In Kashmir, Indian security forces use pellet guns that often blind protesters

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, mishra said:

^ Again, You are making the mistake of using same paint of religion on Hinduism. RSS is not saying you do not follow any religion. Its not saying you do NOT have a freedom to choose the religion. What it is saying is why NOT make educate people to make a informed choice.  After all, dont you think its government responsibility to educate its people and cultivate morality and ethics.

Educate its kids and people and then Let them decide if they want to give up concept of Vasudeva Kutumbkam for a imaginary King of heaven or post life Hoors. HAve a debate if Vasudeva Kutumbkam means only brow skinned Indian looking people or Koreans, Chechans, Mexicans, Germans, Ugandans included too.

 

I am a Hindu because I am born in a Hindu family. Some icfers follow other religion because they are born that religion. But why cant government put a effort that people know what India and inhabitants of Land stood for. What was their philosophy, what was their culture. How some changes came about among Indians. Why those chapters are completely struck off from school text books. Why let religion and religious leader take complete control on what and how we should behave? Why NOT empower people to make choice?

 

 

For your example, The very same women should be able to proudly wear a Saari in social gathering. She shouldnt be made to feel backward, uneducated and treated differently when she is wearing a Sari instead of a Skirt with pencil heels at public place

 

I agree with your sentiments 100% but that is not what RSS stands for. RSS stands for spreading & upholding hinduvta. Which is a composite of religious-cultural practice of being a hindu. If they weren't so specific to being Hindu,instead of just being 'Indian', they wouldn't marginalize Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs in their philosophy.

When they say 'Buddha was a hindu/is a type of hindu', that is just as ignorant as saying ' Mohammed was a Jew'. And even then, the point is, education needs to provide a dispassionate notion of history. And that is a fundamentally hard thing to do in K+12 system without making history a major topic of study (at the expense of other activities essential to youth). It could stand to become more informative about India itself, especially the pre-Islamic native dynasties. But the RSS is not the answer, they are a caricature of the answer. Yet, they are clearly a great example of 'andher nagri me kanha raja'.

 

[mishra]

@Muloghonto

Extending on taht Saari example. I have many incidents, I will share a couple of incident. Few years back One day one of our friend invited to a birthday party of his child. her Mum who was in her late seventies had joined, flying all the way from India, and was speaking in Marathi with her grand Child. She was wearing a dhoti (Cant be classed as Saari) on her weak feeble structure with almost no front teeth.

 

Now our wives, Specially ones born in a particular zone of India, were speaking in from of her in English trying to emulate British accent  without even giving any heed to her being around. It was only when she spoke back to them in English, they just went awed. Later they realised she has retired as a bureaucrat from Indian Civil Services.

 

Exactly opposite happened on one of my India trips few year. My daughter speaks perfect Hindi and Hindi only whenever she sees a Indian. So In India she only spoke Hindi. We realized that she was being sidelined at a restaurant because some broken English speaking crowd was there till my local friends Mum intervened and asked her to convey her request in English. Off course they didn't get that either, because of accent but immediately gave her priority.

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by mishra

[mishra]

53 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I agree with your sentiments 100% but that is not what RSS stands for. RSS stands for spreading & upholding hinduvta. Which is a composite of religious-cultural practice of being a hindu. If they weren't so specific to being Hindu,instead of just being 'Indian', they wouldn't marginalize Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs in their philosophy.

When they say 'Buddha was a hindu/is a type of hindu', that is just as ignorant as saying ' Mohammed was a Jew'. And even then, the point is, education needs to provide a dispassionate notion of history. And that is a fundamentally hard thing to do in K+12 system without making history a major topic of study (at the expense of other activities essential to youth). It could stand to become more informative about India itself, especially the pre-Islamic native dynasties. But the RSS is not the answer, they are a caricature of the answer. Yet, they are clearly a great example of 'andher nagri me kanha raja'.

