The lower rung BJP leaders every now and then are known to raise the bogey of TFR (total fertility rate) and exhort Hindus to increase their fertility. No sooner are such ideas floated than the entire media gets up in arms, leading to disowning of such members and comments by top leaders.
While the left chastises the TFR brigade by citing their ill-founded fears about Muslim population explosion, the neo-liberal supporters on the right — although acknowledging the problem — fail to react because they don’t or can’t match the resolve of Muslim women, as Hindu women are not captive breeders.
But truth be told, gullible Hindus hide their personal choice of having few kids by hiding under the intellectual veneer of excess population, environment-saving, women’s empowerment and other ideas that they have been spoon-fed since independence and have taken up with great zeal like any other nouveau convert to modern memes. The national and state governments too have played their role to a large extent, hence we find open support for this government propaganda which has put the responsibility of saving the world squarely on Hindu shoulders.
But how does the TFR actually look? We present the result for the two religions from the 2011 census for different states.
Representative restoration image generated because the original image was not embedded in the supplied HTML.
Representative restoration image generated because the original image was not embedded in the supplied HTML.
A few things to notice here. First, Muslim fertility is higher in almost all states. Second, the fertility is hovering around or below 2 for most Hindus — below replacement level. So Hindu population in these states will actually fall in the future. Third, it is not that Muslims are having too many children — it is just that Hindus are having too few children, which allows Muslims to keep the same percentage fertility gap (the only thing which matters for population share growth).
Another important point to note is that the percentage difference is much higher in some states which are important demographically — like Assam and West Bengal. The surprise addition is Haryana, with the highest TFR difference between the two communities. The current Muslim share of Haryana’s population is very low and so it would not impact right now, but if the trends continue Haryana too will join the list of west UP districts. Delhi was already surrounded by high Muslim population in west UP, Alwar and Mewat. If Haryana keeps going on this trajectory, the encirclement of Delhi will soon be complete.
But what is causing this great fall in Hindu fertility?
Representative restoration image generated because the original image was not embedded in the supplied HTML.
It is the urban Hindu who is showing the same trend everywhere — his fertility is hanging around 1.5 level. In some states it has gone down to 1, like in West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh. The low Hindu fertility in urban areas generates a much higher percentage difference between the two religions. Rural areas, though better than urban areas, are still lagging behind Muslim TFR.
Representative restoration image generated because the original image was not embedded in the supplied HTML.
While Assam and West Bengal are undergoing big demographic change and everyone is aware of the influx of illegal Bangladeshis there, no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room — the TFR difference between two communities in these two states. The percentage TFR gap is around 80% in Assam and 45% in West Bengal. It is easy to blame the illegals but one cannot deny the low fertility of Hindus in these regions as a big part of the problem. While Kerala and west UP would not have as many illegals as Assam or West Bengal, they too are facing a similar problem — and the question is why? It’s the TFR, stupid.
Key takeaways
Muslims have higher TFR than Hindus in almost all states
The absolute TFR is falling for the whole country — for both Hindus and Muslims
The absolute TFR difference between Hindus and Muslims is now at 0.55
The percentage TFR difference between the two communities is at 26%, down from 30% in NFHS3 (2005–06), but still very high
The TFR percent difference is still very high for Assam, West Bengal and Kerala, thus making them hotspots — the new addition is Haryana
Urban Hindus are fertility shredders — most states showing below replacement level TFR of 2.1
Hindus will be chiefly to blame themselves for the future change in demographics in most regions. The high cost of raising children is not an argument that will cut with nature. Nature is ruthless to those who under-breed. While it is easy to blame governments (which is needed, because they keep TFR numbers guarded or under the radar and don’t take action against illegals), a big blame lies with the individuals too. If you see the numbers of Muslims multiplying in your area, you should trust your own hunch rather than government. And most importantly — act on it.
