India's poverty declines

[ejazr]

I don't know why even in a report on poverty numbers people have to mud sling age-old stereotypes.

The most irritating statement is that Muslims vote for Congress lock stock and barrel. Please come out of this mythical fantasy. IF BJP wants Muslim votes, it needs to be inclusive. No other party has any problem in getting votes from Muslims. Infact, in places like Bihar where BJP does not play the anti-Muslim card, it has gotten record Muslim votes. And seriously are only BJP supporters true Indians and patriots? What kind of logic is it that Muslims are poor because they don't vote for BJP?
SC and ST poverty ratios are comparable and in some cases worse than Muslims, is that also because of their voting patterns because tribals in MP, Chattisgarh, Gujarat have all been voting for BJP for the last 10+ years?

I am tired of quoting govt. survey figures on Muslim children going to madrassas which is less than 4%. So no its not because of madrassas. In fact, children who actually do go to madrassas at least learn basic arithmetic and reading skills than those who don't attend any schools. Not to mention that there are already a large number of madrassas that have reformed syllabus that teach CBSE and state board syllabus along with religious subjects. And yes because of this many HINDU students are going to Madrassas as well!
Why many Hindu students study in Bihar's madrasas - Rediff.com India News
Enrolment by Hindu students in madrassas for higher education on increase in Bihar: a welcome sign! | BiharDays

And again, please don't make comments about TFR out of thin air. The 2005-06 survey has shown that Muslim community has shown the sharpest fall in fertility rates of all religious groups and is now 3.09 from 3.6 previously. The national average went down from 2.8 to 2.7 only. STs infact now have a higher fertility rate at 3.2. SC fertility rate is also very close to at 2.9.

In other words, an average Muslim female has 3.1 kids during her life time compared to SC female at 2.9 and ST female at 3.2. An average Indian female has 2.7 kids. Not major differences if you look at these figures.
Bharat catching up with India - Express India


I have explained the main causes which are again explained and supported by facts from the Sachar report which again depends on govt. surveys and not any made up figures.
(1) The Bulk of the Indian Muslim population more than 50% are found in UP, Bihar(+Jharkhand), W. Bengal and Assam. And because these states have high poverty levels as it is, they skew the national Muslim average. Just like UP, Bihar skew the Indian national average by themselves. While on a national scale UP+Bihar contributes only 30% of the population, for Muslims its more than 50%. While Muslims in South India were granted reservations as per their OBC status and allowed to take advantage of this to overcome poverty levels, the same was not present in UP/Bihar/West Bengal.

(2) Other social-economic groups with similar literacy and per capita incomes like SCs and STs have been getting massive state assistance. Every central budget has a specific SC and ST sub-plan for example (it was around US $7-8Billion each in this year's budget) that are directly targeted at poverty alleviation for these groups. They also get reservations in proportion to their population in universities and govt. jobs which allows them to move out of the poverty ladder. Such schemes don't exist or are minimal for poor Muslims in similar conditions. Of course the hue and cry that parties like BJP raise for any schemes that might benefit Muslims comes into play as well. SC/ST poverty alleviation schemes don't have any political opposition as such even by the BJP.
So Reservation benefits are given directly to SC/ST and OBCs major share of which goes to Hindus and covers most of the Hindu poor. Muslims have to compete mainly in the general category for central jobs. Stage jobs in Kerela, AP, Tamil Nadu are different ofcourse because of a small percentage set aside for Muslim OBCs.


(3) Until the 90s, Muslims themselves in their personal capacities did not focus on community welfare. The 2002 riots was another jolt and since then a very massive change towards the better has taken place were community welfare and focus on education and welfare has taken a lot of focus. Instead of waiting for the govt.; Muslim communities are coming forward to help the less privileged ones. Because of the 50 year delay were the "rich/well off" Muslims retreated in their shell and did not take community reforms forward unlike say how Ambedkar did for the SCs,

(4) Employment and literacy rates of Muslim women has also played a major role in overall backwardness. While literacy rates and even graduation rates for Muslim girls have steadily increased, work participation rates are low. As per the 2001 census for Muslims the WPR is around 20% as compared to a national average of 26%. This is even lower than Saudi female work participation rate of 24%, although the Saudi figure is for 2010. Maybe the 2011 figure may show some improvement but this certainly needs to improve in the long run to be around the 30-40% range.

 

[Mad Indian]

I don't know why even in a report on poverty numbers people have to mud sling age-old stereotypes.

The most irritating statement is that Muslims vote for Congress lock stock and barrel. Please come out of this mythical fantasy. IF BJP wants Muslim votes, it needs to be inclusive. No other party has any problem in getting votes from Muslims. Infact, in places like Bihar where BJP does not play the anti-Muslim card, it has gotten record Muslim votes. And seriously are only BJP supporters true Indians and patriots? What kind of logic is it that Muslims are poor because they don't vote for BJP?
SC and ST poverty ratios are comparable and in some cases worse than Muslims, is that also because of their voting patterns because tribals in MP, Chattisgarh, Gujarat have all been voting for BJP for the last 10+ years?

. See the issue is, people voting it out to CONs despite their massive scams. Sorry. This is true. there is no changing the fact. Both Hindus and Muslims vote to the CONs, But the Muslims vote for them more. and i dont know what kind of Inclusiveness you expect from BJP. please clarify.

