Talk:Economic history of India/Archive 1

Stuart Southwell
Hey guys, I'm a history student, just letting you know that there are some major error's in the GDP's stated - I do not believe that the United States overtook Britain in GDP until 1906. (From the sources I have read) I don't know about the earlier GDP comparisons but the later ones are definitely dodgy.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.254.220 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

LOC Country Study
I used content from the Economy section of the India profile at the Library of Congress Country Studies page to fill in some gaps here. I didn't use the liberalization and 1990s section since there was already content. Maybe someone who knows more about the subject would want to expand the section using the LOC study.--Bkwillwm 19:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

POV Flag
The Part of the Colonial Section not discussing the Rupee has a blatant Atlantacist bias. I'll try to neutralize it a bit tomorow. Bluethroat 05:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

wrong interpretation of maddison's work
Although Maddison's work relating to the world economy leaves much to be desired (no one knows how you can judge GDP on ancient countries when you have absolutely no records in those countries on GDP at all...), the interpretation of Maddison's work is currently not correct. First of all, before 1500, Maddison meant the geographic regions of India and China when he titled them India and China. As we well know, both regions had various countries within them during the pre1500 era. further, you can't assume that if at the timepoint 1AD and at 1100AD, the geogrphic region of south asia (or india as represented by maddison) had the world's largest GDP, that it is a straight line... as we all know, GDP fluctuates... if you look at maddison's work after 1500 (which is slightly more accurate) various countries flip flop on who is the number one GDP country and who is number two depending on the decade... All you can state with his work is that at the time points 1AD and 1100AD, that the indian subcontinent had the largest share of GDP.... and at 1500AD it had the number 2 share... you can't state anything beyond that...

Precolonial Period Improvements
Although I do appreciate the efforts of contributors to this section, it appears that the precolonial section appears to be rather simplified. The aim here is not to glorify India's economic history, but to present an accurate picture of her achievements and importance. That appears to be lacking. First and foremost, commerce from the indus valley to the late mughal period was a cornerstone of india. The impression one receives from this section was that the primary commercial centers of india throughout her history were religious towns. Whether it be Lothal, Pataliputra, Tampralipti, Bhriggukaccha, Mammalapuram, Vijayanagar, or Ahmedabad, there are numerous cities in ancient and medieval india that became commercial centers due to their strategic locations and economic policies rather than their religious significance. Moreover, superstitions on foreign travel were more a function of the middle and late medieval periods. As noted in A.L. Basham's The Wonder that was India, shipbuilding was a major industry in the Satavahana Empire, and maritime commerce(driven by seafaring indian merchants) continued into the middle ages, especially with South East Asia. Many other points are left unmentioned, such as the high demand of raw and manufctured indian goods (from ivory and spices to steel and textiles), the favorable balance of trade leading into the colonial period, and her involvement in trade with the far reaches of the world. Accordingly, Basham goes on to note in The wonder that was India that the formal guilds did exist in India, known as sreni. In India: A History, Keay singles out the 99 Swamis of Ayyavole as emblematic of the large trading and credit providing institutions that financed many Chola expeditions in the South East. Lastly, basic factories did emerge in at least the late Mughal period in the form of the karkhana. A potential improvement here would be to further divide the Pre-colonial period. After all, Indian civilization was already between 4000 years old (if not older) by the time the British became contenders on the subcontinent. Although the AIT's validity is contested, if not completely rejected, one could commence with the Indus Valley economy, progress to vedic and classical ancient periods, continue into the medieval period (potentially divide into delhi sultanate and mughal empire). This would serve to better assign trends, factors, and superstitions to their proper periods. Another point to be noted is that while a great many improvements did occur during the colonial period, the british empire did implement a systematic policy of destroying the indian textile industry. This was not a small factor in causing the shrinking of Indian GDP and served to eliminate competition for british textiles and to provide an enormous market for british textile goods. The indian economy was pushed back as much as western europe surged forward. I will do my best to collect formal citations to include; however, I did want to bring these to the attention of other contributors. Please let me know what you think.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Economic history under the Raj
I feel that this part of the article is not only extremely biased against the British rule of India and intentionally worded to glorify India's economic accomplishments post-1947, but simply incorrect. British rule did not "ruin" India economically, nor did it use the colony specifically to exploit its natural resources. Compare Britain's economic treatment of India to Spain's treatment of South America, or France's to its African possessions. After Partition, India was left with a significant base of homegrown industry which the British had some hand in helping construct. On what evidence is the author drawing the conclusion that India would have been better off economically without Imperial rule? The truth of the matter is much more complicated than the author gives on, and should be changed (I'd be willing to do this, when I get a mo.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.5.144.82 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. All this rhetoric about deliberate underdevelopment of India by the British is find until facts get in the way: the British started an oil industry in Bengal which by 1901 produced 633,000 galleons of oil; the coal industry was started by scratch and by 1914 that produced 16 million tons of coal by 1914; the Jute industry was vastly expanded; the cotton industry grew from 1900-1947; the vast irrigation boosted agricultural production; and the Tata steel industries were founded by the British. Overall British rule of India was bad for India economically, but it is hard to prove intent.