 

They just say they are Hindus too. So for a Hindu Indian, They say, don't feel that Sikhs, Jains or Budhist are different. How is that marginalizing?

If it was marginalising they wont be talking about life of Bhagat Singh among themselves.

 

One thing I agree, They do not talk about a Indian Islamic Hero or a Christian Hero, but then again name one?

 

Book has dedicated a chapters on Nehuruji and Congress and how great Congress is, At the same time, full of lies to portray 600 year rule of Islam going to length that Mughal period was as good as Golden part of Indian History when obviously it was most painful in socio economic and religious term of indegenous population.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by mishra

[Muloghonto]

42 minutes ago, mishra said:

They just say they are Hindus too. So for a Hindu Indian, They say, don't feel that Sikhs, Jains or Budhist are different. How is that marginalizing?

If it was marginalising they wont be talking about life of Bhagat Singh among themselves.

 

One thing I agree, They do not talk about a Indian Islamic Hero or a Christian Hero, but then again name one?

 

Book has dedicated a chapters on Nehuruji and Congress and how great Congress is, At the same time, full of lies to portray 600 year rule of Islam going to length that Mughal period was as good as Golden part of Indian History when obviously it was most painful in socio economic and religious term of indegenous population.

 

 

Its marginalizing by stealing the identity. Simply because, the word 'hindu' is a much later construct and does *not* apply to Buddhists or Jains and never did. Buddha never called himself 'hindu'. neither did Shankaracharya FYI. 

Its no different than fundamentalist sects of Christianity, such as Jehovah's witnesses or Methodists claiming that 'Jews are really Christians who refuse to accept Christ and are ultimately, Christian too'. 

Buddhists, jains, sikhs are not hindu. To say they were hindu, is denying their history as well as denying all the borrowings hinduism did from the Buddhists and Jains. 

 

[mishra]

47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Its marginalizing by stealing the identity. Simply because, the word 'hindu' is a much later construct and does *not* apply to Buddhists or Jains and never did. Buddha never called himself 'hindu'. neither did Shankaracharya FYI. 

Its no different than fundamentalist sects of Christianity, such as Jehovah's witnesses or Methodists claiming that 'Jews are really Christians who refuse to accept Christ and are ultimately, Christian too'. 

Buddhists, jains, sikhs are not hindu. To say they were hindu, is denying their history as well as denying all the borrowings hinduism did from the Buddhists and Jains. 

 

Analogy is incorrect. Its should other way round, Consider middle east was one big country and say JEWS claimed that Christian and Muslims in and around Jerusalem were used to be jews and fundamentally Muslims and Christian belief doesn't matter as they were mid eastern and Christianity and Islam is theirs too.

 

Also RSS is a organization not guardian of Hinduism but one who take pride in Indianness. You are trying to create a difference when RSS doesnt sees there is need to see any. Also, RSS is neither actively nor subconsciously working against any of these religion as again, they originated in India and by Indians and we are same people.

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by mishra

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, mishra said:

Analogy is incorrect. Its should other way round, Consider middle east was one big country and say JEWS claimed that Christian and Muslims in and around Jerusalem were used to be jews and fundamentally Muslims and Christian belief doesn't matter as they were mid eastern and Christianity and Islam is theirs too.

 

Also RSS is a organization not guardian of Hinduism but one who take pride in Indianness. You are trying to create a difference when RSS doesnt sees there is need to see any. Also, RSS is neither actively nor subconsciously working against any of these religion as again, they originated in India and by Indians and we are same people.

 

Then call them Indian,not Hindus. Also I think you will find that as far as historical evidence is concerned, Jains are older than Hinduism . 

If RSS doesn't see what's wrong with calling Buddhists and Janis ' Hindus' , then it also shouldn't be sad at Indian civilization being called a middle eastern civilization, since we have concrete evidence that farming is older in middle east than India and spread to India from there. 