I am tired of quoting govt. survey figures on Muslim children going to madrassas which is less than 4%. So no its not because of madrassas. In fact, children who actually do go to madrassas at least learn basic arithmetic and reading skills than those who don't attend any schools. Not to mention that there are already a large number of madrassas that have reformed syllabus that teach CBSE and state board syllabus along with religious subjects. And yes because of this many HINDU students are going to Madrassas as well!
Why many Hindu students study in Bihar's madrasas - Rediff.com India News
Enrolment by Hindu students in madrassas for higher education on increase in Bihar: a welcome sign! | BiharDays

This is a new info. Thanks. But still it does not explain why too few muslims get into govt jobs.

And again, please don't make comments about TFR out of thin air. The 2005-06 survey has shown that Muslim community has shown the sharpest fall in fertility rates of all religious groups and is now 3.09 from 3.6 previously. The national average went down from 2.8 to 2.7 only. STs infact now have a higher fertility rate at 3.2. SC fertility rate is also very close to at 2.9.

In other words, an average Muslim female has 3.1 kids during her life time compared to SC female at 2.9 and ST female at 3.2. An average Indian female has 2.7 kids. Not major differences if you look at these figures.
Bharat catching up with India - Express India

ha. Come on sir. SCs/STs have a poverty rate of 34% and 44% respectively. Its because of the high TFR. The case for the muslims is the same. Population per se or the high no. of children is not the problem but the provision of education and complete development of them into a asset for the nation is. It is not possible if the resources are not used properly due to corruption. So no, i wont blame them for having too many kids, but what i dont like it they are not developed to their full capacity

(1) The Bulk of the Indian Muslim population more than 50% are found in UP, Bihar(+Jharkhand), W. Bengal and Assam. And because these states have high poverty levels as it is, they skew the national Muslim average. Just like UP, Bihar skew the Indian national average by themselves. While on a national scale UP+Bihar contributes only 30% of the population, for Muslims its more than 50%. While Muslims in South India were granted reservations as per their OBC status and allowed to take advantage of this to overcome poverty levels, the same was not present in UP/Bihar/West Bengal.

This is not true. Muslims were not given reservation until that baldy MK announced it three years back. Sry it has nothing to do with Muslim upliftment but more to do with the Vote bank-which is another thing we hate. DMK is a Junior CON at the TN level. And as for the UP and Bihar, hmm interesting point.

(2) Other social-economic groups with similar literacy and per capita incomes like SCs and STs have been getting massive state assistance. Every central budget has a specific SC and ST sub-plan for example (it was around US $7-8Billion each in this year's budget) that are directly targeted at poverty alleviation for these groups. They also get reservations in proportion to their population in universities and govt. jobs which allows them to move out of the poverty ladder. Such schemes don't exist or are minimal for poor Muslims in similar conditions. Of course the hue and cry that parties like BJP raise for any schemes that might benefit Muslims comes into play as well. SC/ST poverty alleviation schemes don't have any political opposition as such even by the BJP.
So Reservation benefits are given directly to SC/ST and OBCs major share of which goes to Hindus and covers most of the Hindu poor. Muslims have to compete mainly in the general category for central jobs. Stage jobs in Kerela, AP, Tamil Nadu are different ofcourse because of a small percentage set aside for Muslim OBCs.

Come on sir. SCs/STs still have a poverty at a rate of 34% and 44% which is the highest in the national level. So there is no point in saying that reservation helped them. So sorry. Its a hog wash. Reservation cant help anything but education can. So ask for better education oppurtunities instead of reservation. And frankly if the muslims are not competitive enuff to get govt jobs- it represents the quality of their education nothing else. I am for one wants to eliminate the reservation for good. So no more reservation non sense please.

And OBC reservation does include Muslims. I know more muslims enter the obc quota than Hindus by percentage. So OBC quota is not against the muslims.

(3) Until the 90s, Muslims themselves in their personal capacities did not focus on community welfare. The 2002 riots was another jolt and since then a very massive change towards the better has taken place were community welfare and focus on education and welfare has taken a lot of focus. Instead of waiting for the govt.; Muslim communities are coming forward to help the less privileged ones. Because of the 50 year delay were the "rich/well off" Muslims retreated in their shell and did not take community reforms forward unlike say how Ambedkar did for the SCs,

:shocked: SO?

4) Employment and literacy rates of Muslim women has also played a major role in overall backwardness. While literacy rates and even graduation rates for Muslim girls have steadily increased, work participation rates are low. As per the 2001 census for Muslims the WPR is around 20% as compared to a national average of 26%. This is even lower than Saudi female work participation rate of 24%, although the Saudi figure is for 2010. Maybe the 2011 figure may show some improvement but this certainly needs to improve in the long run to be around the 30-40% range.

THis is true. agreed.


And no , no need for reservation of any kind to bring down poverty. The only people who benefit from reservaiton is the middle class, which does not need reservation in the first place.

 

[ejazr]

. See the issue is, people voting it out to CONs despite their massive scams. Sorry. This is true. there is no changing the fact. Both Hindus and Muslims vote to the CONs, But the Muslims vote for them more. and i don't know what kind of Inclusiveness you expect from BJP. please clarify.

Can you get me any hard facts that shows more Muslims than Hindus vote for Congress? It would impossible for Congress to come to power if it didn't have a higher Hindu vote share over all than BJP or other party.
And if you want to understand inclusiveness, how about you study the Bihar model where Muslims had no problems voting for JD(U)/BJP alliance in both the national and assembly elections. Or how about at least fielding more than 1 Muslim out of 400+ tickets in UP where 18% of the population is Muslim? No need for special favors, just equal treatment

ha. Come on sir. SCs/STs have a poverty rate of 34% and 44% respectively. Its because of the high TFR. The case for the muslims is the same. Population per se or the high no. of children is not the problem but the provision of education and complete development of them into a asset for the nation is. It is not possible if the resources are not used properly due to corruption. So no, i wont blame them for having too many kids, but what i dont like it they are not developed to their full capacity

What data clearly shows is that TFR of all communities is converging, except maybe the tribals who show an opposite trend of increasing TFR in the last three surveys.
There is not much difference between a 2.6 average TFR, a 2.9 SC TFR and a 3.09TFR for Muslims

This is not true. Muslims were not given reservation until that baldy MK announced it three years back. Sry it has nothing to do with Muslim upliftment but more to do with the Vote bank-which is another thing we hate. DMK is a Junior CON at the TN level. And as for the UP and Bihar, hmm interesting point.

