41% of Indians think India will lead world economy

[Chanakya's_Chant]

Essay is not graded with a ruler, you can write as much as you want but you can't argue against historical facts. Ancient India refers to the Indian subcontinent, not country. It is a geographical expression. Indian subcontinent was never one country; Maurya was 2000 years ago and it lasted only 130 years, but that's not even 5% of your history timeline. The rest of your history, you were a myriad of different kingdoms.

Before British came, you have Mughals, Maratha empire, Nizam of Hyderabad, Tipu sultan.... How is that called one country?? A country/empire is defined by sovereignty, not religion or culture. Middle East shares the same civilization but they have different caliphates. Ditto East Asia. Roman empire was a mix mash of different people, but there was only one empire.

The partition was not imposed by the British, the people who demanded it, specifically the muslims. Is that not proof that you were never one country?? After 1947, you even had to invade and coerce other princely states to join India. I'm flabbergasted that anyone with an college education would argue otherwise. You don't even need a degree, just read a college history book.

The political picture in pre-british India​

The poilitical picture in pre-british India was that parts of India were ruled by different Kings called the Maharaja, and would report to the strongest of all who would be the ruler of entire Indian subcontinent and was called the Chakravarti. Chakravarti means the turner of the wheel, implying history repeats itself!

Any Maharaja (who ruled a part of India) can become a Chakravarti (ruler of entire India) if all other Maharajas bow down to his power. Maharajas who ruled under a Chakravarti were called Samanta Rajas. Samanta Rajas would pay annual tax to the Chakravarti.

Some of the Chakravartis who ruled entire India (which included present India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) were Ashoka, Ikshvaku, Shibi, Bindusara, Adinath, Shanthinath, Bharatha (After whom India was named as Bharat), etc
So it was not the british who united India for the first time apart from the Mauryans itself

Source:- Chakravartin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bharata (emperor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly the Hyderabad was Province of the Mughal Empire only after which it was granted - not a totally independent province in any case.
Hyderabad State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Creation of Pakistan
​

Some countries are mistakes. Most of the mistakes are in Africa, where 19th Century European colonialists carved up the continent without regard to the settlement patterns of native tribes, or in the Middle East, where after World War I Britain and France carved up the corpse of the Ottoman Empire to suit their needs of the time. An example is Iraq, which cobbled together three groups will little in common and less fondness for each other to create a kingdom for a Saudi prince who had been useful during the Great War.

The colonists are long gone, but the consequences of their mistakes endure. Copious amounts of blood have been shed in civil wars between hostile tribes lumped together in the same artificial "country." The most egregious example is the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 in which up to a million people were killed. The colonial mistakes in Africa and the Middle East were driven by arrogance and greed. But the most dangerous mistake was caused by an excess of political correctness and fits the case of the British of India.

Muslims had ruled India for roughly 800 years before the arrival of the British, and did so brutally.

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history," "It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

- Historian Will Durant
Will Durant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of the clueless Muslims feared the Hindu majority under a democracy - one man one vote - would treat them as badly as they'd treated the Hindus before the British came, so they insisted on a country of their own. The result was Pakistan, a collection of disparate groups who have nothing in common except their religion.

A clue to how big a mistake Pakistan is is its name. "Stan" is a suffix, which means "land of." Thus, Kazakhstan is the land of the Kazakhs, Uzbekistan is land of the Uzbeks, Turkmenistan is land of the Turkmen, and so on.

So who are the Paks? PAK is an acronym for Punjab, Afghan and Kashmir. The Punjabis are the largest ethnic group in Pakistan (45 percent). But the Afghans are in another country, and much of Kashmir is in India.

If Pakistan was an exclusive land for the Muslims only - then what about those 160 million Muslims whose ancestors didn't choose Pakistan at the time of partition?????

Since partition, Pakistan has started, and lost, two wars with India over Kashmir and in 1970, one over Bengal, then known as East Pakistan, now the independent country of Bangladesh.

India has been a parliamentary democracy since independence, and has treated its 160 million strong Muslim minority pretty well. India has become one of the world's great powers, while Pakistan has been sinking into a sea of corruption and political instability.