This post on Dmitry K Belyaev’s work is quite fascinating and results in some interesting consequences. Belyaev, was a Soviet era Russian geniticist and victim of Lysenkoism, [1] losing his job as head of the Department of Fur Animal Breeding at the Central Research Laboratory of Fur Breeding in Moscow in 1948. Belyaev continued his work under the guise of studying animal physiology and his experiment which lasted 40+ number of years has some interesting consequences.
Belyaev was curious about the physiological or morphological changes accompanied by the process of domestication. Domestication being commonly associated with dogs, he reasoned that one way to test his hypothesis about how these changes occurred was to choose a canine species which never been previously domesticated and attempt to domesticate it. He selected Vulpes vulpes, the silver fox, and spent 26 years on his experiment, which continued post his death in 1985.
Belyaev had noticed that many domestic animals had undergone similar changes in morphology and physiology. Body sizes changed, colour pattern of their coat changed, and even tails changed. His hypothesis was that these changes were influenced by the genetic makeup of the animal and resulted from strong selective pressure. Specifically, he was concerned with the idea of selecting for “tamability”.
Starting with a batch of 30 male foxes and 100 female ones from a commercial farm in Estonia, [2] he conducted his experiment in the following manner. Breeding was only allowed when the foxes were considered “tame” and only the tamest 4-5% of male offspring and 20% of female offspring were allowed to breed. The foxes were untrained otherwise and were simply scored on their tameness evaluated by the metric of friendliness to the scientists. A strict three tier class system was used to categorize how tame foxes were. The friendliest to the experimenters would exhibit behaviour such as whimpering for attention, licking and sniffing the hands of the humans and an amount of docility.
This is where things get interesting.
The physical changes in the foxes were quite remarkable and easily distinguishable. They exhibited a fear response to external stimuli earlier than their wild cousins. Their coats changed colour and star shaped patterns on their foreheads were observed similar to certain breeds of dogs. Their ears became floppy which is particularly interesting since it is a characteristic of new born pups which carried over to adulthood. This is a consequence which has occurred in dogs called paedomorphosis or the retention of juvenile characters in the adult. Another interesting consequence was that the cranial morphology of domesticated adult males became “feminized” i.e. their sexual dimorphism decreased.
Now these were some interesting results. Masculinity and indeed physiological signs of adulthood decreased when the species was selected for tameness. In fact foxes which escaped returned eventually since they were unable to sustain themselves in the wild.
One can almost see the parallels between the feminized Western man under the selection pressure of feminism and the silver fox living in captivity for domestication. Selection pressure exhibits in the form of non-stop propaganda from the Cathedral on toxic masculinity of man and how it destroys women. But women’s mating strategies are still aimed towards exploiting traditionally “alpha” men [3] which is the very definition of toxic masculinity. And this already exhibits in many male feminists who look weak and effeminate. [4]
While the mechanism is not identical to the foxes, one can see the result of such a domestication of man. Men will become weak, feminized and women will become unhappy with them. Their domestication will leave them open to attack. Violence is golden and without it there is no order. [5] Without the capacity to commit violence, civilization will fall and that capacity comes from trusting the evolutionary benefits of traditional masculinity. TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is dropping in the West as a result.
Within the Indian context there are two relevant observations which can be made related to selection effect. Firstly, a millennia of Islamic invasions should have deeply affected the gene pool of Hindu men and women. The selection pressure included culling of the bravest and strongest as well as the wise and the intelligent. When juxtaposing Hindu discoveries in science and philosophy of old- for instance the Shulba Sutra which speak of the Pythagoras theorem or finding square roots, and the Samakhya philosophy on the conservation of matter [6] – it is instructive to think of the genetic damage wrought on the Hindus.
Secondly, it is also related to TFR difference across states in India. It is common stereotype that men in the North are more rowdy and violent than men in the South (and remember, stereotypes are good). Men from the South are considered to be more docile just like the foxes. Is it any wonder that South India has below replacement TFR? Whether docility came first or low TFR can be a point of debate (given economic conditions and government propaganda on high population) but looking at the example of foxes, it is hard to out-rightly reject the hypothesis of docile men leading to low TFR. Like Singapore, it appears that South India is increasingly becoming an IQ shredder. The fact that high IQ men and women who engage in careers are less likely to reproduce spells doom for the Hindus, simply because this means that feeble minded men and women will begin to dominate the demography. Will the Hindus survive a civil war should one arise due to shifting demography? This is an important topic of great consequence that we at Yuga Parivartan urge you to think about. The fact is career women are dysgenic and will lead to the ruin of our civilization. Fertility rates across India. Sourced from Wikipedia.