What nonsense is this?. you are saying that Britishers traveled halfway across the world and stayed in India for 250 years to help Indians???. A century earlier, when Tata founder Jamsetji Tata suggested making steel for the colonial railway system, a British administrator dismissed the idea with barely concealed contempt. Earlier this year, Tata paid almost $14 billion to buy Corus, British Steel's successor.http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1694653,00.html they did not help indian industries but in fact eliminated Indian cotton cloth industry. Bengal never had significant amount of oil. Bengal famine of 1943 was British made, caused by a combination of war and mismanagement, that claimed between one and two million lives in Bengal in 1943. Urgently beseeched by Amery and the Indian viceroy to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet. It was Indian soldiers, civilian laborers and businessmen who made possible the victory of 1945.http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/08/13/070813crbo_books_mishra?currentPage=3 What coal industry? you are not manufacturing anything. Just dig and sell. Unifaction of India and Railway were only two positive effects. But china got those with minimal outside help. Britishers did not leave on their own. they left because of The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny. British Indian Armed forces could no longer be universally relied upon for support in crisis, and even more it was more likely itself to be the source of the sparks that would ignite trouble in a country fast slipping out of the scenario of political settlement. But I must add that Britishers were not as bad as french or spanish conquistadors. Also they were secular.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A very uneven treatment
Please look at the following issues: (1) Economic activity as evidenced in archaelogical records and estimates about the early river valley city-states or trade/commerce networks has not been discussed (2) The role of the Budhdist Sanghas in trade and commerce (3) Economic activity as reported by foreigners and Arthasastra in the Mauryan period (4) Foreign trade both by land and sea from 1st millenium BCE until the 1st millenium CE (5) The caste system appears to have taken up a significant portion of the economic highlights of the subcontinent. But just as a reader comments that there are no good records of past GDP's, it can be easily established that there are also no good demographic records from which we can gauge actual impact or the importance of the caste system. (i.e., what part of the society was organized into castes? was its definition the same over all periods?) (6) Impact of slavery in the 1st millenium CE, changes of patterns of feudal developments in land use (7) Role of the Sultanate and its taxation policies (8) Mughal impact, particularly that of slavery, if nothing more than but as a transfer of labour to central Asia, and role of the Mughal system in the development or suppression of capitalist forms of production (Irfan Habib himself has a monograph on this topic, and his father Muhammad Habib has a lot to say about (7,8) in general). (9) There is a lot of data on direct transfer of capital from India in the early part of British presence under East India Company, and through both direct and indirect methods under the Empire. I do not find important refrences by the two Dutts, R.P., and R.C. about this process, being mentioned. There are substantial studies of fiscal and direct intervention in the development of dependent forms of industrial activity, and that too unevenly over the subcontinent.

