.jpg)
http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/article1532597.ece?service=print
Boss, read the true history before speaking
S Gurumurthy
Apr 6, 2013
Nine years after advent in public life, Rahul Gandhi addressed the Confederation of the Indian Industry [CII]. Media conferred on him the title ‘Boss’.
The Boss told captains of industry: “They used to look at India and say, Boss, the Hindu rate of Growth. They have been saying like this for 3,000 years. Now the Hindu Rate of growth is like the European rate of growth’.
This less serious comment calls for serious response. Otherwise illiteracy about India will continue to persist for lack of literacy among Indians who speak for India.
But, it calls for a peep into the world and the Indian economic history which most Indian academics, particularly economists, seem to be least interested in and therefore less aware of.
The label ‘Hindu rate of growth’ was coined by Professor Rajkrishna, a socialist establishment economist, in 1978 to rationalise why India was growing ‘slowly’ despite following the socialist prescriptions. Raj Krishna’s label was original but its philosophy was borrowed. It all originated in the colonial discourse on India.
A notable victim of colonial discourse on India was Karl Marx. Even before he brought out his magnum opus Das Kapital, Karl Marx wrote an article on the Indian economy [June 25, 1853] in New York Harold Tribune. In his article, he was generally positive about the distinct ‘Hindoo’ India’s village system of agriculture and manufacturing which, he said, gave to people their independent organisation and social life. But he said that that had made India changeless for two thousand years. So the British, he said, were doing the right thing, though painful, causing a social revolution by demolishing the village system which Marx described as ‘semi-barbarian and semi-civilised’. Why semi-barbarian and semi-civilised?
Not because the village economic model was wrong per se, but, because, Marx said, the Hindoos were worshipping cows and monkeys and were even claiming antiquity greater than Christianity’s! Karl Marx, who never came to India, never met any informed Indian, nor read any worthwhile Indian literature dismissed India as a semi-barbarian. His knowledge about India was limited colonial records on India.
Then came Max Weber.
He had theorised that only Protestant Christian societies could progress under modern capitalist model since Protestantism alone promoted individualism and enterprise. He was entitled to his comment because he had studied the rise of America and European protestant nations as compared to the Catholic countries which had stagnated.
But he impertinently wrote in late 1920s that India and China, which followed Hindu-Buddhist faiths, would not succeed under capitalist model because they believed in karma, rebirth and caste. He too never went to India, perhaps never met a proper Indian, but still adversely commented on Hinduism and Buddhism.
Studies have established that the Marx and Weber theories had exerted the greatest influence on Indian academic, sociological and economic thinking. In the same stream of thought, Winston Churchill called Indians anarchic and barbaric. After freedom J K Galbraith described India as a functioning anarchy. Professor Rajkrishna’s remark was the Indian affirmation of this thought stream that held Hinduism guilty for keeping semi-barbaric and under-developed.
This is what the Boss also has recalled in his CII speech.
But this colonial theory was proved fake in 1983 -- exactly five years after Rajkrishna trashed Hinduism for India’s low growth.
In that year Paul Bairoch, a Belgian economist, came out with his study of the world economy and his findings astounded the West. He said that in 1750 India’s share of world GDP was 24.5 per cent, China’s 33 per cent, but the combined share of Britain and the US was - believe it - just two per cent. Yes only two per cent!
India’s share, Bairoch found, fell to 20 per cent in 1800; to 18 per cent in 1830; and finally crashed to 1.7 per cent in 1900, while China’s crashed to 6.2 per cent from 33 per cent.
In these 150 years, the combined share of Britain and the US rose to from 2 per cent to over 41 per cent.
Bairoch shook the West by saying that in middle 19th century, the West had a lower standard of living than Asians - read Indians and Chinese.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], network of rich nations, forthwith constituted a Development Institute Studies under Angus Maddisson, a great economic historian, to conduct a comprehensive research into economic history - the implied agenda was to prove Bairoch wrong.
Angus Maddisson postulated, ‘if Bairoch is right, then much more of the backwardness of the third world presumably has to be explained by colonial exploitation’ and ‘much less of Europe’s advantage can be due to scientific precocity, centuries of slow accumulation, and organisational and financial superiority’. After two decades of hard work, Maddision published his studies titled ‘World Economic History - A Millennial Perspective in 2001’.