[zen]

Link - Chinese flags recovered as well at terror hideouts. Security forces search hideouts in terror safe heavens

 

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by zen

[chewy]

53 minutes ago, zen said:

Link - Chinese flags recovered as well at terror hideouts. Security forces search hideouts in terror safe heavens

 

 

no surprise, considering BRICS summit happening in Goa

 

durty Pakistan hands all over this new tactic, hopefully all of these rats get shot. 

[Muloghonto]

12 hours ago, mishra said:

 

Book has dedicated a chapters on Nehuruji and Congress and how great Congress is, At the same time, full of lies to portray 600 year rule of Islam going to length that Mughal period was as good as Golden part of Indian History when obviously it was most painful in socio economic and religious term of indegenous population.

Actually, the history curriculum in India can stand to improve a lot. And to be honest, this is not an unique, 'Indian problem', this is a pan-institutional problem.
I've been involved in school boards in the past (as ancillary observer, happened to work for them a while back) and what i've noticed is this :

there is a big push-pull between 'what education is', usually between practicalists and theoreticists. History is a topic that is an universal victim, usually settling for the most 'sanitized/sanctioned' version of it going into textbooks. In civilized countries, it is the most sanitized version. In theocracies and dictatorships, its whatever fiction they want to sanction. This is not just India, its pretty much, everywhere.

There needs to be a lot more on Nehru's *ups, at the very least. We deserve to know how this Kashmiri manufactured 'special clauses' into Kashmir's secession into India, explicitly against the judgement of our Home Minister, Justice Minister and many others, effectively amounting to treason with the Republic of India. Or how he botched the war with Pakistan in 1948. Or when he botched the war with China. 

We need to know more about Gandhi too, who showed that he cared more to be in power than 'whats best for India' when he blocked SC Bose and his leadership in the congress. 

On a side note, you'd be interested to know, that the Mughal period was not as bad as you depict it to be.

Because while one can argue effectively that under the Mughals, the social & religious freedoms of the indegenous populations were  pretty poor (they were worse under the Delhi Sultans, actually, but the Mughals come a close second), economically, the British period was hands down the worst phase in archaeological history of India.

We went from having approximately 25-30% of the world's economy circa 1st century CE, to roughly 15-20% of the world's GDP under the muslims, till the British took over. From being around 15% of the world's economy circa 1750s, we went to being around 2% of the world's economy circa 1900, thanks to the British.

This is because, the British actively prevented the industrialisation of India, as they wanted India to be the resource hinterland of the empire. 

They stole/destroyed all our indigenous industry (since time immemorial till the arrival of the British, India was *THE* dominant manufacturer of  dyes and textiles. Roman senators wore Togas made in India sometime. Exists in Roma ledgers itself). This is logical for any colonial power to do: why should Britain let Indian industry & business thrive, when they can just keep India as the resource cow, while setting up manufactures, mills and looms in England ? 

So was the Islamic period the worst for India ? Socially & culturally, it was and India did become less affluent under the Muslims on the whole. But we were still a pre-eminent pre-industrial economic super-power. Only China & the mediterranean compare to us in economic might, all the way to the British. 
So pick your poison: British made us illiterate, superstitious, dirt poor and malnourished. But gave us the religious freedoms, freedoms to learn & gradually absorb technology, art, literature into our society. The Muslims kept us far richer, but persecuted us for their desert sky-God. 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Muloghonto

[mishra]

^ Bhai, It doesnt matter how much over all wealth a country has (allthough there were two world war which werent our but as a colony they may have put serious constraint on global resources), What matters is how rich/poor the population is and how fair the system is, how much freedom the people have in various areas of their life. During any particular phase of history if there has been improvement in science, art, music, medicine, critical thinking, schooling. When west had Renaissance, what happened in India. why it happened in India? How come civilasation went so far behind vis a vis european one.

 

You will find British period was no where as bad as one which is treated to be argued as golden period in Indian History. After all it limited the whims of princels, Zamidars and Sultans, introduced bureaucracy,judiciary, idea of democracy, science,  all came to India during that period. But some how that period is treated as darkest.

