘statistic’ which is used as evidence for the claim that minorities are persecuted in Pakistan.

For the population in a specific land to reduce from 20% to 3% over 70 years without any major out-migration you would need a genocide on a scale never seen before.