Well you are going to learn something new today. There are three states in India that have given reservations to poor Muslims with the creamy layer removed similar to the SC/ST pattern for decades now. Kerela (10%) being the first which put this in place in 1950s. In Bihar(3%) and Karnataka(4%) this facility was extended in the 1970s. Tamil Nadu notified a 3.5% minority quota in 2007 although it has a very small Musim population in any case.

The point I was making was that just like SC/ST sub-groups have benefited from the reservation policy to some degree in getting an education or job and coming out of poverty. South Indian Muslims have been able to do the same. Now a large number of them actually have their own private schools and colleges and contirbute to the private sector. This dynamic is missing in UP/Bihar/Bengal /Assam to a large extent where the bulk of the Muslim population lives.

Come on sir. SCs/STs still have a poverty at a rate of 34% and 44% which is the highest in the national level. So there is no point in saying that reservation helped them. So sorry. Its a hog wash. Reservation cant help anything but education can. So ask for better education oppurtunities instead of reservation. And frankly if the muslims are not competitive enuff to get govt jobs- it represents the quality of their education nothing else. I am for one wants to eliminate the reservation for good. So no more reservation non sense please.

You have to compare the poverty ratios over the years and not just single point in time. Also compare the poverty ratios with Muslims as well. You will see that in the 1960s, there was a large gap between Muslims and SCs/STs. Muslim literacy and poverty ratios were close to OBC levels. Now, the OBCs have gone ahead particluarly post the mandal era where the 27% reservation was earmarked and SCs (34% poverty) have caught up with Muslims(33%). Ofcourse, overall, all social groups have improved continuously. And STs continue be at the bottom in many cases unfortunately.

And OBC reservation does include Muslims. I know more muslims enter the obc quota than Hindus by percentage. So OBC quota is not against the muslims.

Can you point me to any factual source that mentions this? IF this where the case, then you should know that OBC quota is 27%. Even if half of that was being utilized by Muslims, then you would see atleast 10% Muslims in civil services and educational institutions which is not the case. In places like Bihar, Karnataka, Kerela e.t.c. where the OBC quota has been sub-categorised and a smaller chunk of 3-4% has been allocated for minorities, these are used exclusively by Muslims or Christians e.t.c But there is no similar provision in the Center.

That is of course, until the recent 4.5% minority sub-quota was announced but not sure if it is operational yet. This 4.5% is again based on half of the population of non-Hindu OBC which form about 8.4% of the Indian population. Note that this is ALL minorities and not just Muslims.
(A fair deal for Muslims)

And no , no need for reservation of any kind to bring down poverty. The only people who benefit from reservaiton is the middle class, which does not need reservation in the first place.

No reservation is definitely not enough and in an ideal society should not even be required. Although I disagree that the middle class benefits because each reservation policy has a "creamy status clause" where people with a certain qualifications on jobs, wealth, income are disqualified.
What we do need is an Equal opportunity commission that we find in countries like UK/US/Australia that monitors diversity in govt. and workplace and has a system of sticks and carrots to encourage companies and govt. to have a diversified workforce without ENFORCING them to do so. This way, you get quality staff and at the same time give equal opportunity to all.

Coming to poverty alleviation in general, that is a big topic, but I am not a fan of these big programs like NREGA and subsidies LPG cooking oil e.t.c. Although I do support direct cash transfers to help the poor. Although I think its about time we have a universal food availability system to alleviate malnutrition that is at shocking levels in our country.

 

[ejazr]

Poverty has truly fallen: it's no statistical fudge : SA Aiyar's blog-The Times Of India

The government is corrupt and incompetent. People are, quite rightly, sceptical of its integrity. But it has not fudged the poverty data to exaggerate the fall in poverty, as alleged by innumerable politicians and TV anchors.

I have long criticized government statistics as too often being misleading or plain wrong. But those critics of Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, who claim he has "rigged" the poverty line downward, are more wrong than any statistical department.

The commission is surely guilty of gross incompetence. It said in an affidavit to the Supreme Court last year that the poverty line for 2009-10 was Rs 32 per day in urban and Rs 26 in rural areas. Barely six months later, it now says those were merely back-of-the-envelope estimates, and that detailed state-wise data on inflation now show that the poverty line was actually Rs 28.65 in urban and Rs 22.40 per day in rural areas. The Commission may think it's okay to release provisional data and later revise them, but it was truly daft to submit a figure to the Supreme Court which it knew could be wide off the mark. If it was unsure of its figures, why did it not tell the Supreme Court to wait for the hard data?

When the initial poverty line estimate of Rs 32/day in urban areas came out last year, TV anchors and politicians screamed that nobody could live on so little. Last week's downward revision of the poverty line rural areas has produced an even greater howl of outrage. The outrage is entirely justified on the ground of Planning Commission incompetence. But it is quite unjustified on the ground of fudging. Abhijit Sen, the Planning Commission's left-wing member-economist, would never tolerate fudging to exaggerate the fall in poverty, and he has certified the accuracy of the new poverty line.