Within 100 years of East India Companies entry to India, how come Rani Laxmibai decided to go to war with East India Company soldiers instead of committing Jauhar. Isnt that a massive change in mentality, not to be ignored by historian.

 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, mishra said:

^ Bhai, It doesnt matter how much over all wealth a country has (allthough there were two world war which werent our but as a colony they may have put serious constraint on global resources), What matters is how rich/poor the population is and how fair the system is, how much freedom the people have in various areas of their life. During any particular phase of history if there has been improvement in science, art, music, medicine, critical thinking, schooling. When west had Renaissance, what happened in India. why it happened in India? How come civilasation went so far behind vis a vis european one.

 

You will find British period was no where as bad as one which is treated to be argued as golden period in Indian History. After all it limited the whims of princels, Zamidars and Sultans, introduced bureaucracy,judiciary, idea of democracy, science,  all came to India during that period. But some how that period is treated as darkest.

Within 100 years of East India Companies entry to India, how come Rani Laxmibai decided to go to war with East India Company soldiers instead of committing Jauhar. Isnt that a massive change in mentality, not to be ignored by historian.

 

As i said, the British period was unquestionably worse than the Mughal/Islamic period in terms of average incomes, indian industries, the wealth of the Indian businessmen, etc. 
Also, note that i compared British India from 1900 to Mughal India, which is previous to World Wars. 

It is unquestionable that under the British, Indians got poorer, there were more famines, more deaths due to negligence & oppressive taxation systems. 

It is also unquestionable, that under the Mughals, there was far less freedom of religion, thought, science, art, etc.

 

To put it in another way, imagine the Mughal period as working in Saudi Arabia, imagine the British era to be working in a slave-era plantation in the southern US, where we are the black people. 

You could argue that intellectual oppression is worse than economic oppression, but that is a matter of opinion, where others may disagree. This is why while some consider the Islamic era to be the worst in Indian history,some think the British era was the worst.

I like to look at it in terms of 'British were worst for Indian economics & overall health & wellbeing of Indian people, the Mughals were the worst for Indian thought, intellectualism & progressiveness'.

 

[mishra]

14 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

As i said, the British period was unquestionably worse than the Mughal/Islamic period in terms of average incomes, indian industries, the wealth of the Indian businessmen, etc. 
Also, note that i compared British India from 1900 to Mughal India, which is previous to World Wars. 

It is unquestionable that under the British, Indians got poorer, there were more famines, more deaths due to negligence & oppressive taxation systems. 

It is also unquestionable, that under the Mughals, there was far less freedom of religion, thought, science, art, etc.

 

To put it in another way, imagine the Mughal period as working in Saudi Arabia, imagine the British era to be working in a slave-era plantation in the southern US, where we are the black people. 

You could argue that intellectual oppression is worse than economic oppression, but that is a matter of opinion, where others may disagree. This is why while some consider the Islamic era to be the worst in Indian history,some think the British era was the worst.

I like to look at it in terms of 'British were worst for Indian economics & overall health & wellbeing of Indian people, the Mughals were the worst for Indian thought, intellectualism & progressiveness'.

 

Indian History has recorded it as absolute certainty that Islamic era was way way better and possibly the best in Indian History. What it has ignored that when given choice, people will choose freedom over wealth. Offcourse everything has a price but if gap isnt very high it will be freedom over wealth. For example its that freedom which forced them Hindus to migrate to India leaving all their wealth behind and same goes to affluent Pakistanis who migrated to Pakistan.

