Sri Sangom Sir,
There is no beating around the bush here. I gave two clear cut reasons and indicators as to why GDP has more than quadrupled since our independence.
1. The derisively defined Hindu Growth rate of 2% itself will ensure that GDP is nearly quadrupled in 67 years, without bothering to read any charts or doing any calculations.
2. GDP for any year can never be zero, let alone being negative, though growth rate could be positive or negative for a particular year. Taking 1970 as Base year with GDP having been more than quadrupled GDP in 2014, I thought it was proof enough without belabouring the point. When simple arithmetic would do the job, I could not find reason for reproducing another's job here.
There was yet another reason for not giving the data since 1947. (Please note that most of the publicly available data is from 1950 onwards) I did not want to shock you by stating that there is more than 20 times increase in the size of the economy since 1947, without giving you the resources to verify. But as you have asked for it, I am giving it.
The data is compiled from two sources. For the period from 1950-2006, I am using the key note address by Dr. Rakesh Mohan, the then Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India at the Conference on “Growth and Macroeconomic Issues and Challenges in India” organised by the Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi on February 14, 2008. Please refer to page 12 therein, which is available here : http://aboutcorporateindia.com/devOld/files/growth_record_indian_economy.pdf.
For the period 2007-14, I have used World Bank data to tabulate, which is available here : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...pi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=asc.
I can vouch for the data and calculation integrity, but in case you require, I am in a position to post the same. To be precise, the size of the economy or GDP (real GDP inflation adjusted) in 2014, is 20.323 times than that was in 1950.
Surely Dr. Rakesh Mohan ex-DG of RBI and World Bank statistics are more reliable than the rumblings of AaKar Patel.
I could not find a single source for sourcing the GDP data for the entire period
As regards your sneaking suspicion that I probably did not give the data from 1947 to 2014, because it would demolish my argument, it is a totally unwarranted premise.
For your info, please see the wiki link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India.
The GDP of the country which stood at Rs. 10036 crores in 1950-51 increased to Rs. 1,04,72,807 crores in 2014, a whopping 1043 times increase, which is available from the simplest of simple google searches. Of course that figure is correct too, but it is at current prices and is not comparable.
I do not believe in posting gibberish like Sri Aakar Patel.
The "record low" is possibly misunderstood by you. It just gives the Highest and the Lowest figure in tabulation chart. As the chart commences from the year 1971 onwards and as in no year the GDP has fallen below 1971, it is shown as lowest. It is not an attempted mischief by me to distort the statistics to show a favourable data convenient to me.
I don't know whether the data furnished are adjusted for inflation. Kindly guide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_ruleOk. I will confine only to the point of population quadrupling as stated by Sri Aakar Patel. It is simply a falsehood not backed by any evidence. Why would you choose to ignore the wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India) I gave which incontrovertibly mentions that the population of 100 million in circa 1600 increased to 255 million in 1871 census? Where do you find quadruplication? It is just about a little over double that too in 270 years !!!!
For your satisfaction, I give the link to the extracts of the article published in Book form entitled “The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. 2, C-1751 to C-1970, which I read online through google books. I found it to be scholarly, but your opinion may differ. Here is the google book link : https://books.google.co.in/books?id...opulation growth in india before 1900&f=false. Please refer to pages 480 onwards.
The postings on famine had relevance because there is a direct co-relation between famine and population. 1770 famine has a direct bearing because it reduced the population in the 18th century considerably. For Sri Aakar Patel to say that population quadruped in 19th century, the base should be 18th century naturally and 1770 famine did have an impact on the population figure of 1800 circa.
Secondly, I forgot to give the link of famines witnessed and mortalities caused therefrom during the period 1800-1900, which makes the claim of Sri Aakar Patel totally bogus. In case you are interested, here is the link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
I am getting confused by too much of statistics! For a smple brain like mine if What AP said about the quadrupling of India's population during the 19th. century is falsehood, then there must be some data for the same. Do we have such figures or don't we, that is the question.
I am confining myself to the omissions (which I believe to be deliberate and partisan) of the incidence of Battle of Plassey quoted by him in his blog post.
AP should not distort history is in my contention. If his account of history varies, and does not match with the main stream history, he should quote the sources rather than attempting to blog an article with distortions.
Even after your including Mir jaffar's role, will it be possible to say that an "undistorted" history of the battle of Plassey has been now made? Another person may say that some other aspect has been omitted. In any case, how does the omission of Mir Jaffar's betrayal count when we are discussing Britain's exploitation of India? Do you hold the view that had Mir Jaffar not betrayed Siraj ud daulah, the British would have just gone away from India completely? Or, is it the "coloured" view that Aakar Ahmed Patel was trying to protect Mir Jaffar so many centuries after the latter's death?!
As I said earlier, when AP does not want to talk about history prior to disintegration of Mughal empire, why are we venturing to that area?
The remaining points, I will address in my next post.
Your line of argument baffles me. On the one hand you are so insistent to bring in Mir Jaffer's betrayal which is something AP has not talk about, but when Mohammad Bin Kasim's conquest is referred to by me in the context of betrayal in war, you put forward the argument as above, viz., "when AP does not want to talk about history prior to disintegration of Mughal empire, why are we venturing to that area?"