Let's do a reality check on what the standard dal-roti diet costs the poor. Opposition politicians, NGOs ,and TV anchors have challenged Montek to show one can live on Rs 28.65 per day, at a time when a litre of milk costs Rs 37 and six bananas may cost up to Rs 30. They have castigated Montek for sitting in an ivory tower, totally out of touch with ordinary folk and reality.

Sorry, but the facts show otherwise. Those out of touch with reality and prices are the critics, not Montek. Politicians and TV anchors are well-off, and consume tandoori chicken and fried fish plus milk and fruit. But poor folk live essentially on dal-roti.

Any housewife will tell you that wheat costs up to Rs 20 per kilo and chana dal up to Rs 45 per kilo. A standard daily calorie intake of 2,000 calories can be met by 400 gm of wheat (1,600 calories, cost Rs 8) and 100 gm of chana dal (400 calories, cost Rs 4.50). The total cost comes to just Rs 12.50.

Labourers doing hard physical work may need 3,000 calories/day, but even that implies just Rs 18.75 worth of dal-roti, well below official poverty lines.

The World Bank has a global poverty line of $1.25 terms, adjusted for low prices in poor countries through purchasing power parity (PPP). The leftist star of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Prof Himanshu, estimated last year that the PPP dollar was worth Rs 19. So, the World Bank poverty line of $1.25 translates into Rs 23.75 per day. This is slightly above the government's rural poverty line of Rs 22.40 but far below the urban Rs 28.95, and roughly equal to the all-India average poverty line of Rs 24.25.

The World Bank poverty line has been accepted globally for decades, so it is somewhat ridiculous for Indian critics to suddenly declare—quite erroneously—that people cannot live on so little. The harsh reality is that hundreds of millions across the globe are living on half as much. That is a tragedy. But it does demonstrate that neither the World Bank nor Montek Ahluwalia is setting poverty lines below starvation level.

The Planning Commission says the proportion of poor Indians has fallen from 37.2 % in 2004-05 to 29.8% in 2009-10. Sceptics say the fall is too sharp to be true. I would argue the very opposite—that the fall in poverty is actually even sharper than indicated by the 2009-10 survey. That year was a terrible drought year, and this would have artificially inflated the poverty rate.

Another NSSO survey is being done in 2011-12, and i am willing to bet that this will show a big fall in poverty over 2009-10—because the 2011 monsoon was normal. Any takers?

 

[Mad Indian]

Poverty has truly fallen: it's no statistical fudge : SA Aiyar's blog-The Times Of India

The government is corrupt and incompetent. People are, quite rightly, sceptical of its integrity. But it has not fudged the poverty data to exaggerate the fall in poverty, as alleged by innumerable politicians and TV anchors.

I have long criticized government statistics as too often being misleading or plain wrong. But those critics of Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, who claim he has "rigged" the poverty line downward, are more wrong than any statistical department.

The commission is surely guilty of gross incompetence. It said in an affidavit to the Supreme Court last year that the poverty line for 2009-10 was Rs 32 per day in urban and Rs 26 in rural areas. Barely six months later, it now says those were merely back-of-the-envelope estimates, and that detailed state-wise data on inflation now show that the poverty line was actually Rs 28.65 in urban and Rs 22.40 per day in rural areas. The Commission may think it's okay to release provisional data and later revise them, but it was truly daft to submit a figure to the Supreme Court which it knew could be wide off the mark. If it was unsure of its figures, why did it not tell the Supreme Court to wait for the hard data?

When the initial poverty line estimate of Rs 32/day in urban areas came out last year, TV anchors and politicians screamed that nobody could live on so little. Last week's downward revision of the poverty line rural areas has produced an even greater howl of outrage. The outrage is entirely justified on the ground of Planning Commission incompetence. But it is quite unjustified on the ground of fudging. Abhijit Sen, the Planning Commission's left-wing member-economist, would never tolerate fudging to exaggerate the fall in poverty, and he has certified the accuracy of the new poverty line.

Let's do a reality check on what the standard dal-roti diet costs the poor. Opposition politicians, NGOs ,and TV anchors have challenged Montek to show one can live on Rs 28.65 per day, at a time when a litre of milk costs Rs 37 and six bananas may cost up to Rs 30. They have castigated Montek for sitting in an ivory tower, totally out of touch with ordinary folk and reality.

Sorry, but the facts show otherwise. Those out of touch with reality and prices are the critics, not Montek. Politicians and TV anchors are well-off, and consume tandoori chicken and fried fish plus milk and fruit. But poor folk live essentially on dal-roti.

Any housewife will tell you that wheat costs up to Rs 20 per kilo and chana dal up to Rs 45 per kilo. A standard daily calorie intake of 2,000 calories can be met by 400 gm of wheat (1,600 calories, cost Rs 8) and 100 gm of chana dal (400 calories, cost Rs 4.50). The total cost comes to just Rs 12.50.

Labourers doing hard physical work may need 3,000 calories/day, but even that implies just Rs 18.75 worth of dal-roti, well below official poverty lines.

The World Bank has a global poverty line of $1.25 terms, adjusted for low prices in poor countries through purchasing power parity (PPP). The leftist star of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Prof Himanshu, estimated last year that the PPP dollar was worth Rs 19. So, the World Bank poverty line of $1.25 translates into Rs 23.75 per day. This is slightly above the government's rural poverty line of Rs 22.40 but far below the urban Rs 28.95, and roughly equal to the all-India average poverty line of Rs 24.25.