This post by Heartiste quite flawlessly describes the current Western social landscape while drawing parallels to the end of the Holy Roman Empire. While foxes have the experimenters to trust that they will look after them in their domesticated state of mind, humans have no such tangible guiding force and must reckon with the effects of the Cathedral. Perhaps now one can fully comprehend the consequences of the liberal propaganda. While the west can sit and wait for its doom, the effect of IQ shredders will be even more devastative for Hindus under an impeding demographic seize by Abrahamics. This also puts to rest the argument by those who bring in “quality” of offspring argument in the demographic debate as given above information it is more than clear that Hindus are losing both on the quality as well as quantity dimension.
————————————————————————
[1] Lysenko was a Soviet agrobiologist who attempted to reconcile Marxist theory with science. His rejection of Darwinian genetics in favour of his own ridiculous theories was so ridiculous that even Stalin knew he was a fraud.
[2] It must be noted that these were already more tame than wild foxes.
[3] The following is an excerpt from the paper linked above.
What does a woman want? The traditional evolutionist’s answer to Freud’s famous query is that a woman’s extensive investment in each child implies that she can maximize her fitness by restricting her sexual activity to one or at most a few high-quality males. Because acquiring resources for her offspring is of paramount importance, a woman will try to attract wealthy, high-status men who are willing and able to help her. She must be coy and choosy, limiting her attentions to men worthy of her and emphasizing her chastity so as not to threaten the paternity confidence of her mate.
The lady has been getting more complicated of late, however. As Sarah Hrdy1 predicted, we now have evidence that women, like other female pri- mates, are also competitive, randy creatures. Women have been seen com- peting with their rivals using both physical aggression2,3 and more subtle derogation of competitors.4 While they are still sometimes coy and chaste, women have also been described recently as sexy and sometimes promis- cuous creatures, manipulating fatherhood by the timing of orgasm, and using their sexuality to garner resources from men.
The real answer to Freud’s query, of course, is that a woman wants it all: a man with the resources and inclination to invest, and with genes that make him attractive to other women so that her sons will inherit his success. Her strategies for attaining these somewhat conflicting aims, and her success in doing so, are shaped by her own resources and options and by conflicts of interest with men and other women.
[4] Unsurprisingly, scientists have found a link between upper body strength and support for right wing politics. Leftists are weaklings.
[5] While Jack Donovan is more accessible in this age of modernity, this truth was first spoken by Sri Krishna –
Everything has its proper utility, and a man who is situated in complete knowledge knows how and where to apply a thing for its proper utility. Similarly, violence also has its utility, and how to apply violence rests with the person in knowledge. Although the justice of the peace awards capital punishment to a person condemned for murder, the justice of the peace cannot be blamed, because he orders violence to another person according to the codes of justice. In Manu-saṁhitā, the lawbook for mankind, it is supported that a murderer should be condemned to death so that in his next life he will not have to suffer for the great sin he has committed. Therefore, the king’s punishment of hanging a murderer is actually beneficial. Similarly, when Kṛṣṇa orders fighting, it must be concluded that violence is for supreme justice, and thus Arjuna should follow the instruction, knowing well that such violence, committed in the act of fighting for Kṛṣṇa, is not violence at all because, at any rate, the man, or rather the soul, cannot be killed; so for the administration of justice, so-called violence is permitted. A surgical operation is not meant to kill the patient, but to cure him. Therefore the fighting to be executed by Arjuna at the instruction of Kṛṣṇa is with full knowledge, so there is no possibility of sinful reaction.
