A Misleading Combination of Statistics

Summary

In “A Misleading Combination of Statistics” Hirachand Nemchand critiques the way British-Indian Jail Administration Reports combine Jain and Buddhist communities when reporting the number of convicts. He argues that convict figures are an important index of the moral condition of different communities; when statistics are miscombined they misrepresent ethical realities. He explains that for years he has compared the communities and consistently found Jains to be among the strictest adherents to ethical principles. The Reports group together two separate religions and this leads superficial readers to draw exactly the opposite conclusion about Jains. Nemchand cites the 1901 census and jail figures to show the absurdity of the combined statistics. The census recorded 13,307 convicts under the combined Jain and Buddhist category in British India out of 9,890,149 followers of the two religions. This yields one convict to every 743 persons. Tabulating the figures separately shows a very different picture: in British Burma the 1901 figures listed a population of over nine million Buddhists with 13,051 Buddhist convicts, while the Jain population was 93 with no convicts. In Bombay province the figures recorded 227,696 Jains with 31 convicts and 547 Buddhists with no known convicts. The table of Indian provinces further demonstrates that Jain prisoners were extremely rare. Nemchand argues that these tables prove Jains are the most civilized people and should be at the top rather than the bottom of moral rankings. Combining their statistics with Buddhists is a perversion of facts. He addresses and refutes arguments that Jain numbers are too small to warrant a separate category. When moral judgement is involved, considerations of convenience are inappropriate. Parsis, with a population of less than a lakh, have their own line in the tables; there is no reason why nearly fourteen lakh Jains should be subsumed under another religion. Nemchand appeals to Jain public bodies across India to urge the Government of India to separate the statistics. Correct classification, he argues, is not merely sentimental; leaders need accurate measures of moral conduct if they are to influence their communities. At the heart of his argument is the conviction that accurate data foster self‑improvement and help leaders guide their followers; misleading numbers can damage a community’s reputation and hinder moral progress. Nemchand therefore insists that the issue is not a trivial matter of classification but a question of truth and justice. His article thus combines statistical analysis with a call to action, seeking justice for the Jains and greater clarity in official reports.