If a Muslim can head India’s Intelligence Bureau, can a Hindu ever be DG ISI? – The Express Tribune Blog

"If India had stayed in one piece with Hindus and Moslems democratically competing in political parties, it would be a superpower today, larger and stronger than China," "But in place of an Asian superpower, we have two militaries at each other's throats, both armed with nuclear weapons, and presenting the world's best chance for nuclear war."

- Journalist and Author John Neville Wheeler

John Neville Wheeler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invade and coercer the Princely states??? - we took our land back which rightfully belonged to us as you did it to Tibet isn't it?.....

Blaming British for India's slow development? The rise of the west was due to industrialization. Are you seriously arguing India was going to industrialize if the British didn't colonize??? Industrialization was a British/western invention, not Asians. None of the great powers of Asia managed it, even China did not. Only Japan did, that's mainly due to Matthew Perry.
On what basis are you going to argue Mughals era India would suddenly industrialized on its own??The foundation of industrialization was built upon the Age of Enlightenment. Was there one in Mughals' India?

Great depression was a factor? Even Brenton Wood Gold Standard? How lame can you get really? Their impact is worldwide, not specific to British India ONLY.

And what happened post 1947? Whatever damage that was done, British left you with a modern infrastructure and governance model with English common laws and parliamentary democracy. You were shield from WW2. You had a better platform to rebuild your new country than all other Asian countries which had to suffer the destruction of WW2. Why didn't you industrialize? What were you doing? Nothing except finding lame excuse blaming British colonization that happened 200 years ago.

No matter what fact and figures are presented you guys are not going to believe then. #Waste of time....

Graphical Analysis of Indian Economy share to the World's GDP.
Research by Angus Madisson 2010
------------------------------------------------
Study of History of Global economies by Angus Madisson (OECD Chairman)
------------------------------------------------
World Economic History
----------------------------------------------
According to world economic historian Angus Maddison in his book Contours of the world economy, 1-2030 AD: essays in macro-economic history, India had the world's largest economy during the years 1 AD and 1000 AD.

During the Maurya Empire (c. 321-185 BC), there were a number of important changes and developments to the Indian economy. It was the first time most of India was unified under one ruler. With an empire in place, the trade routes throughout India became more secure thereby reducing the risk associated with the transportation of goods. The empire spent considerable resources building roads and maintaining them throughout India. The improved infrastructure combined with increased security, greater uniformity in measurements, and increasing usage of coins as currency enhanced trade.
The gross domestic product of India in the 16th century was estimated at about 25.1% of the world economy.

An estimate of India's pre-colonial economy puts the annual revenue of India's treasury in 1600 at £17.5 million (in contrast to the entire treasury of Great Britain two hundred years later in 1800, which totaled £16 million). The gross domestic product of India in 1600 was estimated at about 24.3% the world economy, the second largest in the world.

British rule

After gaining the right to collect revenue in Bengal in 1765, the East India Company largely ceased importing gold and silver, which it had hitherto used to pay for goods shipped back to Britain. In addition, as under Mughal rule, land revenue collected in the Bengal Presidency helped finance the Company's wars in other part of India. Consequently, in the period 1760-1800, Bengal's money supply was greatly diminished; furthermore, the closing of some local mints and close supervision of the rest, the fixing of exchange rates, and the standardization of coinage, paradoxically, added to the economic downturn. During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods. More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports. Also, from the late 18th century British cotton mill industry began to lobby the government to both tax Indian imports and allow them access to markets in India. Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.

The British colonial rule created an institutional environment that did stabilize the law and order situation to a large extent. The British foreign policies however stifled the trade with rest of the world. They created a well-developed system of railways, telegraphs and a modern legal system. The infrastructure the British created was mainly geared towards the exploitation of resources in the world and totally stagnant, with industrial development stalled, agriculture unable to feed a rapidly accelerating population. They were subject to frequent famines, had one of the world's lowest life expectancies, suffered from pervasive malnutrition and were largely illiterate.

Declining GDP
---
British economist, Angus Maddison argues that India's share of the world income went from 27% in 1700 (compared to Europe's share of 23%) to 3% in 1950. While Indian leaders during the Independence struggle and left-nationalist economic historians have blamed the colonial rule for the dismal state of India's economy, a broader macroeconomic view of India during this period reveals that there were segments of both growth and decline, resulting from changes brought about by colonialism. As the world was moving from agriculture towards industrialization and economic integration, investment in Indian industries was limited since it was a colony.