[6] To truly admire the insight Hindu philosophy had into space and matter, read this post by the Acharya on the Lakshmi tantram
A version of this post first appeared at khatvaanga. Follow the author on twitter @PaganTrad for more insights.
Representative restoration image generated because no original image was embedded in the supplied HTML.
The rising awareness about the Muslim demographic bomb is causing sleepless nights for most well-informed Hindus — something that gets highlighted every time there is a mass exodus of Hindus from Muslim-majority areas, like in the case of Kairana recently. There are many strategies to counter this demographic siege, and maintaining high TFR is one of them. But as soon as any realist Hindu advocates high Hindu TFR to counter Muslim growth, one gets bombarded by various psychological defence arguments from those who are happy with the current low-investment and individual narcissistic scenario. Here are the different types of arguments given against Hindus counter-breeding Muslims in India — arguments which hardly stand close scrutiny:
1) The high Muslim TFR is a myth
People giving this excuse have buried their heads in the sand so deep that it is almost impossible to wake them up. No logical arguments can budge a person engaged in such levels of escapism. Any careful look at the map of India and the population of young Jihadis (oops — Muslims!) can clear this point without doubt.
2) Throw out Bangladeshis and control politics
This argument is again given by those who are steeped in naivety. If Hindu politics had been on top of its game, no one would be discussing the Muslim fertility bomb in the first place. But the fact is, Hindus live in a hostile country where Hinduphobia is very real. Control of politics should be an aim for the long run, but given the uncertainty on this issue, losing demographic superiority will only make it more difficult in the future. Moreover, increasing Hindu TFR is never a standalone measure and needs to be coupled with all other available options. Kicking out Bangladeshis is very important but it would not solve the problem completely — 15% of the population will still remain to fight this demographic war through the womb. Look at the so-called progressive heaven of Kerala, where Muslim women regularly outperform both Hindu and Christian women. The need is to simultaneously pursue all strategies: increase TFR, kick out BDs, and try to get hold of power.
3) Hindu women are no baby-making machines
This is the point of attack of entitled Hindu feminists who are trying hard to separate the fate of Hindu women from Hindu men. Whenever riots strike, while men are killed, women are forced to bear bigger costs. The rape and enslavement stories of Yezidi girls should send shivers down the spine of any normal person. So the fate of Hindu men and women are not separate — they will swim or sink together. Losing demographic superiority will only increase Muslim numbers, thus increasing the likelihood of crimes against women. The real question becomes — who represents the interests of Hindu women better? Those sold to liberalism who only want to enjoy their lives, or those who can look into the future and see the fate of future Hindu women? Having more children would mean women will be out of the workforce for longer — which again means men have to slog out more for maintaining the same standard of living. It is not just a sacrifice on the part of women but also men. It is only in the feminist mind that the fate of the two sexes is different — in the real world, it is intertwined.
4) Hindu men are timid
This is one of the most stupid responses on this issue. Some people even questioned whether TFR increase now could have helped those who were forced to flee Kairana. Well, given the environment in Kairana today, increased TFR will not change reality tomorrow. But had the Hindus in Kairana maintained a high TFR in the past 4–5 decades, it would have been much more difficult to dilute their numbers. TFR is a long-term strategy — demographic surplus in many areas has lulled Hindus into inaction. Any sane person would understand that violence should be the last resort in any conflict, and keeping demographic surplus would allow Hindus to solve this issue at the right moment.
5) Cost factor
Kids are expensive and there are no doubts about it. But this is another typical argument to chicken out of the situation. While Muslims have internalized the issue, Hindus still engage in the quality vs. quantity debate. Fact is, many Hindus have gone below replacement levels of TFR. In many regions — specially South India — Hindus are having less than 2 kids, while for maintaining population they need 2.1 kids per woman. There is no other way to put this: rich people prefer to have fewer kids to decrease their responsibilities even though they could afford them much more easily than poor. Western couples have no impeding demographic threat — Hindus have bought into this liberalism idea which is almost suicidal. The only question is: will they take up this challenge?