 

There is a Pakistan thread where people are discussing the wealth and all. Here is historical grapgh. IMO, when Pakistan was carved out, It was mostly made up of affluent educated people who were way ahead of poor uneducated Indians. But its ideas which allways win. Below figure is not adjusted to relative inflation

 

BTW British abolished slavery by and act in 1833.  If anything, It is still arguably but massively justifiable under Islamic Rule.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by mishra

[Muloghonto]

Just now, mishra said:

Indian History has recorded it as absolute certainty that Islamic era was way way better and possibly the best in Indian History. What it has ignored that when given choice, people will choose freedom over wealth. Offcourse everything has a price but if gap isnt very high it will be freedom over wealth. For example its that freedom which forced them Hindus to migrate to India leaving all their wealth behind and same goes to affluent Pakistanis who migrated to Pakistan.

 

There is a Pakistan thread where people are discussing the wealth and all. Here is historical grapgh. IMO, when Pakistan was carved out, It was mostly made up of affluent educated people who were way ahead of poor uneducated Indians. But its ideas which allways win.

 

BTW British abolished slavery by and act in 1833.  If anything, It is still arguably but massively justifiable under Islamic Rule.

 

 

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Indian history has certainly recorded that Muslim period is the best and possibly best of Indian history. I took ISC and it is quite clear in my memory that the Gupta period was called the 'Golden age of Indian civilization' - a view that is quite prevalent worldwide. 

 

The discussion between 'which is worse', is a bit more interesting than that I think. Because pretend it is you who is being given the choice:

 

either go be a farmer and live off of the land for rest of your life (i.e., dirt poor, aka British India) or live rich, just say 'allah-hu-akbar/go hide when muslims are going by and shut up about your kaffir stuff!', most people would choose conversion IMO. Because for us, it is an easy choice: we say 'some mumbo jumbo' and get on with our lives. Its just worse than living in the middle east as an expat if you cant STFU against Islam or else its the same, actually.

But on the other hand, later generations get a better chance, as you correctly noticed, if the land remains 'freedom of thought but poor'. 

 

What the British did, is under-estimated, because the loss of wealth is not easily replaceable for a population the size of India and it is not easy to own supply chain on multinational industrial scale in short period of time. Unless you are a totalitarian dictatorship like China. 

The industrial splutter of India is not going to go away in our lifetime. And I highly doubt that India will see more than 15,000 dollars/annum (1990 dollars)real GDP per capita in the next 40-50 years.

Ie, on average, we'd be sitting where Argentina is today, at the end of most of our lives. That too, is a British hit to our region, that can't be ignored. 

 

 

[mishra]

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Indian history has certainly recorded that Muslim period is the best and possibly best of Indian history. I took ISC and it is quite clear in my memory that the Gupta period was called the 'Golden age of Indian civilization' - a view that is quite prevalent worldwide. 

 

The discussion between 'which is worse', is a bit more interesting than that I think. Because pretend it is you who is being given the choice:

 

either go be a farmer and live off of the land for rest of your life (i.e., dirt poor, aka British India) or live rich, just say 'allah-hu-akbar/go hide when muslims are going by and shut up about your kaffir stuff!', most people would choose conversion IMO. Because for us, it is an easy choice: we say 'some mumbo jumbo' and get on with our lives. Its just worse than living in the middle east as an expat if you cant STFU against Islam or else its the same, actually.

But on the other hand, later generations get a better chance, as you correctly noticed, if the land remains 'freedom of thought but poor'. 

 

What the British did, is under-estimated, because the loss of wealth is not easily replaceable for a population the size of India and it is not easy to own supply chain on multinational industrial scale in short period of time. Unless you are a totalitarian dictatorship like China. 

The industrial splutter of India is not going to go away in our lifetime. And I highly doubt that India will see more than 15,000 dollars/annum (1990 dollars)real GDP per capita in the next 40-50 years.

Ie, on average, we'd be sitting where Argentina is today, at the end of most of our lives. That too, is a British hit to our region, that can't be ignored. 

 

 

 

IIRC, In class 10, Board exam there used to be a question. Why Mughal period is NOT regarded as Golden Age of India? And answer which all student had to cram was justify "NOT" on basis of art culture learning and wealth. Nowhere it taught that its friggin ridiculous question and Historians and examiners should be fired of their job for making a madeup history. Its comple BS and lie to cover up what ethinic Indian population has to endure.