This very important topic should be covered at much greater depth, and at a much more critical analytical depth, otherwise it can create a very incomplete and perhaps wrong impression about actual processes that took place. Dikgaj 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Time cove june 26 2006 1101060626 400 1.jpg
Image:Time cove june 26 2006 1101060626 400 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this entire article is entire non-sense and made to glorify Chinese and Indian economic achievement - very pro-Asian and anti-European stance. I think the entire page should be deleted or at least written by someone with at least some knowledge of the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I think it's clear the person who wrote this is a Indian who is very bitter about the past. A more neutral stance is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on article
I feel that this article ought to split up. I agree with the NPOV tag, since the bias agaisnt the Raj is palpable. In India, if not in other places, the British seemed to have meant well, although their abandonment of the subcontinent at the end was absolutely a shambles, this article is not a reliable source for much of anything. I feel, that without sources, it ought to be restarted...

What do you guys think?

V. Joe (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say "without good sources"... or at least some semblance of neutrality. V. Joe (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no bias against the Raj. What seems to you is not relevant. It's what reliable sources say. These should be found but certainly no reason for just redoing the article from scratch. A real bias is towards the present, particularly in the intro which barely mentions anything about pre-47. Munci (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Selective Use of Maddison's Statistics
Currently, the article notes only India's decline in GDP relative to that of the rest of the world, relying on Angus Maddison's statistics of about 25% of world GDP circa 1700 and about 2% by 1900. This is a selective use of Maddison's data. On Maddion's website Maddison supplies data illustrating that India's GDP per capita was virtually stagnant for well over one thousand years before the dawning of the Raj. The GDP per capita made a slight decline before picking up after the Mutiny. India's stagnation cannot, be blamed merely on British control, for stagnation was broken under the Raj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.1.199 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary and innacurate sentences.
According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, India had the world's largest economy from the first to 11th century, and in the 18th century, with a (32.9%) share of world GDP in the 1st century to (28.9%) in 1000 AD, and in 1700 AD with (24.4%).[7]

''The economic situation in the Maurya Empire is comparable to the Roman Empire several centuries later, which both had extensive trade connections and both had organizations similar to corporations. While Rome had organizational entities which were largely used for public state-driven projects, Maurya India had numerous private commercial entities which existed purely for private commerce. This was due to the Mauryas having to contend with pre-existing sreni hence they were more concerned about keeping the support of these pre-existing private commercial entities. The Romans did not have such pre-existing entities to contend with; hence, they were able to prevent such entities from developing.[citation needed]'It is necessary this comparation ? I think it must be an article only on India.'''

Here the history of Roman Empire is not well known. The impact of Roman Empire on Europe is today physically evident: Urbanization, roads, drainage, regiment and diverted rivers, almost total deforestation (recovered in part by the Middle Ages), extensive agriculture with low productivity, extinction of animals in Europe and North Africa, lead, hydrargyrum and CO2 pollution (see: coring in artic ice cap). Quantities of lignite, charcoal and wood were used for thermaes, winter heating, cement and lime production. Modified landscapes by mining ecc ecc. as Las Médulas. The State is not important in commerce in Roman Empire but the private initiative: families that could to be not only Romans, but Hebrews, Celtics, Greeks, Arabs, Egyptians ecc. or also political lobbies to gain power in Senate. These organisms had fleet, ships, private (sponsor) army ecc and could to nominate an emperor. Before Augustus the Republic had typically mercantilist pre-industrial economy comparable XVII-XVIII Europe. Probably the slavery, the availability of cheap laborer with the empire and the progressive concentration of richness and the decline of consumer society and the lack of democracy (during Empire) prevented the jump. (About consumer society I remember that existed also specific tourism cities: Baia, Bath, Capri, Altino, Balearic islands ecc. there are also turism to Egypt to see the pyramids, and also the importance of chinese silk for the status of a rich woman, and market of clothes, fashion hairstyles that change often. With India, I remember the Roman villas are full of mosaics and frescoes with the hunting of esotic animals. Indian elephant and tiger, monkeys and birds. We know that indian tigers arrived in the arenas as more rare caucasian tigers ecc. Also Indian products as dyes and spices were known. Surely artifacts, mirrors, and glass were exported in China, via Alexandria and India.

Fortunately, India has not had a civilization so destructive, today we would not have the jungle, elephants and tigers. The tropical soils could not recover as in Europe. Indeed the erosion has destroyed large extensions in North Africa, Greece, Spain in Northern Arabia and Syria.