Hindus have to wake up now or their fate will go from bad to worse in the coming years. If Hindus don’t wake up and keep pretending that crucial factors like TFR do not matter, then they will have to face what Bengali Hindus are facing now in Bangladesh — and West Bengal. Bengali Hindus kept singing “all is well” and lost demography to Muslims in the 1880s due to low TFR, chanting their liberal secular nature and quality-over-quantity mantra. The quality kids produced by Bengali secular Hindus are of no use against the barbaric hordes motivated by a death cult with a divine mandate to rape kaffirs. So Hindus need to decide whether they are going to be pragmatic and real, and learn now to start counter-breeding — or listen to TFR deniers and let their future quality children and grandchildren be at the mercy of barbaric hordes.
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
This article is going to be based on SM experiences on our past articles. On the cultural agenda, we have tried to highlight two broad assaults from Islamism and feminism, which come together and make a deadly cocktail for the survival of Hindus in their homeland. The reason these issues get entangled is because in a democracy, more than anything else, numbers matter. You can enforce your agenda if you have numbers — otherwise you can go for a hike. Muslims, though few in numbers compared to Hindus, have excellent organisation skills and have enforced their agenda either through voting or riots. While Islam is still debating polygamy and divorce alimony in India, urban Hindus have adopted liberal memetic themes like individualism and feminism with an open heart.
If Hinduism were facing any one of these problems, there was a good chance to fight back and reverse the damages. But the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that all these forces have attacked India at the same time. On the one hand, Muslims have maintained a higher TFR than Hindus in all regions — as can be seen by their increasing numbers. On the other hand, few Hindus have realized this as a problem due to sickular ideology taught in schools. But even those who have acknowledged it have failed to accept the solutions as they hurt their deep-seated beliefs.
[Image: Population map — 0–4 age cohort, district-wise] pop_0-4 — restored contextual visual.
So, what is the problem? The problem is the decreasing number of Hindus — if not throughout the country then in specific pockets throughout the country. This will have long-lasting impact on governance and culture as democracy will ensure Muslim-dominated elected bodies in the future. So what solution did we suggest? The solution is simple — maintain demographic superiority. How to do that?
Increased TFR for Hindus
Ghar Wapsi i.e. reconversion
Ghar Wapsi is important but it has an added complication because it depends on luring Muslims back into their original religion. Swami Shraddhanand, the original stalwart who conducted massive Ghar Wapsi in the 1920s, had to pay with his life for his actions. Given the current democratic pressures, it has become even more difficult to go down this route. But still there are ways to do it and this path cannot be rejected completely. This brings us to the first solution — increased TFR.
Suggesting a high TFR for Hindus made us run into many criticisms due to the pacified Hindu mindset. Compared to other similar articles, this article received much less sharing on social media. And we guess there are three important reasons behind it:
60 years of brainwashing on the population problem in India
Financial difficulty in supporting big families
Individualism ranging from feminism to narcissism
“Hum Do Hamare Do” (We 2 Our 2 Children) has made a massive impact on Hindus throughout the country, so much so that any suggestion which goes against it seems ridiculous. Given this brainwashing, even though many Hindus will recognize the Islamic problem, they would still choose not to confront it head on and change their opinion on having more children. This means that a lot of men who would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause will ignore the issue because it somehow goes against their fundamental principles — to the extent where some people say they will have two high-quality Dharmic children, as if having a third child is somehow Adharmic!
The second problem arises due to rising living costs across India. This is a problem only as long as Hindus don’t decide to act. Once they come together, child-related costs can be brought down through various measures — supporting extended families, developing community schools and support institutions. More than a hindrance, this can be classified as a logistical problem and should not deter Hindus. The fact is most well-to-do and rich people have very low fertility and they hide behind this argument only to support inaction. So there is more to it than meets the eye.
The third source of criticism comes from rising individualism and its other supporting ideologies, especially feminism. While Muslims are largely immune to feminism, it will take a toll on Hindus by asking their women to forget their collective Dharma. Although some authors have devised smart ways to associate Dharma with the Abrahamic offshoot called feminism, it hardly stands on its feet when analysed properly.
