Talk:Demographics of India/Archive 1

Moved from Demographis section in the India article
Following is the stuff, someone recently added to India, which is already too long. Can this be used in this article? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

''Various ethnic groups can be found all over the country. Most, however, can be split up into Indo-Aryan groups, such as the Punjabis, Gujaratis, Bengalis, etc, who descend primarily from India's early Aryan migrants; and the Dravidian groups, ie; Tamils, Andhras, etc who are descended from an earlier wave of invaders who may have had a hand in the beginnings of the Indus Valley Civilization. Both of these have, however, been modified by intermarriages with each other and with later, post-Aryan invaders such as the Scythians, the Greeks, the Kushans, the Parthians and the Huns. Besides these two, there are many tribal groups who descend from some of India's earliest inhabitants such as the Santals and the Nagas. Some Indian Muslims have some descent to India's Muslim invaders and immigrants such as the Arabs, the Mughals, the Persians and the Afghans. Descendents of Persian Zoroastrian refugees, the Parsis can be found primarily in Mumbai, the state of Gujarat and some other cities of India. Various, somewhat sizeable Jewish communities of Middle Eastern descent used to reside in India's western cities but have today mostly left for Israel, with only about 5,000 remaining. Descendents of Portuguese settlers are also found in areas such as Goa and in various Indian cities. Anglo-Indians, (the mixed-race descendents of India's British settlers), live in most major Indian cities and hill-stations, but many are now leaving. India's cities are also home to various other ethnic groups such as the Chinese, Burmese, Tibetans, Armenians, and various foreign expatriates.''

-I am the person who added this actually. I thought it would be necessary for the demographics section to show the ethnic and racial background of Indian people. -User: Afghan Historian

Dear Afghan,

The racial background theories are neither recognized nor needed in India. Besides, there is no scholarly work which divides Indian people into 'races'. The latest genetic research being a case in point. The musings and balonies of colonial thigs does not count.

indologist 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Indologist

Can the Joshua Project really be considered a legitimate source? It is very point of view. Basser g 00:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The racial background has always been recognized in India. According to our ethnicity the states have been formed. Or language u can say. Why do u take different ethnic groups or diversity as bad point. It is a good point that we are diverse. India is the world's most diverse country. We should add mroe about different racial and ethnic groups over there.

Ethnic groups
I have re-added the ethnic group list in the articel. The terms Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Mongoloid are the general names of the major ethnic groups in India. Furthermore, these groups include many consolidate ehtnic groups. (For example see Indo-Aryans). Many internet sources also cite the same date including CIA Factbook, and Index Mundi, Encyclopedia of the Nations. In otherwords, these terms encompass many groups are pretty neutral to use as the 99.9% of the people in India fall under these three terms. Please discuss this further if you have other reasons for removing the section before reverting it back. Thanks. --Jdas07 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The racial statistics from the CIA World Factbook are in disagreement with the numbers given on the article Historically-defined racial groups in India, so I added the accuracy disputed tag.--Dark Tichondrias 05:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

African Genetics on India
Why is there no talk of this? We all know that people resembling African genes just don't appear in a land like Asia out of no where. Clearly there is mixing with Asians and others, but that dark skin is clear. India was attached to Africa once. Appearantly the people must been broken off as well. Indians are amazing! we have great culture and life-styles. The wonder of the Indian culture will never wear off from our society as long as the world remains. The Indian culture is a sturdy with stanading life-style. Our religion is cool too! :]
 * Or, people have evolved darker skin. HeeferFan (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Black" people as you call them were brought by the British as slaves. Many also immigrate into India. India was "attached" to Africa several Million years ago (before any form of modern homo sapiens emerged) --71.163.76.37 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, everybody is related. Everybody comes from Africa originally, even the Swedes. HeeferFan (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename from demographics to demography
Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012 and comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Locked page on 12 July 2007, 11:09 AM EST
This page for summarizing FACTS about India's people not religious, racial and national agendas.

Dravidians have been classified as caucasoid in most race theories is a fact 58.107.20.146 11:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, in demographics, one does not talk about race, but rather ethnic groups. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

More Historical Data
Here are some historical population figures I've come up with after a few minutes research. These figures are rounded to the nearest million. 130 million - 1845 255 million - 1871 (adjusted) 288 million - 1891 294 million - 1901 389 million - 1941

The census of India started in 1871, so there is plenty of data available from at least that period. Sorry I haven't sourced these figures very well. See Arthur Geddes, "The Population of India: Variability of Change as a Regional Demographic Index",Geographical Review, 1942 for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.153.173 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in population fact
Hello, There is a grave mistake on the fact on population of India. Here's the quote from the article : "Total Population: 1,129.9 billion (July 1, 2007 est. CIA)[11] 1,028.7 billion"

I think "billion" should be turned into "million". We are not that populous as yet!