Chavali's Vande Mataram: Silver Looted from India Discovered in Atlantic Confiscated by the British Govt
Economy of India under Company rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fattyacids]

The political picture in pre-british India​

The poilitical picture in pre-british India was that parts of India were ruled by different Kings called the Maharaja, and would report to the strongest of all who would be the ruler of entire Indian subcontinent and was called the Chakravarti. Chakravarti means the turner of the wheel, implying history repeats itself!

Any Maharaja (who ruled a part of India) can become a Chakravarti (ruler of entire India) if all other Maharajas bow down to his power. Maharajas who ruled under a Chakravarti were called Samanta Rajas. Samanta Rajas would pay annual tax to the Chakravarti.

Some of the Chakravartis who ruled entire India (which included present India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) were Ashoka, Ikshvaku, Shibi, Bindusara, Adinath, Shanthinath, Bharatha (After whom India was named as Bharat), etc
So it was not the british who united India for the first time apart from the Mauryans itself

Source:- Chakravartin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bharata (emperor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly the Hyderabad was Province of the Mughal Empire only after which it was granted - not a totally independent province in any case.
Hyderabad State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

No matter what fact and figures are presented you guys are not going to believe then. #Waste of time....

Graphical Analysis of Indian Economy share to the World's GDP.
Research by Angus Madisson 2010
------------------------------------------------
Study of History of Global economies by Angus Madisson (OECD Chairman)
------------------------------------------------
World Economic History
----------------------------------------------
According to world economic historian Angus Maddison in his book Contours of the world economy, 1-2030 AD: essays in macro-economic history, India had the world's largest economy during the years 1 AD and 1000 AD.

During the Maurya Empire (c. 321-185 BC), there were a number of important changes and developments to the Indian economy. It was the first time most of India was unified under one ruler. With an empire in place, the trade routes throughout India became more secure thereby reducing the risk associated with the transportation of goods. The empire spent considerable resources building roads and maintaining them throughout India. The improved infrastructure combined with increased security, greater uniformity in measurements, and increasing usage of coins as currency enhanced trade.
The gross domestic product of India in the 16th century was estimated at about 25.1% of the world economy.

An estimate of India's pre-colonial economy puts the annual revenue of India's treasury in 1600 at £17.5 million (in contrast to the entire treasury of Great Britain two hundred years later in 1800, which totaled £16 million). The gross domestic product of India in 1600 was estimated at about 24.3% the world economy, the second largest in the world.

British rule

After gaining the right to collect revenue in Bengal in 1765, the East India Company largely ceased importing gold and silver, which it had hitherto used to pay for goods shipped back to Britain. In addition, as under Mughal rule, land revenue collected in the Bengal Presidency helped finance the Company's wars in other part of India. Consequently, in the period 1760-1800, Bengal's money supply was greatly diminished; furthermore, the closing of some local mints and close supervision of the rest, the fixing of exchange rates, and the standardization of coinage, paradoxically, added to the economic downturn. During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods. More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports. Also, from the late 18th century British cotton mill industry began to lobby the government to both tax Indian imports and allow them access to markets in India. Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.

Declining GDP
---
British economist, Angus Maddison argues that India's share of the world income went from 27% in 1700 (compared to Europe's share of 23%) to 3% in 1950. While Indian leaders during the Independence struggle and left-nationalist economic historians have blamed the colonial rule for the dismal state of India's economy, a broader macroeconomic view of India during this period reveals that there were segments of both growth and decline, resulting from changes brought about by colonialism. As the world was moving from agriculture towards industrialization and economic integration, investment in Indian industries was limited since it was a colony.

Chavali's Vande Mataram: Silver Looted from India Discovered in Atlantic Confiscated by the British Govt
Economy of India under Company rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mythology? Mythological map? Are you intellectually sound? If Chakravartin and King Bharata did exist, so did Zeus and his thunderbolt, Medusa and her head of snakes. And our Jade Emperor, he ruled all mortals. On that basis, the world belongs to China. How does that sound? If you want an intellectual discussion, make your argument based on real history, don't give me this mythology crap.