Now I hear a lot of Hindus chest thumping that we didnt needed Bristish for survival of non-Muslims in India. Pushback has started with Shivaji Maharaj and India wont have been different then now.

To me, Nehuru and his historians has deliberately ignored 600 years of Indian history filled with genocide,torture,killings,fear and to covered it all up by extremely exhaggerated negatives of 200 years of British empire.

There wont be any Gokhale, Radahakrishnan,Naidu, Tagore, Bhagat Singh, Khudiram, Malviya, If it wasnt British. We would only had Ranjit Singh, Nana Sahib and that would have been end of it.

As far as wealth is concerned, Name one country which you think will have that much wealth with not a Democratic system in our lifetime if it hasnt got oil?

 

 

 

[mishra]

^ To sum up. We were Royally Fukked, even before British came to India. And we should record that as root cause of our misery

Edited October 20, 2016 by mishra

[Muloghonto]

29 minutes ago, mishra said:

 

IIRC, In class 10, Board exam there used to be a question. Why Mughal period is NOT regarded as Golden Age of India? And answer which all student had to cram was justify "NOT" on basis of art culture learning and wealth. Nowhere it taught that its friggin ridiculous question and Historians and examiners should be fired of their job for making a madeup history. Its comple BS and lie to cover up what ethinic Indian population has to endure.

Now I hear a lot of Hindus chest thumping that we didnt needed Bristish for survival of non-Muslims in India. Pushback has started with Shivaji Maharaj and India wont have been different then now.

To me, Nehuru and his historians has deliberately ignored 600 years of Indian history filled with genocide,torture,killings,fear and to covered it all up by extremely exhaggerated negatives of 200 years of British empire.

There wont be any Gokhale, Radahakrishnan,Naidu, Tagore, Bhagat Singh, Khudiram, Malviya, If it wasnt British. We would only had Ranjit Singh, Nana Sahib and that would have been end of it.

As far as wealth is concerned, Name one country which you think will have that much wealth with not a Democratic system in our lifetime if it hasnt got oil?

 

 

 

1.I dont understand your board question example. Could you please rephrase it ?

2. I am not one of those 'hindus' who doesnt think we didn't need the British. I think its because of the British that we were finally able to rid of the muslim yoke. But we paid a price in blood, toil, industry, arts- everything.

 

Indian history is filled with Muslim-induced genocides, but it is a period where India contributed 20% of the world's GDP. Ie, Indians were rich. Obviously, muslims were the richest, but even at the farmer level, Indians were richer under muslims than under British.

 

And this matters a lot, because as i said, i don't think many of us would prefer being homeless, poor and eating 1 meal a day 'but keep our culture'  over the lifestyle of 'live like a black guy in Texas in 1950s or die if you step out' mode. On paper, everyone chooses 'keep the intellectuals burning, we want stories of our past !' but when push comes to shove, people change their religion to keep their hard earned money & inheritance. That is human nature too, so you can also say that people are choosing the mughaliyat over Angreziyat in real time. 

 

As for wealth, despite democracy we have no wealth. This is because the Brits sucked us dry. I will point out that there are plenty of thriving democracies around the world where we didnt need a colonial period to teach them democracy: Japan, Korea for e.g.

 

Don't get me wrong, i don't consider the British period or the Mughal period to be the worst phase of Indian civilization. The Turko-Afghan phase was by far the worst, with zero comparison. 

 

[Crookbond]

On 10/20/2016 at 1:04 PM, Muloghonto said:

1.I dont understand your board question example. Could you please rephrase it ?

2. I am not one of those 'hindus' who doesnt think we didn't need the British. I think its because of the British that we were finally able to rid of the muslim yoke. But we paid a price in blood, toil, industry, arts- everything.