Pranesh Bhargava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranesh Bhargava (talk • contribs) 08:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Less important problem: in the beginning it states that as of March 10, 2008, the population of India is estimated at 1.13 billion (but does not give a source). If the CIA figure of 1.129 billion as of July 2007 is accurate, then the population should now be about 1.14 billion.  May I change it accordingly? Kier07 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about "estimate as of March 10," but we could use the India Population Clock http://www.indiastat.com/ as a reference for saying India's population is estimated at 1.13 billion. I suppose it can't be known to within ten million anyway.  One other thing -- where are all of the figures in "key data" below table 2 coming from?  Are they coming from the CIA World Factbook?  It would seem not, b/c for example the population growth rate in the CIA Factbook is given as 1.606 percent as of 2007, which is pretty different from 1.38 percent.  It would seem we can't keep a discrepancy like this without at least citing a source... probably what we should do is make these figures agree with the CIA Factbook. Kier07 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Key Data"
Re: Kier07's comment, this data seems to come from the paper sourced just below that table. The title suggests that this data is an estimate for the year 2025. I have made this into a new section. But the problem now is that some of the data seems to be 2007 or 2008 data estimates. The whole section is now a complete mess. It must either be removed or the data updated to current CIA data as Kier07 suggests. Cheers. Unstudmaddu (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An online source for the 2025 data is: http://www.iegindia.org/dispap/dis27.pdf
 * -- Thinking of England (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Change
I put down that India also has the world's largest Bahá'í population becuase in the article of Bahá'í statistics it says something like that I think. ARYAN818 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Others" sex ratio
Under religious demographics, the "others" column list a sex ratio of 100. Since 100 females per every 1000 males is extremely unlikely, I would guess this ought to be 1000 rather than 100, but the source linked to the column does not appear to contain this information.

Could someone more knowledgeable about these stats please look into this. Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Literacy rate in India??????!!!!!!
It is given in the article that avg literacy rate in India is 79.9 %...But there are only one or two states in India that has more literacy rate than that.

In the article Literacy in India it is given that the literacy rate of India is 61.3%. That is the literacy level achieved in 2001. Now it might be somewhere under 70. not 79.9% as mentioned in this article. This fact must be corrected.!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.197.2 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

population of muslims in india
from the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the muslim population of india is greater than that of pakistan. we should remember that bangladesh was also a part of pakistn before 1971.and in that year the population of west pakistan (that is the current day pakistan) was 80 milliom and that of east pakistan (that is the current day bangladesh) was 90 million if we add that we get apopulation of 170 million in 1971 of which 90% were muslim or 153 million. so how many muslims are today in india ?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_by_country"

The first sentence in the above comment "from the time of independence of india to the current day the indian leaders have said that the Muslim population of India is greater than that of Pakistan" is incorrect. Till the division of Pakistan into Bangladesh and Pakistan, Pakistan had more Muslim population than India. I don't remember seeing any statement different from that before the creation of Bangladesh. I clearly remember the discussions at appeared in the print media at that time. --K N Unni (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Indian Census
1991 was not the only time there was no census in Jammu and Kashmir. In 1951 also there was no census there.

It is better to term 1872 census as 'non synchronous' than 'incomplete'

To call 1881 census as the first complete census is not correct. The region then called NEFA (North East Frontier Agency), presently the state of Arunachal Pradesh, was censused for the first time in 1961 only. In several other censuses also some areas had to be left out due to various reasons. Most recent example is the cancellation of the census in two blocks of Manipur in 2001. Detailed census was not conducted in some villages of Maharashtra in 1991 --K N Unni (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

National Population Policy 2000
Someone please add about National population Policy of 2000 submitted by a committee headed by Dr.M.S. SwaminathanERICTHEKING (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Dharmic/SC/ST hinduism
An IP is repeatedly splitting the Hindu demographic data into "dharmic" SC and ST. This is not accurate. "Dharmic hindus" is not a recognised religion or a relgious grouping. The SC/ST enumeration is not according to religion, they include people from all religions. Splitting the Hindu demographic data is erroneous and is subtle POV pushing.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 Census
this article needs to be updated and source 2011 census of india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.193.162 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Religious statistics
About the dominance of religions different from Hinduism in particular areas, I think the informations are easily available on the articles dedicated to the same states and regions, or on general atlases. So, I think no citation should be needed. Lele giannoni (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How many Indians lived 1000 years before?
I ask this question as I had a dispute with a person claiming that the Muslim conquerors killed up to 100 Million Indians about 1000 years before. I doubt that as I cannot imagine that so many Indians lived at that time. --82.113.98.231 (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Urban Sex Ratio by Religion - Unmatched Stats
Urban sex ratio[31]

Hindu 922 Muslim 907

is not matched by the [Page on Religions in India] which lists

Urban sex ratio[31]

Hindu 894 Muslim 907

The one below Hindu - 894 is factually correct.