Historical facts are facts: Maurya was 2000 years ago and it lasted only 130 years, that's not even 5% of your historical period. The rest of your history, you were a myriad of different kingdoms.

If you are one sovereign political entity, you can only have one empire, one emperor who ruled the land. What is the indian empire that ruled all india from 185 BC right to 1850 before the British came?? None!!!!

Since you don't have a single empire, on what basis can you argue the princely states are "rightfully yours"?????? Tibet belongs to Chinese empire during the dynasty of Qing, a single political entity. Your princely states never belong to any single sovereign empire. Don't make a mockery of this discussion with such absurd comparison.

There is no need to go into detail about Partition. The fact that muslims empire ruled for centuries, along side Hindu kingdoms is another proof that you were never one empire or one country.

Ancient Indian economy.
1) You come across as someone who is well read in the subject of economics, as evidenced by your various post, shouldn't you also know economics can hardly be considered as science without any empirical data? So why are you quoting Angus Maddison?????
His works on ancient world economy is guesstimate at best. At worst, academic trash. None of research on ancient world economy is based on empirical data. Sure, one would argue you can't pull data from 1000 AD. There you go. How could one meaningful compute ancient GDP when one cannot defined a proper border, the empire represented, and economics indicators like capital investment, labour, consumption?

Angus Maddison has built over many decades a worldwide franchise as “Political Arithmetician,” producing estimates of the basic statistics of economic growth on a global scale for the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
There is, however, a problem at the core of this book, and indeed at the core at the whole Maddison project of the last ten years. The numbers Maddison estimates for the years before 1820 are fictions. They are based not on empirical evidence, but on unsubstantiated and demonstrably implausible theories of the nature of life in pre-industrial societies. Even some of the post 1820 estimates have an equivalently dubious provenance.

Angus Maddison: Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD. Essays in Macro-Economic History. Oxford 2007. - H-Soz-u-Kult / Rezensionen / Bücher

There is a reason why there exists no ancient economics department from any top university. Neither was there any attempt to compute ancient GDP by any of these elite institutions.

2) You quoted many sources but are you saying anything of substance? None of the sources you posted made credible claim that India would industrialize if British didn't colonize. They merely talked about how an economy works in British colony. British India is no different from Malaysia and Singapore in the way British operated. Yet India fell behind these two countries in development post independent.

Find me better excuses. No mythology, no fake map, no irrelevant examples, no unproven/flawed research work.

 

[wolfschanzze]

Mythology? Mythological map? Are you intellectually sound? If Chakravartin and King Bharata did exist, so did Zeus and his thunderbolt, Medusa and her head of snakes. And our Jade Emperor, he ruled all mortals. On that basis, the world belongs to China. How does that sound? If you want an intellectual discussion, make your argument based on real history, don't give me this mythology crap.

Historical facts are facts: Maurya was 2000 years ago and it lasted only 130 years, that's not even 5% of your historical period. The rest of your history, you were a myriad of different kingdoms.

If you are one sovereign political entity, you can only have one empire, one emperor who ruled the land. What is the indian empire that ruled all india from 185 BC right to 1850 before the British came?? None!!!!

Since you don't have a single empire, on what basis can you argue the princely states are "rightfully yours"?????? Tibet belongs to Chinese empire during the dynasty of Qing, a single political entity. Your princely states never belong to any single sovereign empire. Don't make a mockery of this discussion with such absurd comparison.

There is no need to go into detail about Partition. The fact that muslims empire ruled for centuries, along side Hindu kingdoms is another proof that you were never one empire or one country.

Ancient Indian economy.
1) You come across as someone who is well read in the subject of economics, as evidenced by your various post, shouldn't you also know economics can hardly be considered as science without any empirical data? So why are you quoting Angus Maddison?????
His works on ancient world economy is guesstimate at best. At worst, academic trash. None of research on ancient world economy is based on empirical data. Sure, one would argue you can't pull data from 1000 AD. There you go. How could one meaningful compute ancient GDP when one cannot defined a proper border, the empire represented, and economics indicators like capital investment, labour, consumption?


Angus Maddison: Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD. Essays in Macro-Economic History. Oxford 2007. - H-Soz-u-Kult / Rezensionen / Bücher

There is a reason why there exists no ancient economics department from any top university. Neither was there any attempt to compute ancient GDP by any of these elite institutions.

