Representational image. Photo credit: Reuters
A Rebuttal to the Frightfully Fertile Muslim Myth
From the land that gave the world the zero, we now appear to be subtracting basic statistical reasoning.
The latest panic making the rounds on WhatsApp, somewhere between forwarded videos of corpses in drums and deep philosophical questions about Aurangzeb’s grave, is based on an article published by the Pew Research Center titled “Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group” by Michael Lipka and Conrad Hackett. A perfectly respectable demographic study, mind you. Meant to analyse fertility trends, median age data, and projected religious populations up to the year 2060.
What our self-declared patriots often fail to mention is that this article was originally published on 23 April 2015. Yes, 2015. One hundred and thirteen Mann Ki Baats, eight demonetisation anniversaries, two President Trumps, one global pandemic, and zero accountability ago. But if you’re determined to validate your pre-installed communal anxieties, you’ll gladly dig up decade-old data as though it were breaking news. At this rate, someone will find a 1993 weather report and declare that Muslims control the monsoon.
In India, this Pew report seems to have become the new holy grail for Hindutva conspiracy theorists, gleefully passed around as “proof” that Hindus will soon be a minority in their own land, overrun by swarms of hyper-fertile Muslims with voting cards and sinister intentions.
Let’s unpack this breathless arithmetic, shall we?
Yes, Muslim fertility rates have historically been higher than Hindu ones. But this isn’t due to a secret breeding strategy or demographic jihad. It’s due to socio-economic access. Access to education, healthcare, and financial stability. The very things that have been empirically proven to lower birth rates.
According to the Government of India’s own data from the National Family Health Survey:
- In NFHS-3 (2005–06), the fertility rate for Muslims was 3.4, and for Hindus, it was 2.6.
- By NFHS-5 (2019–21), Muslim fertility had fallen to 2.4, while Hindu fertility had declined to 1.9.
That’s a drop of 1.0 for Muslims, compared to 0.7 for Hindus. In other words, Muslim fertility is declining faster, just not fast enough for WhatsApp’s in-house statisticians.
Also, let’s not pretend as if India’s 80 percent Hindu majority is going to vanish overnight. This isn’t a census under the NDA. Things don’t just disappear because you stop counting them.
And no, Muslims are not a monolith. This isn’t Star Wars, either. You can’t lump together Sunnis, Shias, Bohras, Deobandis, Barelvis, Sufis, Ahmadiyyas, and your friendly neighbourhood biryani-wallah, and call it a unified front. Honestly, most of them don’t even agree on who counts as a “proper” Muslim.
- The Sunnis think the Shias are too obsessed with martyrdom and crying in public.
- The Shias think the Sunnis hijacked history and are still trying to pretend it was all a misunderstanding.
- The Deobandis believe the Barelvis are Bollywood Muslims, too much glitter, not enough grimness.
- The Barelvis think the Deobandis are spiritually constipated.
- The Salafis think everyone else is wrong, including other Salafis who are too liberal with their beard-trimming.
- The Sufis are too busy dancing with divine love to care, and frankly, we could all learn a thing or two from their vibes.
- And the Ahmadiyyas, poor souls, aren’t recognised as Muslims by many of the above, despite practising Islam with more peace, discipline, and punctuality than the rest combined.
It’s less of a religious bloc and more of a Venn diagram drawn by someone having a nervous breakdown. Trying to describe this as a singular voting, breeding, or political unit is like claiming all South Indians eat the same sambar. Have you met a Tamilian and a Malayali in the same kitchen?
Also, let’s not ignore the absolute minefield of inter-sectarian marriages. A Sunni marrying a Shia can spark more family drama than a Netflix original series. Throw in a Bohra or a Sufi poet, and someone’s grandmother will definitely be having a religious crisis before dessert. If this is a unified takeover plan, it’s being managed with the precision of a housing society WhatsApp group.
Globally, Christianity isn’t “losing” either. It’s simply changing addresses. While secularism rises in the West, Christianity is growing in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Religion, like any good multinational, follows growth markets. It’s not a war of attrition. It’s just consumer migration with a dash of theology.
But of course, none of this is really about numbers, is it? It’s about narrative. The myth of the multiplying Muslim isn’t about babies. It’s about power. When you have no plan for employment, education, healthcare, or climate change, a good, old-fashioned fertility panic does wonders to stir up the base.
So yes, the Pew article is statistically sound. But using it to suggest that Muslims are waging a silent demographic war is not only dishonest, it’s dangerous. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, when all you’ve seen is someone switching on their mobile phone torch to check for dropped popcorn.
So, the next time someone forwards you the Pew article with a dozen fire emojis and a caption about Hindu extinction, do tell them to relax. By the time such a demographic shift could even begin to manifest, India will be facing far more pressing issues, like water scarcity, AI-induced unemployment, or another remake of Shaktimaan. Or, more probably, Don.
To be perfectly clear, Muslims are not plotting to replace anyone. They are trying to earn a living, educate their children, avoid getting their homes bulldozed, and perhaps get through one week without someone asking what they think of the Pakistani cricket team.
Let’s not confuse headcounts with hegemony. Muslims aren’t the threat. The real danger lies with those who peddle paranoia, turn wombs into weapons, and then conveniently lose the census forms. If anyone’s multiplying, it’s the lies — loud, lazy, and electorally profitable.
