I do not recollect any such excitement when the Census data on religion based on the 1991 Census were released by A R Nanda, the 1991 Census Commissioner. There are three factors which have led to the intense political controversy this time. First, with 24-hour TV channels, the electronic media is starved of material and spend most of their time on useless discussions among politicians accusing each other over every issue. Religion is good fodder for the media. Second, in the name of dissemination, the Census Commissioner has been arranging impressive functions in Vigyan Bhavan where a high dignitary releases the report, which ensures massive presence of the print and electronic media. Thanks to modern technology, all data are presented on power-point which is easier to comprehend than the massive census tables. The 2001 Census final population tables were released by Shivraj Patil, Home Minister, on July 10 at a function in Vigyan Bhavan. The 2001 Census data on disabled persons were released by the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment at a subsequent function in Vigyan Bhavan and the data on religion were released on September 6 where I found that the press was looking for some sensational story. The press were not given the 124-page report but a short handout which said, among other things, that the Muslim population growth rate was 36%. This was the undoing of J K Banthia. He had walked into a trap for which he has only himself to blame. It was a statistical blunder on his part and not a computer howler. There is nothing wrong in the figures presented in the 2001 tables: what went wrong was the ‘‘brief analysis’’ given by the Registrar General where he categorically stated: ‘‘Among the six major religious communities the decadal growth rate of the Muslims is the highest (36%)’’. There was no qualifying footnote saying that no census was conducted in 1991 in J&K and the growth rate was worked out without taking note of this point. There is, however, a footnote on Page XXVII of the report which says:‘‘No census conducted in Assam in 1981 and in Jammu & Kashmir in 1991’’ but to put the record straght, Statement 1 does not give the growth rates but only the absolute figures for population from 1961 to 2001 by religious communities. In fact, there is not a single statistical table in the original report on religion in the 2001 Census which gives the growth rates of different communities. None of the 24 maps give data on growth rates. There is absolutely no basis, therefore, to believe that the data have been manipulated in any way. Nor is there any basis to think that the Registrar General has deliberately manipulated the data to please some political parties. It is an unfortunate case of pure and simple blunder of the highest order. Why should the Registrar General commit intellectual harakiri by giving false figures? It is tragic that as a trained demographer, he failed to spot the obvious mistake in his calculation. He can only blame his stars for this lapse which has plunged the country into an unnecessary controversy. This underlines the importance of upgrading the Office of Registrar General and Census Commissioner, which is just not equal to the task of generating such massive data without strengthening it. Only last month, I wrote in Economic and Political Weekly on ‘‘Census Goldmine’’ (August 7, 2004) where I maintained that ‘‘the Census Commission should be put on par with the Election Commission’’. As of now, the lone Census Commissioner is the Bramha-Vishnu-Mahesh of Census. And after getting some initial bouquets, he is getting all the brickbats. After the adverse criticism, the Registrar General issued a set of corrected figures, excluding Assam and J&K from the calculations. Again he has blundered. When the Census was conducted all over India in 2001, including Assam and J&K, why should he exclude these states? Who has asked him to make this comparison using a faulted methodology? He should have estimated the population of Assam in 1981 and J&K in 1991 and worked out the figures for the whole of India. Let me explain this blunder. The first report has correctly said that the Hindus are 80.5% of the total population of India while the Muslims are 13.4%. Now the corrected figures (excluding Assam and Jammu & Kashmir) tell us that the Hindus are 82.4% and the Muslims are 12.4%. In the first round he gives an exaggerated figure for Muslim growth rate and in the second round he gives a deflated figure for the Muslim proportion, leading the politicians and the media to believe that he is deliberately manipulating the figures. Earlier he was saying that the Muslim growth rate was 36%. Now after adjustment he says it is 29%. What a mess! And what is the Home Ministry doing, who cleared the press note without reading it (more likely, without understanding it)? Why did the Home Ministry clear such a sensitive document without vetting it? Why did the Home Minister not release this report? Why was a non-government researcher like me asked to release this report (though I feel honoured)? The only dignitary present there, was the Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities, Shri Tarlochan Singh. He was sharp enough to understand the potential for political controversy and asked me to scan the report as a technical expert. I suggested the names of three other academic experts and he quickly announced that he was appointing a four-member committee to do a scientific study of the data on religion. I recall what my senior colleague at the Institute of Economic Growth, Professor P N Dhar used to say: ‘‘Get the facts right before mucking them up!’’ ConcludedThe writer is a leading demographer and heads a committee to analyse the current Census. PART I