Samastigan (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you got a reliable source for the correct data? If so, go ahead and change it. Otherwise, best to leave it until reliable data comes to light. AWhiteC (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The link No:31, that is attributed to the reference to all these figures doesnt list such a ratio. The only ratio available publicly is :


 * Hindus: 898
 * Muslims: 937


 * Source This is a well known fact that Muslims have better sex ratio than others


 * http://uohyd.academia.edu/rosinanasir/Papers/408586/Kinship_System_Fertility_and_Son_Preference_Among_the_Muslims_A_Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samastigan (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Human sex ratios vary year to year, everywhere in our world. For India too, you can confirm this here: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/data_files/india/s13_sex_ratio.pdf


 * The 898 and 937 you are quoting above are for urban; given rural population is by far the Indian majority, it would be best to use total (neither urban nor rural); and if possible 2011 data from wiki reader's perspective. Consider the census numbers direct from source, as newspapers make mistakes (see correction note at the bottom of WSJ article). Here is the Census publication on total sex ratio for India by religious classifications: http://censusindia.gov.in/Ad_Campaign/drop_in_articles/04-Distribution_by_Religion.pdf


 * ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I also urge you avoid adding claims such as 'a well known fact that Muslims have better sex ratio than others' in this article, as it would be inconsistent with WP:WWIN guidelines. For what it is worth, predominantly muslim Azerbaijan has reported year after year, over last 20 years, one of the world's highest sex ratios. See Human Sex Ratio article, or this article for more: http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=40166 ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dravidians are not Australoids and are not a separate race.
Ethnic groups section needs to be edited. From what is evident Dravidian speakers belong to the same race as North Indians (Caucasoid) with the exception of some scheduled Australoid tribes in Orissa and other places. There is no genetic evidence that Dravidians form a distinct race. Had enough of this colonial bullshit. From my experience Dravidans seem to have on average darker skin but that would be expected as sunlight is more intense nearing the equator and many North indians who come and live in the South cannot be told apart after a few years, unless they wear turbans. Also Brahui people who speak a Dravidian language are much more similar genetically to the Balochi people who are ethnically Iranian than to Dravidian speakers of South India whereas the Indo-Aryan Bengalis and Marathis are much more similar to South Indians. Wikipedia needs to be purged of the Dravidian race concept being presented as facts and more than the colonial times idea without evidence that it is today. Amazing how effective the British divide and rule concept has been. This is like hypothetically Indians invading Scandinavia and telling Swedish people that they are more similar to Indians and are a different race to the people of Finland because of their languages belonging to different families. There are claims that Dravidian is just an early offshoot of Indo-Aryan languages and the Dravidian languages have up to 70% Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) influence.

this is awful. wiki genetics and y-haplotype pages corroborate dravidians as a distinct ethnic more homogeneous than indo-aryan sects. pls donot put your racist and nazi-like theories and false propaganda here.dare edit wikipedia genetic research pages with evidence if any. this is vandalism.first put your name. -signed as Redhome2 User|talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.129.156 (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

pls correct statistical data in population
of kolkata, just 4000000? it is more than 1crore.and chennai is 4th i think.horrible data here.pls correct. signed as Redhome2 User|talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.129.156 (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality
This section makes little sense, consisting of a couple of disjointed sentences which lack any context. The section needs to be expanded to place these statements in perspective. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

5% Difference in Hindu Population
What is up with the 5% difference in the Hindu population. One part says its 77%, the other is 82%. We should go by the official census data, which puts the Hindu population at 80.5%. I'll make changes to reflect this. -amitroy5

Dalit link removed
80% Hindu population stats include 25% Dalit. Why is this link removed?

Jewish comment
I deleted the Jews are dumb comment. I did not think the ant-Semitic comment was relevant. I do not know what the proper protocols are for this short of thing so I just fixed it. they were people who like to have lots of fun

Religious composition inaccurate?
The page cites the 2001 government census (http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/index.html) as its source for the religious composition, yet posts figures that differ from those provided by the census. For example, the census says that Hindus and Muslims make up 80.5% and 13.4% of the population respectively yet this page states 77.7% and 16.2% while still citing the census as its source. What is the real source for these new figures and why are they considered more valid than the 2001 government census figures?