[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: debate@indiapolicy.org*Subject*: Dr Mohan Rao's article*From*: "venugopal" <gvvs@nird.ap.nic.in>*Date*: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:55:49 -0800 (PST)*Reply-to*: debate@indiapolicy.org*Sender*: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Friends, I have just gone through the original paper of P S Bhatia published in = 1990, that was one of the items on which Dr Mohan Rao based his article. I = find certain clear mistakes. Firstly, Dr Mohan Rao made some factual errors = in reproducing exactly what was written by Bhatia in terms of some numbers. Secondly I am afraid the mathematical rigourof Bhatia needs to be = improved as the new data evidently suggests that Bhatia's assumption was not correct: evidence does not permit to assume the same rate of increase = in decadal growth rate . Thirdly, there are additional problems in making = an=20 accurate comparison of the data readily, as the data for the entire country including Assam and J & K is = not available for all the census years, which requires adjustment. There is some point in Mr Tripathi's argument, though I will come to my conclusions separately in a short while. My preliminary analysis on the subject is like this: 1. Let us go purely by the number game first and see how the numbers = changed in last four decades and try to project the populations assuming the same = rate of 'rate of growth' as Bhatia did. Let me take into account the 1991 = data as cited by Dr Mohan Rao i.e. 60's, 70's and 80's decadal growth rate for H = is 23.71, 24.42 and 22.8 respectively. For the same set, rates for M is = 30.85, 30.0 and 32.8. If the rate of change of decadal growth rate is taken as = the average of the ones between 1961-71 ,1971-81 and 1981-91, it should be = not 0.71 per cent points for H and 0.05 for M as originally assumed by = Bhatia, but on the basis of new data, it becomes Minus 0.7 for H and 0.975 for = M. If we adopt the simplistic calculation similar to the one done by Bhatia, = the figures in 2091 for decadal growth rates will be 15.8% for H and 42.55 % for M. To this extent, I stand corrected and agree with Tripathi that the analysis of = Mohan Rao is not sound, especially in the light of 1991 figures.=20 2. However, it does not mean that by 2091, there will be any grave = change in population of different communities. In fact Bhatia correctly cited some = earlier calculation made by P N Kapoor, in which Kapoor thought that proportion = of M population in the country will be 12.9% in 2001 and that it will be = 14.8% in 2031 and 29.4% in 2181. But if we see present census data available and = make a 'polynomial trend line with order 2' using Microsoft Excel and = inputting the census data for four decades, the proportion of M in the country = will be about 15% in 2031 and about 16% only and not 29.4% in the year 2181. ( I have the graph chart available and I can share it with those of you interested separately) 3. But the ridiculousness of this argument will be evident when we = compare absolute population figures of this projection. This argument assumes = that in the year 2181, India will have a population of about 900 crores, of = whom H will be about 720 crores and M will be about 145 crores. Needless to = say, this argument is highly superficial, as it does not take into cognizance many other factors like education, family income, education of the girl child, ecological sustainability of the planet and so many societal = changes that will be occuring in the meanwhile. History of other countries has = shown that family planning gets accepted by all communities as time passes and = as educational opportunities grow, incomes rise. Therefore it will only be = a matter of 6 to 8 decades more that each community will settle down to = its own limit and this population stabilisation has occurred everywhere. = Within that period, in the worst possible scenario of the same rate of decadal growth remaining, the population of Hindus certainly will not become a minority, as I have projected the figures above for 2181. Thanks for your time. From: Krishna C Tripathi <krishnact@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Chimera of a Muslim Population Growth Rate- Mathmatical > Another mathmatical wonder from left. > > >From the article itself one can find this data: > Hindu Rate of growth Muslim Rate > of growth > 1961-1971 23.71 30.85 > 1971-1981 24.71 30.20 > 1981-1991 22.80 32.80 > > > I can not understand how can, from this data, some > one conclude > "in a hundred years from 1981, ie; year 2081, Hindus > and Muslims would record a decade growth rate of 30.71 > and 30.55 per cent, respectively. " > > The above extrapolated conculsion for 1981-2081 is > already proved wrong from the census data 1991 showing > Muslims having 10% more groth rate than Hindus. > ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C1616A.16B9FD80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> <DIV>Friends,<BR>I have just gone through the original paper of P S = Bhatia=20 published in 1990,<BR>that was one of the items on which Dr Mohan = Rao=20 based his article. I find<BR>certain clear mistakes. Firstly, Dr Mohan = Rao made=20 some factual errors in<BR>reproducing exactly what was written by Bhatia = in=20 terms of some numbers.