The World Bank poverty line has been accepted globally for decades, so it is somewhat ridiculous for Indian critics to suddenly declare—quite erroneously—that people cannot live on so little. The harsh reality is that hundreds of millions across the globe are living on half as much. That is a tragedy. But it does demonstrate that neither the World Bank nor Montek Ahluwalia is setting poverty lines below starvation level.

The Planning Commission says the proportion of poor Indians has fallen from 37.2 % in 2004-05 to 29.8% in 2009-10. Sceptics say the fall is too sharp to be true. I would argue the very opposite—that the fall in poverty is actually even sharper than indicated by the 2009-10 survey. That year was a terrible drought year, and this would have artificially inflated the poverty rate.

Another NSSO survey is being done in 2011-12, and i am willing to bet that this will show a big fall in poverty over 2009-10—because the 2011 monsoon was normal. Any takers?

Nope, I will stick with the 2$ PPP poverty cut off. And i am sure the fall in poverty is not as magnificient as the govt projects it to be.

 

[Mr Joie de vivre]

But it certainly seems that more and more upper and lower middle class families are spending money on expensive movie tickets and clothes and stuff...they have had exposure they have wants and they go get the money to fulfill it.

 

[Mad Indian]

Can you get me any hard facts that shows more Muslims than Hindus vote for Congress? It would impossible for Congress to come to power if it didn't have a higher Hindu vote share over all than BJP or other party.
And if you want to understand inclusiveness, how about you study the Bihar model where Muslims had no problems voting for JD(U)/BJP alliance in both the national and assembly elections. Or how about at least fielding more than 1 Muslim out of 400+ tickets in UP where 18% of the population is Muslim? No need for special favors, just equal treatment

Its the percentage that matters Sir. While the Votes of Hindus are seperated between the BJP and CONs, the Muslims vote en-block to CONs. Else BJP will have a 500+ majority now in the Center. This proves that Majority of the Hindus dont vote for identity unlike the Muslims. The funny thing is that for many Intellectual Hindus, the main problem they have with BJP is that it is a Hindu party, see the oxymoron there

For the UP : Ha, come on sir. I agree, BJP has to be inclusive, but is that the ground reality? UP is a polarised state which already has so many parties wooing the muslims(CONs with their 9% sop and SP with their- you know the 18% sop ) . So i cant expect the BJP to field Muslim candidates in that state. Remember, polarisation will lead to counter polarisation. While the other parties tried to polarise muslims, the BJP naturally responded with giving importance to Hindus. So no, we cant critisize them without critisizing the real culprits The CONs and SP. All parties are at fault and naturally, Sp won thanks to the large no. of muslims voting for it

And i really cant understand why Bihar is refered to here? I for one never believed that Muslims voted for BJP like the "REST" When the BJP and JD(U) combined won 200+ seats in a 243 seated assembly, you expect the voting pattern to be similiar to this- atleast 60 % of each community to vote for the BJP+JD(U) among the voters. But i saw a article, which said that 30 % of the muslims voted for BJP. Now how do you say that 30% voting by Muslims is equal to 60% voting by other communities? They vote ti BJP alright but not like the rest of society.. Ideally there should have been similiar voting pattern like the other communities no? any way ic ould be wrong, i cant find the article i read, where it said 30% of the Muslims voted for BJP.

Any way here is another article which analysed the polls.
Facts debunk Muslims-voted-for-BJP propaganda | TwoCircles.net

But i could be wrong too. If so, please explain how.

What data clearly shows is that TFR of all communities is converging, except maybe the tribals who show an opposite trend of increasing TFR in the last three surveys.
There is not much difference between a 2.6 average TFR, a 2.9 SC TFR and a 3.09TFR for Muslims

Wow. 2.6 is the average of TFR of Muslims, Hindus OBCs, OCs, SCs., STs- yeah? So if the national TFR is 2.6 and that of Muslims is 3.09 and that of SCs is 2.9, then the TFR of the Hindu OBCs and Hindu OCs is just 2.2 considering the % compostion of these parties.

So 2.2 of the Hindu OBCs and FCs is still much much lower than 3.09 of the Muslims and the 2.9 of the SCs NO?

So No, TFR is an important cause of poverty, not because having children is wrong, but because having children whom you cant support is wrong.

Well you are going to learn something new today. There are three states in India that have given reservations to poor Muslims with the creamy layer removed similar to the SC/ST pattern for decades now. Kerela (10%) being the first which put this in place in 1950s. In Bihar(3%) and Karnataka(4%) this facility was extended in the 1970s. Tamil Nadu notified a 3.5% minority quota in 2007 although it has a very small Musim population in any case.

The point I was making was that just like SC/ST sub-groups have benefited from the reservation policy to some degree in getting an education or job and coming out of poverty. South Indian Muslims have been able to do the same. Now a large number of them actually have their own private schools and colleges and contirbute to the private sector. This dynamic is missing in UP/Bihar/Bengal /Assam to a large extent where the bulk of the Muslim population lives.

I agree i dint know about the Reservation in the other states other than TN . thats new.

But for TN, But i think 3.5% exclusive reservation for a community which is only 6% in the state is just too much in my humble opinion-for the reason i point out below. All it has done is to increase my anger on the community and that Bald ----er MK. Unless they want the entire Hindu OBCs to hate muslims, i think they should keep quite in this reservation non sense. And not to my surprise there was a demand from the "secular" muslims for 7% reservation for the Muslims in my State. After seeing that news, i just started loving that community even more. So unless these idiots want Hindu fanatism to rise in India, I think they better keep quite about reservation based on religion.