 

Indian history is filled with Muslim-induced genocides, but it is a period where India contributed 20% of the world's GDP. Ie, Indians were rich. Obviously, muslims were the richest, but even at the farmer level, Indians were richer under muslims than under British.

 

And this matters a lot, because as i said, i don't think many of us would prefer being homeless, poor and eating 1 meal a day 'but keep our culture'  over the lifestyle of 'live like a black guy in Texas in 1950s or die if you step out' mode. On paper, everyone chooses 'keep the intellectuals burning, we want stories of our past !' but when push comes to shove, people change their religion to keep their hard earned money & inheritance. That is human nature too, so you can also say that people are choosing the mughaliyat over Angreziyat in real time. 

 

As for wealth, despite democracy we have no wealth. This is because the Brits sucked us dry. I will point out that there are plenty of thriving democracies around the world where we didnt need a colonial period to teach them democracy: Japan, Korea for e.g.

 

Don't get me wrong, i don't consider the British period or the Mughal period to be the worst phase of Indian civilization. The Turko-Afghan phase was by far the worst, with zero comparison. 

 

What do you exactly mean by rich? How did you calculate GDP so back in the past?

 

 

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, Crookbond said:

 

What do you exactly mean by rich? How did you calculate GDP so back in the past?

 

 

I quoted Dr. Angus Maddison, who was one of the foremost experts in estimating historical GDP. Its a rough estimate, but based on population models, compilation of trade records, etc. it was assessed that Indian subcontinent represented approximately 20% of the world's GDP in the 1000 AD-1700 AD period. 

It was a period when there was significant wealth amongst the mercantile class and the mughal records indicate that farmers in 17th century India were better off than their European counterparts, for example. 

 

[Crookbond]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I quoted Dr. Angus Maddison, who was one of the foremost experts in estimating historical GDP. Its a rough estimate, but based on population models, compilation of trade records, etc. it was assessed that Indian subcontinent represented approximately 20% of the world's GDP in the 1000 AD-1700 AD period. 

It was a period when there was significant wealth amongst the mercantile class and the mughal records indicate that farmers in 17th century India were better off than their European counterparts, for example. 

 

I very well know Angus Maddison's research and so I also know the  caveats in that research.  Yes, it does say that India had a rough 20% GDP of the world. It also says - the numbers are difficult to calculate and the approx. may be wrong.  There's no way to even approx. In addition, you are conflating GDP with wealth. GDP does not measure wealth.  Once you start checking GDP per capita, you might see the income (not wealth) of people and even that could be skewed due to the way averages work.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Crookbond

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, Crookbond said:

I very well know Angus Maddison's research and so I also know the  caveats in that research.  Yes, it does say that India had a rough 20% GDP of the world. It also says - the numbers are difficult to calculate and the approx. may be wrong.  There's no way to even approx. In addition, you are conflating GDP with wealth. GDP does not measure wealth.  Once you start checking GDP per capita, you might see the income (not wealth) of people and even that could be skewed due to the way averages work.

Well i did say the numbers are rough. But there is some degree of knowledge to it. 

Like, for e.g., during Akbar's reign, we can figure out how rich Indians were and roughly how many Indians there were,since :

a) we know what Akbar's total yearly tax revenue was

b) we know what tax rates he applied to the various professions

 

20% was a low end estimate during Mughal times, some estimates put it at 25% of world's GDP.

Mind you, Akbar's numbers = India + Pakistan+ eastern Afghanistan + Bangladesh - 7 sisters-peninsular India-Chotanagpur. 

 

Just as a side note, the total treasury of England during Queen Elizabeth was at 4.5 million pounds, while Akbar (who's reign and Queen Elizabeth I line up almost identically) collected taxes every year amounting to 5 million pounds. Or that during Akbar's reign, total mughal treasury was 17.5 million pounds (1600 AD), while in 1820, British Empire's total treasury was at 16 million pounds.