His study confirmed Bairoch’s study of 150 years and more, as Maddisson studied the entire 2000 years economic history.
Maddisson showed that India was the leading economic power of the world from the 1st year of the first millennium till 1700 - with 32 per cent share of world’s GDP in the first 1000 years and 28 per cent to 24 per cent in the second millennium till 1700.
China was second to India except in 1600 when China temporarily overtook India. India again overtook China in 1700. The global economic play was in the hands of India and China till 1830.
And two nations disqualified for development by Weber for following Hindu and Buddhist religions. Maddison confirmed, actually confessed, that [Hindu] India fell only due to colonial exploitation.
Now the Maddisson study, endorsed by OECD, is the most authentic economic history of the world. What does it prove? The Hindu rate of growth had kept India going as the most powerful economy of the world for 1850 years out of 2000 years. That is why William Dalrymple described the rise of India ‘as the empire striking back’ -- meaning that India’s rise was not rags to riches story.
The Bairoch-Maddisson studies have sealed the discourse decades back. Their studies have also been corroborated by other studies and records. Some of them are: studies into the Mayuran export-led economic Model Hindu India [American Journal of Economics and Sociology April 1993]; study into consumption during Akbar’s regime as being higher than in Europe by Centre for West Asia Studies Jamia Milia Islamia University; the Economic History of Greco-Roman World which described how two thousand years ago India was bankrupting Roman Egypt of its gold reserves by its export surplus; the history of Indian merchant navy which had a fleet strength of 40,000 ships in Akbar’s time and as many as 34,000 ships before the British arrived and the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] Annual report of 1934-35 which said that between 1493 and 1930 India absorbed 14 per cent of world gold production - which meant that it earned that much export surplus for five centuries continuously.
QED:
Hindu rate of growth had made India super power. Colonialism did India down to poverty. Nehruvian socialism made it stagnate even after freedom.
The slow growth of India was due to Nehruvian socialism. But thanks to Rajkrishna the label Hindu rate of growth was globalised by the World Bank President Robert McNamara in 1980s. He said that India would always be in need of aid and it would ever be a burden on the world.
Another person who carried on the tradition of Marx-Weber-Rajkrishna-McNamara to trivialise Hindu India was Montek Alhuwalia who endorsed Rajkrishna’s description of India even after the 21st century opened.
The only exception in the present establishment is Shiv Shankar Menon, the National Security Adviser, who profoundly called India’s rise “re-rise”.
Will the Boss begin learning the true history of Hindu rate of growth, not repeat the spurious history when he talks to the FICCI or elsewhere later?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
Email: comment@gurumurthy.net
Copyright © 2012 The New Indian Express. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED PLEASE :
All the foregoing is covered in an excellent 'expose',
entitled :
"The Case For India "
By : Will Durnat
The book describes in graphic detail the atrocities of the so-called "civilized" Britishers (refer definition below!!!!!) in the chapter "The rape of a continent". The difference is that he has quoted numbers and figures; unassailable facts and laws that graphically illustrate the systematic destruction of all kinds of local enterprise. For example, produce was taxed at 50%; the documented fact that tax rates rates were the highest in India across the world;
Quotes :
"The fundamental principle of the british has been to make the whole indian nation subservient... they have been taxed to the utmost limit; the indians have been denied every honor, dignity or office".... F J Shore testifying to the house of commons in 1857
"Under their dependence on the british - Oudh and Karnatic, 2 of the noblest provinces in India, were plunged into a state of wretchedness with which no part of the Earth has anything to compare" - Lt Col Brigs, 1830
"The Governments' assessment does not even leave enough food for the cultivator to feed his family" - Sir William Hunter, 1875
"The Rajahs had taxed the people much less severely than the british.... "
"The national debt of India rose from $35,000,000 in 1792 to $3,500,000,000 in 1929. These figures tell the tale"
Please read the book review at :
URL: http://reflectionsvvk.blogspot.in/2012/02/book-revew-case-for-india-will-durant.html
TUESDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2012
Book Revew: The Case For India - Will Durant - 1930
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant
For every Englishman who came to India with original thought, there were 10 who were incapable of original thought, and 100 who were capable of only original evil; Satyagrah was known as passive resistance: nonsense - there was nothing passive about it - Shashi Tharoor