You have to compare the poverty ratios over the years and not just single point in time. Also compare the poverty ratios with Muslims as well. You will see that in the 1960s, there was a large gap between Muslims and SCs/STs. Muslim literacy and poverty ratios were close to OBC levels. Now, the OBCs have gone ahead particluarly post the mandal era where the 27% reservation was earmarked and SCs (34% poverty) have caught up with Muslims(33%). Ofcourse, overall, all social groups have improved continuously. And STs continue be at the bottom in many cases unfortunately.

So ? The OBC reservation includes Muslims too, but if they could not improve themselves, then its no one else fault but themselves- that is they should not have children they cant support. Dont you agree? And no, the reservation is only partially successful in the upliftment of the SCs as most of the jobs and oppurtunities are taken up my the middle class and not by the poor.

Can you point me to any factual source that mentions this? IF this where the case, then you should know that OBC quota is 27%. Even if half of that was being utilized by Muslims, then you would see atleast 10% Muslims in civil services and educational institutions which is not the case. In places like Bihar, Karnataka, Kerela e.t.c. where the OBC quota has been sub-categorised and a smaller chunk of 3-4% has been allocated for minorities, these are used exclusively by Muslims or Christians e.t.c But there is no similar provision in the Center.

That is of course, until the recent 4.5% minority sub-quota was announced but not sure if it is operational yet. This 4.5% is again based on half of the population of non-Hindu OBC which form about 8.4% of the Indian population. Note that this is ALL minorities and not just Muslims.
(A fair deal for Muslims)

Are kya sir. It is simple statistics. OBCs form 40% of the 14.5% muslims in India, which translates to 6% of the population yeah? But the OBCs of hindus constitutes 40 % of the 80% hindus yeah? which means that the composition is 54 % of the overall population yeah? So the ratio of OBC hindus to OBC muslims is 54:6= 9:1? so i think muslims are getting a fair share of the reservation when they are given 4.5% reservation in the 27% reservation they get. Its actually more than they should be given. So please dont ask for more, unless you want the Hindus to hate muslims?

No reservation is definitely not enough and in an ideal society should not even be required. Although I disagree that the middle class benefits because each reservation policy has a "creamy status clause" where people with a certain qualifications on jobs, wealth, income are disqualified

.

And cheating the Income tax is not some thing found in the society? Give me a break. In my class, out of the 165 students the actual no of students who are poor is just 5 or 6. rest all are middle class or upper middle class and no upper class(obviously)

What we do need is an Equal opportunity commission that we find in countries like UK/US/Australia that monitors diversity in govt. and workplace and has a system of sticks and carrots to encourage companies and govt. to have a diversified workforce without ENFORCING them to do so. This way, you get quality staff and at the same time give equal opportunity to all.

This is just a euphemism for reservation based on the population composition. And frankly, then muslims must be ready for 10% reservation in India just ten 10% without inclusion in the General category, .ie in the rates proportional to the their composition at the time of partition. Sorry we did not ask them to over breed us the Hindus.

And thanks for making a point in favour of our fears in the demographic change. Now they will ask for 14.5% reservation and tomo they will ask for 16% reservation and after that 18% for just over breeding.

PS: I am sorry i dont know how to be politically correct. And i apologise if had not been politically correct enough.

 

[ejazr]

Its the percentage that matters Sir. While the Votes of Hindus are seperated between the BJP and CONs, the Muslims vote en-block to CONs. Else BJP will have a 500+ majority now in the Center. This proves that Majority of the Hindus dont vote for identity unlike the Muslims. The funny thing is that for many Intellectual Hindus, the main problem they have with BJP is that it is a Hindu party, see the oxymoron there

See again, you are making the assertion that Muslims vote enbloc when there is no proof of this. The election comission doesn't collect data based on religion but exit polls have clearly shown that this is a myth. Here are some studies done on this and I think its well established that there is no en-bloc voting. en-bloc voting is when 75-80% of a particular community vote for a particular party. Even in the recent UP elections where so much was being made about Muslims voting for SP, according to exit polls 45% of Muslims vote for it. Compare this to 75% of Yadavs voting for SP. Now THAT is en-bloc voting.

‘Muslims vote the same way as others’
The Hindu : Front Page : Five myths about the Muslim vote
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2863455.ece

For the UP : Ha, come on sir. I agree, BJP has to be inclusive, but is that the ground reality? UP is a polarised state which already has so many parties wooing the muslims(CONs with their 9% sop and SP with their- you know the 18% sop ) . So i cant expect the BJP to field Muslim candidates in that state. Remember, polarisation will lead to counter polarisation. While the other parties tried to polarise muslims, the BJP naturally responded with giving importance to Hindus. So no, we cant critisize them without critisizing the real culprits The CONs and SP. All parties are at fault and naturally, Sp won thanks to the large no. of muslims voting for it

See again, this is the problem for the BJP then. You serioulsy don't think that SP won only because of Muslims right? Even brahmins, Yadavs and Jatavs all voted for SP. SP won even in Ayodya which was the nerve centre of Ram mandir politics.

If BJP wants to be a party with a difference, then it should show how it can be inclusive. If Modi can given BJP tickets in Gujarat to a number of Muslims during the recent muncipal elections for example, it doesn't make any sense why it can't even give tickets to UP muslims. Arn't muslims Indians too? Arn't they part of UP as well? Democracy favours the party that can build the largest social base. With Hindus being 80% of UP, no one can aleinate them. But with Muslims being 18%, no one can ignore them either.

See the Bihar elections and you will see that Muslim voting patterns were no different in a majority voting for the JD(U)/BJP alliance and atleast 7 Muslim MLAs won under JD(U)/BJP and many more were given tickets for this alliance.

