In what was United Bengal (modern day West Bengal+Banglades…

example of Bengal is what has been happening across the whole of the Indian sub-continent, albeit at a slower or faster pace as the case may be region to region, but the fact remains that the change has been unidirectional= As time goes by, the proportion of Muslims increases in

a given region and the proportion of Hindus goes down. Project the numbers out into 50 or 60 years and you have multiple states/regions of India with a Muslim plurality or outright majority. Project the numbers out to a century or so and it's difficult to argue how Hindus can

maintain cultural/political dominance in the long run. Some people like to say, "Oh well so what. Numbers don't matter, what have you achieved at 80% of the population which you're going to achieve at 90%!".

This is faulty thinking, because the direction of change itself is

the demgoraphic sense is quite critical of whether you are expanding or retreating civilisation. The more people you have relative to the enemy, the more the chances that you will adamant about taking over more territory. The less people you have relative to the enemy, the more

the chances of you relinquishing territory.

This has always been a historical fact. The rapid growth of the British and German populations coincided and/or were followed by major periods of expansionism, whether at home or abroad. Even Russia/USSR grew fastest when they

breeding rapidly, and the Soviet Union collapses when its core ethnies (Slavs) began to underbreed relative to the Central Asian republics and the Caucasus.

If you look at the history of the United States, you will see that the 13 Colonies were the centre of a massive

population explosion of White settlers, who then proceeded to first beat their own colonial masters (whom they were also outbreeding) and then rapidly expand into much of the best lands available in North America.

Numbers themselves are a factor which pushes a population to

try and expand territorially and organise itself more aggressively (and competently) to meet challenges from other groups.

Throughout history, it has been those populations which have been expanding demographically that go out and conquer, and not those groups which can't

even produce enough children to keep up their existing numbers. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that an India with its sub-replacement fertility (particularly of its core group Hindus) is going to go on any adventures to reclaim PoK or take back Aksai Chin or anything of the sort,

beyond maybe a narrow window of the next two decades or so. After that we'll just be trying to grapple with the problems of ageing and being stuck in the middle income trap and holding on to what we have, which by the way, will also become increasingly tougher.

In what was United Bengal (modern day West Bengal+Bangladesh) back in 1941, Muslims were 56% of the population, and today they are approximately about 67% of the population. If you go back to the early 20th century or the late 19th century, Muslims weren't even a majority.

This

More from World

You May Also Like

In what was United Bengal (modern day West Bengal+Bangladesh) back in 1941, Muslims were 56% of the population, and today they are approximately about 67% of the population. If you go back to the early 20th century or the late 19th century, Muslims weren't even a majority. This

More from World

You May Also Like

In what was United Bengal (modern day West Bengal+Bangladesh) back in 1941, Muslims were 56% of the population, and today they are approximately about 67% of the population. If you go back to the early 20th century or the late 19th century, Muslims weren't even a majority.

This