Talk:Religion in India

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 22 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Singhsimranjit071294 (article contribs).

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Sathya Sai Baba

I don't think Sathya Sai Baba should be present in this article, at least without some solid qualification. It is true that his cult uses varied religious imagery, but that is a far cry from actually understanding the many and significant ways in which the major Indian Religions can not very well be reconciled.

Besides, the way the entry is worded is very ambiguous. It forgets to mention the strong suspicions that surround the person of Sathya Sai Baba, (as seen on his own article) and suggests that he is somehow recognized and accepted by all the major religions mentioned in the article. That is arguable at best. Islam, at the very least, is known for having little interest in mixing with other religions. If they made an exception for Sathya Sai Baba then this is major news and would create quite a comotion. I believe that they did not, however, and Sai Baba and his followers are just proclaiming what they want to believe in regardless of fact or permission.

I would personally prefer Sai Baba to be removed entirely from the article, but a simple rewording would probably suffice.

Best,

Luis.

I re-worded it but I think it is better to mention also some other Indian new religious movement to keep it balanced. By the way, the original Sai Baba did have both Muslim and Hindu followers and the Muslims allowed mixing in the case of Shirdi Sai Baba. Amazingly the statement of Sathya Sai Baba and his followers is not entirely untrue. Sathya Sai Baba does have some Muslim followers but they are few and mostly Shia Muslims or followers from small Muslim sects. Andries 19:21, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tribal religions

Shouldn't there be some mention of India's tribal religions here? I would add the details myself, but I was here LOOKING for those details ;D

Good idea but I hardly know anything about India tribal religion. Andries 19:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just thought I'd comment: unfortunately or fortunately, whatever, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam have all vied for the membership of tribals. Islamic conquerors of long ago converted them, Christian missionaries of today are very active all over the country trying to convert them, and Hindus run around telling them that their beliefs are really just a subset of Hinduism. There is a tribal commission in India today in charge of trying to maintain their autonomy from foreign (i.e. non-tribal) religions. Maybe later I'll try to work on it --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:58, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I added the section Tribal religions in India and many more religions which were missing. some help will be appreciated to explain more about those religions. I am sure there are many more religions in India which we are missing.

---

Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba

Its always interesting to note that Sri Sathya Sai Baba becomes a point of discussion wherever the name appears!!!

Probably, Luis, may not be aware of the grassroot service work undertaken by the followers/devotees/fans of Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba which is not normally reported in the mainstream media as the volunteers would not like to be 'limelighted'. Luis, you should certainly make a visit to Puttaparthy and you will soon understand from where the "suspicion" surrounding SSSB arises from. Also, your query on Muslims' belief in SSSB too will be answered partially. Also, have patience and keep watching/observing closely SSSB and the developments at Puttaparthy in the next six years. Your query will be completely answered.

---

Please check the following link which is a recent story that is published in one of the leading newspapers of India on April 25, 2005.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=126199

There was always people around the world who condemns and criticises those who shared their Love and Affection with others. In a world where Jesus Christ was crucified what else can one expect? The people who throw dirt on others do so because the ego in them rebels against the slow and steady growth of Love in them.

---

Check this too...its an article that came on another leading daily in India on May 22, 2005.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200505221568.htm

---

Two other media reports that came in the end of May 2005.

http://www.canindianews.com/news/News/NewsArticle.asp?sdkjshdhsdkjs=sdhsjdhsdlsdjlksjdl;sd&NewsID=-643194774&sdhskjdhskjd=sdhsjkdhsjkdh

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEA20050530025143&Page=A&Title=Southern+News+-+Andhra+Pradesh&Topic=0

---

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1391312,00410010.htm

---

A report that came in the second week of June 2005

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEK20050613014508

Number of Sikhs

the number of sikhs given here (35 million) does not match the numbers in the sikhism article at Sikhism#Sikhs around the world (23 million). Both figures cannot be correct. Tomer ^TALK 22:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The number of Sikhs in India won't exceed more then 25 million for sure. - India1989

Baha'i numbers

Regarding this revert of my addition, with edit summary, "3 consecutive Indian Censuses state a smaller number and Baha'is have never complained about alleged wrong reporting of Indian census."