Shashi Tharoor has covered the ground with these 2 brutally frank lines that indict the british; Jaswant Singh far more detailed, as he examined in scholarly detail the divide and rule policy and the eyewash of governance; Versaikar detailed the 1857 reprisals in Jhansi by the british in an eyewitness account; Bipin Chandra covered some of it in his book on independence; Nehru gave in vivid detail the systematic destuction of the Indian People.... All the above are Indian writers; nearly all are great thinkers and patriots (Versaikar was a simple citizen who wrote an eyewitness account). None has covered the brutal destruction that charactarised colonial rule in vivid detail... this is where the current book - The Case For India written by a famed American Historian, Will Durant scores
"This was not the destruction of a minor civilization produced by an inferior people. It ranks with the highest civilizations of history, and some would place it at the head and summit of all - like Keyserling.... when the british cannons attacked.... the hindus surrendered at once lest one of the most beautiful creations of mankind be destroyed. Who, then, were the civilized people? (The Hindus or The English?) The British conquest of India was the destruction of a high civilization by a trading company utterly without scruple or principal, overrunning with fire, sword, bribery, murder a country temporarily disordered and helpless"
"India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or Asia, producing textile, Metal works, Jewelry, Precious Stones, Pottery, Architecture. She had great merchants, businessmen, ship building - nearly every kind of manufacture known to the civilized world was already in India"
The book describes in graphic detail the atrocities of the so-called "civilized" Britishers (refer definition below!!!!!) in the chapter "The rape of a continent". The difference is that he has quoted numbers and figures; unassailable facts and laws that graphically illustrate the systematic destruction of all kinds of local enterprise. For example, produce was taxed at 50%; the documented fact that tax rates rates were the highest in India across the world; Sample this:
"The fundamental principle of the british has been to make the whole indian nation subservient... they have been taxed to the utmost limit; the indians have been denied every honor, dignity or office".... F J Shore testifying to the house of commons in 1857
"Under their dependence on the british - Oudh and Karnatic, 2 of the noblest provinces in India, were plunged into a state of wretchedness with which no part of the Earth has anything to compare" - Lt Col Brigs, 1830
"The Governments' assessment does not even leave enough food for the cultivator to feed his family" - Sir William Hunter, 1875
"The Rajahs had taxed the people much less severely than the british.... "
"The national debt of India rose from $35,000,000 in 1792 to $3,500,000,000 in 1929. These figures tell the tale"
The book is littered with such graphic details - all taken from western, and primarily british sources. It examines how the economic fabric of the country was destroyed, how for example its textile trade was wrecked; its impact on the prosperity of the nation. It also examines the specious claims of education improvement - there were more schools in India before the advent of the civilized british; how the number of schools diminished and were discouraged; It looks at the now-famous example of the british gift of railways - in the USA, railways were used largely for goods transport, whereas in India their function was for the imperial class travels; It examines how every activity of the british - right down to the bullets used to suppress revolts were exacted from Indians; It looks at the wages paid to Indians; It details tariffs of 80% on Indian products as opposed to zero tariffs on british imports; "The result was that Manchester and Paisley flourished and Indian industries declined. India was transformed into a purely agricultural country, and her mineral wealth was not explored; artisans etc were forced to live off the land; no competition was to be allowed to English industries- Kohn". The book looks at the balance of trade, which was heavily against India and gives numbers - hard core numbers of the draining of wealth from what was one of the richest and most civilized regions of Earth. It looks at how local schools were destoyed by the british; it looks at british salaries and how the wealth from India went to England through salaries and pensions - quoting hard core numbers
So far, the book has dealt with what is largely unknown to us. From here, the book moves into familiar territory, and examines the powers of the so-called democratic institutions - the limited vote-bank; the powers of the british viceroy / governors etc to overrule the local bodies; how the local "elected" bodies had no powers; It looks at the divide and rule policy of the british, with separate voting for each community -issues which have been beautifully examined by Jaswant Singh, Bipin Chandra in their books, so I shall not dwell much on that point.