<BR>Secondly I am afraid the mathematical rigourof = Bhatia needs to be improved<BR>as the new data evidently suggests = that=20 Bhatia's assumption was not<BR>correct: evidence does not = permit to=20 assume the same rate of increase in<BR>decadal growth rate . Thirdly, = there are=20 additional problems in making an </DIV> <DIV>accurate comparison of the data<BR>readily, as the data for the = entire=20 country including Assam and J & K is not<BR>available for all the = census=20 years, which requires adjustment.<BR>There is some point in Mr = Tripathi's=20 argument, though I will come to my<BR>conclusions separately in a short=20 while.<BR>My preliminary analysis on the subject is like this:<BR>1. Let = us go=20 purely by the number game first and see how the numbers changed = in<BR>last four=20 decades and try to project the populations assuming the same rate<BR>of = 'rate of=20 growth' as Bhatia did. Let me take into account the 1991 data = as<BR>cited by Dr=20 Mohan Rao i.e. 60's, 70's and 80's decadal growth rate for H = is<BR>23.71, 24.42=20 and 22.8 respectively. For the same set, rates for M is 30.85,<BR>30.0 = and 32.8.=20 If the rate of change of decadal growth rate is taken as = the<BR>average of=20 the ones between 1961-71 ,1971-81 and 1981-91, it should be = not<BR>0.71=20 per cent points for H and 0.05 for M as originally assumed by = Bhatia,<BR>but on=20 the basis of new data, it becomes Minus 0.7 for H and 0.975 for M. = If<BR>we=20 adopt the simplistic calculation similar to the one done by = Bhatia, the=20 figures in 2091<BR>for decadal growth rates will be 15.8% for H and = 42.55 % for=20 M. To this<BR>extent, I stand corrected and agree with Tripathi that the = analysis of Mohan Rao</DIV> <DIV> is not sound, especially in the light of 1991 figures. <BR>2. = However, it does not mean that by 2091, there will be any grave change=20 in<BR>population of different communities. In fact Bhatia correctly = cited some=20 earlier<BR>calculation made by P N Kapoor, in which Kapoor thought that=20 proportion of M<BR>population in the country will be 12.9% in 2001 and = that it=20 will be 14.8% in<BR>2031 and 29.4% in 2181. But if we see present census = data=20 available and make<BR>a 'polynomial trend line with order 2' using = Microsoft=20 Excel and inputting<BR>the census data for four decades, the proportion = of M in=20 the country will be<BR>about 15% in 2031 and about 16% only and not = 29.4% in the=20 year 2181.</DIV> <DIV> ( I have the graph chart available and I can share it with = those of=20 you<BR>interested separately)<BR>3. But the ridiculousness of this = argument will be evident when we compare<BR>absolute population figures = of this=20 projection. This argument assumes that<BR>in the year 2181, India will = have a=20 population of about 900 crores, of whom<BR>H will be about 720 crores = and M will=20 be about 145 crores. Needless to say,<BR>this argument is highly = superficial, as=20 it does not take into cognizance<BR>many other factors like education, = family=20 income, education of the girl<BR>child, ecological sustainability of the = planet=20 and so many societal changes<BR>that will be occuring in the meanwhile. = History=20 of other countries has shown<BR>that family planning gets accepted by = all=20 communities as time passes and as<BR>educational opportunities grow, = incomes=20 rise. Therefore it will only be a<BR>matter of 6 to 8 decades more that = each=20 community will settle down to its<BR>own limit and this population = stabilisation=20 has occurred everywhere. Within<BR>that period, in the worst possible = scenario=20 of the same rate of decadal<BR>growth remaining, the population of = Hindus=20 certainly will not become a<BR>minority, as I have projected the figures = above=20 for 2181.<BR>Thanks for your time.<BR><BR><BR>From: Krishna C Tripathi = <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:krishnact@yahoo.com";>krishnact@yahoo.com</A>><BR>Subjec= t: Re:=20 Chimera of a Muslim Population Growth Rate- Mathmatical<BR><BR><BR>> = Another=20 mathmatical wonder from left.<BR>><BR>> >From the article = itself one=20 can find this=20 data:<BR>> = =20 Hindu Rate of growth Muslim = Rate<BR>> of=20 growth<BR>> 1961-1971 =20 23.71 &n= bsp; =20 30.85<BR>> 1971-1981 =20 24.71 &n= bsp; =20 30.20<BR>> 1981-1991 =20 22.80 &n= bsp; =20 32.80<BR>><BR>><BR>> I can not understand how = can,=20 from this data, some<BR>> one conclude<BR>> "in a hundred years = from 1981,=20 ie; year 2081, Hindus<BR>> and Muslims would record a decade growth = rate of=20 30.71<BR>> and 30.55 per cent, respectively.=20 "<BR>><BR>> The above extrapolated conculsion = for=20 1981-2081 is<BR>> already proved wrong from the census data 1991=20 showing<BR>> Muslims having 10% more groth rate than=20 Hindus.<BR>><BR></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C1616A.16B9FD80-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org Rules, Procedures, Archives: http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Chimera of a Muslim Population Growth Rate** - Next by Date:
**Re: Chimera of a Muslim Population Growth Rate** - Previous by thread:
**Truth about Indians....** - Index(es):