True, I haven't found Baha'is complaining about the census, but I've also found many independent demographers counting Baha'is at 1.8 to 2.2 million. None of them have any commentary on the difference with the census, and they certainly saw the census data if they did any work at all. The lack of commentary from independent estimates says more than the lack of commentary from Baha'is. The most useful explanation I've found is from the article I linked from Firstpost, which doesn't address Baha'is specifically but says that the census counts the cultural identity of Hindus, not their personal beliefs. The article mentions many reasons behind this, which I suggest you read.

Placing the two extremes in the article (2.2 million and 4,500) without any further explanation is leading the reader to a conclusion that doesn't seem grounded in fact. Also, 5,050 Indian Baha'is gathered in person in 2008, which should be far fewer than total adherents. Another indication that something is wrong with the census number. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If the Baha'is are under-reported continuously from past 30 years (3 consecutive Indian censuses) then have they reported this issue to the concerned bodies or with the media? Baha'is are quoting big numbers from ARDA or WCD which is not correct for many countries including India. You can check this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_statistics#Figures_from_various_countries , check the difference between ARDA and actual census figures. Do you want to say that those countries also have some bias towards some religion? Your sentence claims that "possibly due to the census' bias towards counting Hindus based on cultural background instead of religious practice." That is not possible for 2 million Baha'is!! And Indian Baha'is don't seem to have problem with the census and the so-called "bias"! That sentence is not required.Serv181920 (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that ARDA, WCD, and the Baha'i-given numbers are probably too large, but the census is ridiculously low. You haven't addressed my actual points: ARDA and WCD are independent demographers who certainly saw the census data and chose to ignore it, the census is known to assign Hindu as a cultural identity regardless of belief, in-person conferences in 2008 gathered more Baha'is than the census number in 2011, and placing the two extremes next to each other without comment is leading the reader to assume that Baha'is are overstating their numbers by 500 times. I have searched for some sort of narrative or commentary from reliable sources to explain the difference, and the Firstpost article seems to be the best. There are more from IPS news and East Asia Forum, all basically saying the same thing. The census is not considered a reliable count of religious belief in India. It is used for political purposes, and the identification of religion is tied to financial benefit programs. There seems to be no available commentary on the number discrepancy for Baha'is because nobody takes the census seriously. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ARDA takes its figures from WCD and we don't know from where WCD gets those numbers? The Baha'i-given numbers (over two million) are definitely high and being criticized by many on different platforms. WCD is not an academic source, it clearly states that it is serving as "an informational undergirding for Christian missionary work". The inaccuracy of WCD (inflation of numbers) is mentioned on WCD's wikipedia page, here : https://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Christian_Encyclopedia . It says "The database also contains some numerical inaccuracies such as the inflated 70,000 figure given for Ahmadis in the year 1900, which directly opposes the 1901 Census of India figure of 12,000". Let us change the sentence to something like, "It is difficult to establish the exact number of Baha'is in India. The Baha'is claim over 2 million while three consecutive censuses of India reveals there numbers between 5000 & 11000."Serv181920 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I remember reading that WCD doesn't actually run their own surveys (which would be impossible, if you think about it), they just take the best data available, and when a number is pinned down, they use estimate growth rates for each passing year. If the initial estimate is wrong or the growth rate is wrong, they end up way off. That's how you get some whacky numbers that are much more or less than what Baha'i membership has. The big data surveys don't include Baha'i as an option because the margin of error would be too large based on sample sizes. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think to maintain Wikipedia policies we need to stick to WP:RS. Regardless of which ones are most accurate, we can only dispute sources if we have other sources that do so. Serv181920 is arguing that the WCD's religious mission means it is not WP:RS. I'm not sure if that disqualifies it, but in any case ARDA is certainly WP:RS so I have added their most recent estimate. Could add Warburg (2006) and Garlington (1997) as sources giving intermediate estimates. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Another thought... we may wish to just have one sentence saying different sources give different estimates on the number of Baha'is without giving numbers, put several refs, and then focus on the Lotus Temple instead, the aspect of the Indian Baha'i community that has drawn the most attention. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Serv181920 about the problematic nature of WRD data. Please note that there is another discussion about the same problem (focused on the overestimation of Christians) currently going on here. The problem is further worsened by the fact that WRD data are the base of Pew Research Center data, which have been widely disseminated throughout Wikipedia articles.--37.163.48.169 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)