Then there is the chapter of Mahatma Gandhi, which first gives an biography of his life till 1930; But even here you find priceless tit-bits: "the british connection has made india more helpless... politically and economically... no jugglery of figures can explain away the evidence of the skeletons in many villages... I have no doubt that England and the towns of India will have to answer ... if there is a God above, for this crime against humanity which is perhaps unparalleled in history - Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi"
Then it goes on to detail in horrific stomach-turning detail the atrocities: "hindus to crawl on their bellies in the street"; school-boys flogged in public; prisoners bound with ropes and kept in open trucks for 15 hours; poured lime on naked bodies; cut off electric supplies to hindu houses; airplanes to drop bombs on labourors; The perpetrator of this very civlized, decent, morally consistent, gentle behavior was retired on a pension; exonerated; public supporters- all civilized, no doubt - raised $150000 as support... "there was not one bullet wound in the back - each bullet had struck home in the chest; not one Indian ran; there was passive submission in the highest forms of non-violence"... The brutal, inhuman retaliation of the british, for which they would very likely have been hanged in their own country, made the passive resistance movement one of the bravest, most active forms of struggle - a struggle unlike any other anywhere on Earth.
"I felt my skin creep and my hair stand on end as I saw those brave men... testicles crushed... body battered and broken... chest battered... every one whom I talked to gave the same stories of fiendish beating, torturing, thrusting lathi in anus, dragging.... what has become of the English Honour... English Justice - Miss Madeline Slade"
A book that is a must read for all Indians...
(Just to remind ourselves as to what being civilized means:)
civ·i·lized (sv-lzd)
Having a highly developed society and culture.; Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable; Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.
civilization
Pronunciation: /ˌsɪvɪlʌɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/
(also civilisation)
the stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced;
the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization.;
This book systematically de-constructs all arguments in favour of colonial rule and its advantages. First, India was formed by the british: let us qualify that statement - India was formed as a response to the brutality of the british (in fact, a cursory glance at Indian history - and world history - will reveal that India has been under one rule at least 4-6 times for long periods, and has flourished); Education: there was better educational set-up before the british - and modern education would have come anyway (it should be remembered that India was a massive power with trade links to the entire world - hence simple logic dictates that eventually, modern techniques and methods would have come to our borders!) just as smelting, musket making, and various other techniques found their way to our nation. It similarly destroys all supposed advantages and exposes the morally corrupt nature of the Raj, which in its nature was the very antithesis of the claims to civilzation that were professed by its practitioners.
And lastly, this book brings home the fact that among all the ancient civilizations, the Indian civilization stands as the only civilization to have survived all through history - virtually unchanged. We were there during Babylon, we were there during the time of the Greeks, we were there when Rome was at its height, we were there when Europe was rising... and today,we are still present... with the same culture, same ethos, worshipping the same Gods as we used to 3500 - 5000 years ago, eating virtually the same kind of food... virtually unchanged. We are indebted to the pain of our forefathers, the tortures they bore, the indignities they went through - just so we, their children, could breathe free and with pride, justifiable pride in order that a new, modern India can be built. We owe it to them to make India truly modern, forward looking and progressive, strong - economically, socially and militarily. It is a book that will shake you to the core, brings tears to your eyes and leave you speechless. No wonder, then, that this book had been banned in the UK!
11th February
An internet interaction with a gentleman of opposite views has just made me realise how bad our history education has been... people- Indians - just do not realise what British rule meant; and actually regard it as a boon! I wonder what they will say to the sacrifices of Gandhiji, Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bal Gangadhar Tilak etc! Not only that, they are laying all the blame on Indian shoulders - and pointing to the current rampant corruption as evidence, totally ignoring the advances we have made since Independence in every sphere of life - take the example of Famines - all they have to do is compare famines before and after Independence! I am heartened by one fact, though - I have met a large number of Indians with views similar to mine, and with knowledge of our past that is much better than mine. Sometimes I wish we could make the British return the Koh-i-noor, ask them to apologise for their deeds (which they have never done - and some nations have for their misdeeds) and so on and so forth. Then I remember my teachings - forgive and move on. But forgive does not mean forget!
http://reflectionsvvk.blogspot.in/2012/02/book-revew-case-for-india-will-durant.html