And i really cant understand why Bihar is refered to here? I for one never believed that Muslims voted for BJP like the "REST" When the BJP and JD(U) combined won 200+ seats in a 243 seated assembly, you expect the voting pattern to be similiar to this- atleast 60 % of each community to vote for the BJP+JD(U) among the voters. But i saw a article, which said that 30 % of the muslims voted for BJP. Now how do you say that 30% voting by Muslims is equal to 60% voting by other communities? They vote ti BJP alright but not like the rest of society.. Ideally there should have been similiar voting pattern like the other communities no? any way ic ould be wrong, i cant find the article i read, where it said 30% of the Muslims voted for BJP.

Any way here is another article which analysed the polls.
Facts debunk Muslims-voted-for-BJP propaganda | TwoCircles.net

But i could be wrong too. If so, please explain how.

Now lets be honest here, does the rest of the "society" get targeted with anti-Muslim speeches like the BJP does with Muslims? So obvioulsy you will see a difference there.

But Bihar is an interesting case because almost 30-33% of Muslims voted for the JD(U)/BJP alliance. That was the largest chunk of support to any party in Bihar. Even in UP, where people are saying many Muslims voted for SP, it was around 45%. Muslim voting has almost always been fragmented where there are more than one or two parties available for voting.

The voting analysis that you quoted is basicaly using the logic that all votes that did not go to BJP are "anti-BJP" votes. That is not a correct assumption at all. That is like a BJP supporter adding up all the votes that did not go to a Congress candidate and say that majority of the voters are anti-Congress. Because we have a first past the vote system, the single biggest chunk in the first round of voting indicates that atleast a third voted with the BJP. The important thing to note was that in the entire elections, no anti-Muslim rhetoric was used and hence security was not a concern. The ruling party could not have won unless a large numbers of Muslims in a number of districts voted for it and this is what the surveys show as well. You may say 1/3 is a small number but given that SP won such a majority in UP with just 29% of the vote and Congress winning in 2009 on around 33% voteshare. 1/3 is not a small amount.

I am quoting below a summary of a report on Bihar by an organisation that specialises in doing research on voting patterns

Meanwhile, Yogendra Yadav of Centre for Study of Developing Societies has pointed out a few startling facts.

According to him, in 2005 assembly election, NDA got 8% of Muslim votes. In 2010, it went up to a massive 26%. In areas where JD-U was in direct contest with RJD, the ruling party got 36% of Muslim vote while RJD got 33%.In areas where JD-U was in a direct fight with Lok Janshakti Party, the vote split 30%-18 % in JD-U's favour. Overall, RJD-LJP got 31% Muslim votes, followed by 24% by Congress and 19% by others.

Yogendra Yadav said the figures revealed how Lalu Prasad's famed stranglehold over Muslims had been broken by Nitish Kumar. Never before have Muslim votes fragmented like this. In fact, RJD never got less than 50% of Muslim votes. It has now come down to 31%, he said. Fragmentation of Muslim votes, Yadav said, was the reason why even BJP candidates won in Muslim-dominated areas.

The results, according to political scientist Zoya Hasan, clearly proved that Muslims in Bihar trust Nitish. This is despite Nitish being in alliance with the BJP. Keeping Narendra Modi out has helped him cover up for his alliance with BJP. Muslims were looking for improvement in law and order and development and Nitish has delivered that, she said.

But Yogendra Yadav said the new phenomenon was not limited to Bihar. This is the next stage in Muslim politics. The community is no longer willing to be held hostage to the fear of insecurity. Once they are assured of some security, like other citizens, they too want development and their aspirations are no different.

According to Ravish Tiwari in The Indian Express (November 25, 2010), for the first time after the 2002 Gujarat riots, there is evidence to suggest that Muslims have voted in favour of an alliance that includes the BJP.

The daily in its report says the BJP-JDU combine won 40 of 51 Assembly segments in seven minority concentrated districts (MCDs) of Bihar—Araria (41.2% Muslim population), Kishanganj (67.8%), Purnea (36.9%), Katihar (42.8%, Sitamarhi (21.2%), West Champaran (21.5%) and Darbhanga (22.8%).
Fana Watch

Wow. 2.6 is the average of TFR of Muslims, Hindus OBCs, OCs, SCs., STs- yeah? So if the national TFR is 2.6 and that of Muslims is 3.09 and that of SCs is 2.9, then the TFR of the Hindu OBCs and Hindu OCs is just 2.2 considering the % compostion of these parties.

So 2.2 of the Hindu OBCs and FCs is still much much lower than 3.09 of the Muslims and the 2.9 of the SCs NO?

So No, TFR is an important cause of poverty, not because having children is wrong, but because having children whom you cant support is wrong.

You don't have to calculate the TFRs, they are all done for you at the NHFS website. I am not sure about the FC TFR but Hindu OBC TFR is around 2.47. Do remember that Hindus form about 80% of the population vs 14% for Muslims. So the Hindu TFR will be close to the national average of 2.6 because they have 80% weightage. It doesn't make any sense comparing FCs or even OBC HIndus with Muslims in TFR because they are not in the comparable socio-economic class. However, if you compare them with SCs and STs who have similar per capita incomes, poverty ratios, education e.t.c. you get a more apples to apples comparison.


And finally, I am not saying that people should have a lot of children and that this is not a problem at all. What I am saying is that TFRs have been converging for Muslims FASTER than any other group to the national average. So blaming the poverty factor on only TFR is wrong and does not apply here. There are many other factors in play.

I agree i dint know about the Reservation in the other states other than TN . thats new.