One way in which Hindu feminists support the current low TFR decision of Hindus is by saying that none of our Gods had large numbers of kids, nor are there any explicit guidelines for supporting high fertility among Hindus. But history suggests otherwise — Hindus had hardly been as narcissistic as other pagan civilizations and always had a demographic surplus. This ensured that they did not get trampled down by the horses of Abrahamic faith like other religions and regions. Also, Dharma is not fixed in time and is ever evolving given local conditions. Under democracy — which rewards quantity over quality — it becomes a duty of all sane Hindus to realize and work towards maintaining their demographic superiority to save their cultural heritage.
In the end, when Hindu feminism won’t get any support from individual or collective Dharma, it is natural to fall back on original western feminism and resort to the “my body my choice” argument. While it is true that women bear a significantly larger cost of bearing children, they also get greater glory from them in the end. All Hindu scriptures have glorified great mothers who devoted their children to upholding Dharma. If those mothers had been individualistic, half of their offspring would never have seen the light of day. This also tends to be the ugliest part in this whole debate because as soon as you support high TFR, feminists raise the bogey of misogyny — as according to them only women bear the cost of having kids. Sadly, this level of narcissism is widespread as western liberal constructs have reduced bearing children to a mechanical task instead of a gift of nature celebrated widely in Hinduism through revering different fertility goddesses. So everyone ends up looking at kids as some sort of burden rather than harbingers of love and happiness.
While it makes sense for any leftist or feminist to disregard tradition and cultural preservation as they want to destroy Hinduism, anyone who attaches himself to Hindu ethos would not outright reject the collective Dharma to maintain demographic superiority. As it becomes amply clear in this example, the Abrahamic construct of feminism is irreconcilable once a person realises his collective and individual Dharma — which is maintaining demographic superiority in this case.
Then there is also the question of how one divides his love between himself and future generations. If you put no weight on future generations and whether they carry your traditions and culture, there is nothing stopping you from being individualistic. But as soon as you stop being myopic and develop some attachment to your future generations, it becomes imperative that your actions are aligned with your future goals. The choice thus becomes simple: either have 3–4 kids now who will help maintain Hindu majority, or see your granddaughters walking around in burqa, subjugated by polygamy and stoned for adultery under Sharia. This way the cycle of Abrahamic exclusivism will go full circle — from complete freedom under feminism to no freedom under Islam — with only a small possibility of buying a museum ticket to read about the dead middle path of Hinduism.
Originally published April 5, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Quantity has a quality of its own. No one demonstrated it better than the Allied forces during the Second World War when they won it by pitting sub-standard tanks and war planes against more modern but heavily outnumbered German war machines. So, if one can win a world war by pitting quantity against quality, there is no reason to expect a different outcome in a democracy where the game is rigged in favour of numbers. And this game is being played out in front of our eyes for the past six decades in India, but Hindus fail to recognize what holds for their future if they do not put sand in the wheels of the Muslim demographic war machine.
Does it ever occur to you why Muslims always maintain a higher TFR than the majority whenever they are in minority? Well, it’s demographic war — stupid! So the same Bengali Muslims who have a TFR of 2.1 when they are in Bangladesh and have totally annihilated the Hindu population, suddenly increase it to 4 when they cross the border and enter West Bengal. Similarly in Kerala they have 2 kids per woman when Hindus have 1 kid per woman. The trend is the same even for the developed world, where Muslim women almost always counter-breed white women. And every time this issue is brought up, politically correct people will quote that Muslim TFR is going down everywhere but none of them would answer why it is still over and above the rest of the population. Given that population growth is exponential, Muslims don’t need to have 10 kids per woman to establish demographic superiority. One more kid in the first generation translates to two more kids in the second generation and four more kids in the third. So if other groups just maintain their population, Muslims would increase their population four-fold in three generations. Now look at the map of Bangladesh below to see how it happened in India’s neighbourhood. The colour has consistently changed to dark green for younger population i.e. Hindus have gone below 5% of the population in almost all districts now.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
evol1 — Hindu demographic decline in Bangladesh
Hindus in India will face a similar future in large number of pockets if they do not wake up now. And those who cry about sickular politics today can only imagine what holds for them in Muslim majority neighbourhoods of tomorrow. So, what is the way forward to handle this issue? There are only two solutions:
Restricted one child policy for Muslims
Hindus counter-breeding Muslims
While policy 1 would be an ideal and less costly choice, given the lack of spine among Hindus in India and pandering to the secular agenda, it is almost impossible to implement. One can give long arguments in favour of policy 1 but given current circumstances one can rule it out. So, rational Hindus are left with nothing but policy 2 as the only remedy till some other better solution cannot be found or Muslims are reduced back to one-digit figures.