Sorry for the digression, but is my opinion is you do not need a comparison with the Roman Empire in this article.

--Andriolo (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
Why is this article only backed up by Maddison's work? Surely more evidence is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.246.215 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary information regarding China in the economic history of India!
Please delete all the information regarding China in the section covering the British Raj. Almost every sentence in that section requires a citation, which means that it should not be on Wikipedia. This is the economic history of India!
 * yes that material is not helpful and I deleted it. Instead I added some info from RS. Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why you want to delete this content? --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * because it's boasting and misleading and says nothing about the Indian economy except a lot of people lived in India. (Economists use GNP per capita). Rjensen (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. - please re-request, if applicable, thx.  Chzz  ► 00:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Aid
India is one of the largest recipient of foreign aid which definitely has impacted its economy they receive billions each year which should be mentioned like it is on other nations I am surprised this is not mentioned here is some information 109.149.65.233 (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Another source 109.149.65.233 (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * oh we cannot have that can we? India was built on aid yet that is found nowhere in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.236.245 (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GDP estimate error
The user who made the edit has misinterpreted Maddison's book. The reason Maddison doesn't give any GDP estimate during the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD is not because there is insufficient data. The reason is that it is understood/obvious that India had the largest economy during the period. I have corrected it. The administrator can feel free to make any corrections. This is my 2 cents. I just read the book two days ago. Go through the table. It is common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.172.215 (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahhaha
'China worlds largest economy followed by France and India in 1885, hahhaha. Great Britain was the worlds largest economy from 1846. China, India and France'..hahhaha. Who are these jokers that write this stuff on the English Wikipedia particularly articles relating to India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.236.245 (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Very Biased and irrelevant line in the Republic of India section
The user who edited this page is very frequently comparing India with the other Asian countries like South Korea, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Also the tone of the section appears to be anti-Nehru and anti-socialist. For example

'' Compare India (orange) with South Korea (yellow). Both started from about the same income level in 1950. The graph shows GDP per capita of South Asian economies and South Korea as a percent of the American GDP per capita. ''

'' Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, a believer in socialism, decided that the technological revolution in India needed maximisation of steel production. '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hargup (talk • contribs) 09:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

False information
After going through the article and reading the paragraph above, I am amazed at the extent to which people are willing to go in order to manipulate historical facts. Kindly go through Angus Maddison's book. The book clearly states that India i.e., the Indian subcontinent had the largest economy in the world from the 1st to the 17th century. It is amazing how such pernicious nonsense ends up on a supposed "enyclopedia". Also, since this is the economic history of "India", I don't see why other countries need to be mentioned on this page, since India isn't mentioned in other pages regarding economic history. Kindly correct this mistake. Thank you. -frustrated wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.89.173 (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Economic history of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-638.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615032843/http://eh.net:80/hmit/exchangerates/ to http://eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615032843/http://eh.net:80/hmit/exchangerates/ to http://eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611172746/http://www.imf.org:80/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbcselm.cfm?G=2001 to http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbcselm.cfm?G=2001
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050618025958/http://www.med.unc.edu:80/~nupam/ancient1.html to http://www.med.unc.edu/~nupam/ancient1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611172746/http://www.imf.org:80/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbcselm.cfm?G=2001 to http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbcselm.cfm?G=2001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV
"Under British rule, India's share of global industrial output declined from 25% in 1750 down to 2% in 1900" is no doubt true, but not primarily because of "The plunder of Bengal" as the writers of the article seem to want readers to believe, but because the industrial revolution in the rest of the world, not only in Britain, made the global industrial output increase at a much higher annual rate from 1750 to 1900 than the industrial output of India. Including the emergence of the United States, from having virtually no industrial output at all in 1750 to having the by far largest industrial output of any country in the world in 1900. So how about adhering to Wikipedia's rules about neutral point of view? - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've moved that plunder bit away from the GDP share section, so as not to imply it was the primary cause. Other than that, the article generally points to stagnation as the primary cause. Maestro2016 (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)