But for TN, But i think 3.5% exclusive reservation for a community which is only 6% in the state is just too much in my humble opinion-for the reason i point out below. All it has done is to increase my anger on the community and that Bald ----er MK. Unless they want the entire Hindu OBCs to hate muslims, i think they should keep quite in this reservation non sense. And not to my surprise there was a demand from the "secular" muslims for 7% reservation for the Muslims in my State. After seeing that news, i just started loving that community even more. So unless these idiots want Hindu fanatism to rise in India, I think they better keep quite about reservation based on religion.

I don't understand why you should hate Muslims or other minorities for this. I don't hate Hindus even though there are reservations for SCs/STs/OBCs most of which is utilised by Hindus. I don't hate Hindus even though 90% of civil jobs, MPs, MLAs cabinet e.t.c. are Hindus. I do disagree with the concept of reservation intellectually because it results in an inefficient system where the best person capable for the job is not selected because of reservation requirements.

If you look at the ST/SC/OBC reservations, then you have almost 70% of the Hindu population covered by some form of reservation. The remaining 30% upper caste have above average socio-economic indicators in every aspect.

So I don't understand why there should be hate. You could come up with other better ways of inclusive growth and poverty alleivations that would be more equitable and disagree with the idea of reservations in toto for all groups, but you don't have to hate minorities for having something that 70% of Hindus already have accesses too and the remaining 30% who don't experience the highest socio-economic indicators on average in India.

So ? The OBC reservation includes Muslims too, but if they could not improve themselves, then its no one else fault but themselves- that is they should not have children they cant support. Dont you agree? And no, the reservation is only partially successful in the upliftment of the SCs as most of the jobs and oppurtunities are taken up my the middle class and not by the poor.

Are kya sir. It is simple statistics. OBCs form 40% of the 14.5% muslims in India, which translates to 6% of the population yeah? But the OBCs of hindus constitutes 40 % of the 80% hindus yeah? which means that the composition is 54 % of the overall population yeah? So the ratio of OBC hindus to OBC muslims is 54:6= 9:1? so i think muslims are getting a fair share of the reservation when they are given 4.5% reservation in the 27% reservation they get. Its actually more than they should be given. So please dont ask for more, unless you want the Hindus to hate muslims?

I think you are missing the point that 4.5% is minority sub-quota. This includes ALL minorities. I hope you have gone through this article that I linked earlier. Based on the Mandal comission the author argues that BC muslims alone would get 5.6% reservation in accordance to the population based on 2001 census as well as the 27% quota requirement.
However, by giving 4.5% quota, no one can compalin that excessive quota has been given. Please do read thie article fully.
A fair deal for Muslims

In any case, I don't agree with the minority sub-quota idea as I have mentioned. But I just want to explain that there is no excessive or even propotionate share. So I don't understand how you got the impression that 4.5% Minority quota (not just Muslims) is more than what should be given. And its these misconceptions I think that make people make statements like "you want HIndus to hate Muslims".

Again, let me break it down, The 4.5% quota is for ALL minorities. According to the author of the article (who has been invovled in Mandal surveys and is an authority on thematter), the muslim only share would have been 5.6% out of the reservation pie if a true population share of BC muslims was done. Hence there is nothing excessive about it at all. So keep your blood pressure under check instead of hating muslims.

This is just a euphemism for reservation based on the population composition. And frankly, then muslims must be ready for 10% reservation in India just ten 10% without inclusion in the General category, .ie in the rates proportional to the their composition at the time of partition. Sorry we did not ask them to over breed us the Hindus.

And thanks for making a point in favour of our fears in the demographic change. Now they will ask for 14.5% reservation and tomo they will ask for 16% reservation and after that 18% for just over breeding.

PS: I am sorry i dont know how to be politically correct. And i apologise if had not been politically correct enough.

I think you are not aware of how an equal oppurtunity comission works. Here is an Australia example if you want to learn about it
Home

The EOC, would not just focus on minorities, it would focus on sex, caste, lingusitic, age and even disabled discrimination. There is no reservations in Australia and the hiring is done by encouraging institutions. This way, the best quality candidate is selected for the job. But companies try to do extra marketing in excluded ethinc groups or communities and may give tax breaks to companies that have a good ethinc profiles e.t.c.

Again, let me explain to you that right now, despite being 14% of the population, there are only 2-3% Muslims in civil services and education instutions. Even in parliament, the muslim representation is around 4-5%. If you say that 10% should be the limit, I would say that the Muslim community would gladly accept it because that would be a three times increase at what current levels are.

Also, like I explained on the data on TFRs, the idea that Muslims would overbreed Hindus is a near impossibility.

Finally, Muslim opinion on reservation is divided. While some do want it, there are others particularly the "upper caste" Muslims who would most likley get no benefit and don't want it. I myself, don't see it as beneficial in the long run for the country as a whole either. What I do advocate is that Muslims should join hands with FCs among Hindus and other minorities to roll back reservation selectively and form an equal oppurtunity comission to make sure all social groups are taken care of and if a reservation is necessary, a very strict economic only requirement be taken that applies to ALL Indians. But certainly this is more easy said than then.

The main thing about this topic really boils down to poverty alleviation. India will remain a poor country if we don't target and improve poverty alleviation among the bottom three groups whihc is SCs/STs and Muslims. This is not just about religion and demographics, its about taking our country as a whole to the next level. No one is asking that all these social groups should now become PMs and IFS and IAS officers but atleast they should be able to earn more than $2 per day.

P.S.: I think you were respectful throughout and discussed it maturely so there is nothing to apologise about. I don't see what you wrote was politically incorrect either. Hopefully, I was able to clear some misconceptions and take the conversation forward.