The only other nation which has understood this problem seriously and taken the bull by its horn is Israel. The Muslim TFR went down from 8–9 in the 1960s to about 4.6 in the 1980s but has stayed there almost since then. Israel, being a democracy, faced a similar problem to India and the presence of a large number of liberals ensured that policy 1 was rejected there as well. So, the orthodox Jews took it upon themselves to stem the tide of demographic reversal and started counter-breeding Muslims to remain relevant in Israeli politics. The current demographics show that they have been more than successful in their initiative.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
What does this mean for the future of Israel? The orthodox Jews have not only successfully countered the problem of high Muslim TFR but have also completely altered the politics of Israel. Given the small weight that liberals put on their fertility, they are increasingly replaced by the more orthodox sections of Jews. This means that in the future Israeli politics will move more to the right — and given the fact that orthodox Jews will control politics, they would be in a position to implement policy 1 if needed. So, Hindus who go into overdrive to support the misadventures of Israel will do much better if they learn something from the orthodox Jews rather than support all the stupid policies of Israel.
Once Hindus realize the gravity of the situation, they will have to put in huge efforts to implement this solution. They will face a lot of flak from women activists who would fight it tooth and nail and give arguments of quality over quantity. But sadly in a democracy there is just one vote for both the enlightened Hindu feminist and a Jihadi. No amount of fact-digging from scriptures and history about Hindu seers having just one or two but quality offspring can change the fact that numbers matter in democracy more than anything else. Also, one should not forget that unlike other civilizations Hindus had never been overly nihilistic or individualistic in their history, which helped them keep a demographic surplus in the face of Abrahamic onslaught for thousands of years. Unlike other Pagan civilizations, one reason for the survival of Hindus was their focus on family values and having enough offspring. This is much more important today in this democratic age — the day you lose the numbers, you lose your policy-making powers.
Having decided to go forward with policy 2, one still needs to overcome the implementation hurdles. Sacrifices will be needed by both men and women who have to give up many of their individualistic freedoms to help nurture bigger families. Also, it cannot be implemented at the cost of quality children and will need a grand Hindu collaboration to subsidize the education of these children. Again, one can learn from orthodox Jews who have successfully achieved it by developing their own institutions where they provide cheap education and jobs to their community members. This gives another reason to repeal discriminating laws like RTE, so that in the future when Hindu consolidation takes place, the state does not impose increasing costs on Hindu institutions.
The ball is now in the court of rational Hindus who understand that increased Muslim numbers is a problem for their survival in the long run. Burying their heads in the sand or waiting for Modi to do something will not solve this problem. Since policy 2 does not require the support of all Hindus, it can be easily implemented if a critical mass of Hindus come together. The only need will be to develop supporting institutions which can take care of this burgeoning Hindu population. In the end, 20–30% of Hindu population is enough not only to counter-breed Muslims, but to also make future Indian politics more pro-Hindu as this young population replaces the current generation of anti-Hindu liberals. The only question that remains to be answered is whether Hindus are ready to realize their Dharma and rise up to this challenge and beat Muslims at their own game.
![[Image: Population map — 0–4 age cohort, district-wise] pop_0-4](/YP_MEDIA:12-islamism-individualism-and-feminism-vs-hinduism-media-1.jpg)
