Economic Survey, Sangh Parivar on different history pages

NEW DELHI: The Economic Survey’s time travel back to economic history has produced an interesting contrast, one that may be unwitting on the part of its author — the chief economic adviser of a BJP government draws a conclusion that’s very different from the Sangh Parivar orthodoxy.

The survey’s Chapter 2 is a lengthy exposition on the importance of wealth creation, and it starts by noting that “for more than three-fourths of known economic history, India has been the dominant economic power globally”. This is consistent with respected economic history research. The survey, in fact, points to Angus Maddison’s work on the subject.

Academic research by Maddison and others conclude that between 1AD and 1500 AD, India was the largest economy, followed by China. Also, that China may have pipped India between 1500 AD and 1700 AD but around 1700 AD, India regained the top spot and stayed there till better use of agricultural technology by China, western adoption of industrial tech and British colonialism dragged it down.


Size of the Labour Force
But while the survey makes the same broad point, the Sangh has always held that India’s decline as a large economic power can be traced to the beginning of the Delhi Sultanate and then Mughal rule. That’s not borne out by historical research. During much of the Delhi Sultanate period (1206-1526), India remained the world’s largest economy. And during the peak of Mughal rule (early 16th century to mid-18th century), India was either the second largest or the largest economy.

The survey, without mentioning ruling dynasties or kingdoms, gets the period of India’s dominance right – but that’s not what Sangh orthodoxy believes in. Economic historians also point out that before technological innovation took deep roots, GDP was basically a function of the size of the labour force. India and China were the most populous countries, and therefore the biggest economies. The survey doesn’t explicitly say this.

Instead, it talks of Kautilya and Arthashastra as well as “temple-banks” that funded ancient India’s global trade to conclude that “pursuit of prosperity is an intrinsic part of Indian civilisational ethos”. These are references the Sangh will be comfortable with — unlike with the survey’s view on the period of India’s economic dominance.