2) You quoted many sources but are you saying anything of substance? None of the sources you posted made credible claim that India would industrialize if British didn't colonize. They merely talked about how an economy works in British colony. British India is no different from Malaysia and Singapore in the way British operated. Yet India fell behind these two countries in development post independent.

Find me better excuses. No mythology, no fake map, no irrelevant examples, no unproven/flawed research work.

Are you kidding me? to speculate India wouldnt have made any progress? only a naive person thinks that way,

Sorry for you India is a democracy,we move slow but not so fast as One party only China,we have different views and everyone is respected not put in jails or their organs harvested if they are politically different, is it not forbidden to start new political parties in china i recently heard Bo Xilai, supporters formed a new party isn't Bo xilai the favorite of PLA Generals i mean he was the son of comdrades of Mao,why was he put in jail? when he was about to be premier of china and wanted to revive Mao's traditional thinking? in India we could start as many political parties as much as we want but the people decide who rules not the party or their comdrades.

Your people tremble to speak truth or something against the government or its heads even on Internet as you are always monitored,forget about public.While we can, talk and express ourselves as we want! you might live luxury in a golden cage, but we love our freedom.
You should know youtube,twitter,facebook,blogsites are banned in china why?if you had so much freedom?Infact your people don't know anything other than what CCTV tells you, only the intelligent or lucky lot who stays out of mainland know what the whole world is like.
I can tell you how your secret police enforces rules on your all weather friend Pakistanis in China.While others have differential treatment i wonder why is that? you so tough on your all weather friends while so soft on others from India and other foreigners?

Seriously they cut off internet in university after 12 in night till 6am in morning, i heard earlier in 2002 etc. they used to cut off electricity in night to make students sleep ,wow a PARENT in University, monitoring always when kids should sleep n when they should wake up great guys!

 

[wolfschanzze]

Verbal Diarrhea from chinese as usual, with little content and more frustration.......

Chinese corruption is in Billions if not Trillions, right from Boxilai to HSR, every CCP official is corrupted from army recruiters to your top politician sons who run Billions of dollars of business. Too bad you don't even have the opposition party to point fingers at CCP, chinese are being made to obey as usual by CCP just like your emperors did to you in the past.

Moon Mission and Mars mission is a lie ......

I suspect some thing is burning here for the sake of fake han domination ....

Chinese mars mission failed spectacularly. why would USA give its tech help when India is about to capture 300 Billion satellite business market world wide. You assumption defies logic right!!!, as usual chinese logic defies all and some times they don't know what they write here.....

Rupee collapse !!!!! Now rupee is recovered to normal, I would like the rupee to be devalued.

it is all a lie told by CCTV and CCP bro, they know nothing about world or what goes in world really .
Out of mainland china people know, well one thing i can say chinese can cuss,cry or say bad about us, but they will always be in good terms cos they need business with us, just like their hated enemy, Japan, no matter how much they hate them for ruling china, they wont do anything against them so much for chinese superiority cos it will lose business, without business, no employment and money, no money people revolt sooner or later and China is goner after a revolt, it's as simple as that, no Business no china cos it will implode from within as its a one party country unlike us .That is why china will try to bully everyone it has fragile ego once hurt by Japanese so bad.That it wants to show itself as Japanese empire of WW2 to world. 

If the Indian Rupee could rebound, the greatest garbage could rebound.

well it will rebound, but can you talk ill about your CCP or leaders on your internet in China forget public,

 

[cirr]

India as we know it today，was，as had it always been，a loose collection of independent states（less South Tibet and some other territories that it claims its own）before the Brits came。India will revert to its historical mean sooner or later。

Since India likes to bathe itself in the light of democracy，and since many a people within India's current boundary crave for independence，the matter should be resolved by a series of referendums by and for the peoples concerned。

It is not impossible to see India of modern day split into a dozen of smaller countries if people's wish for self-determination are respected and granted。

 

[wolfschanzze]

With stats aside, we can see the difference. Take a look at pictures from China in the 90s and compare it today. It is night and day. We used to give money to relatives back home, now when we go back they pay for our plane tickets and treat us to everything. How times have changed.

Pictures aside,what is there to show?do you even show crime reports on the CCTV news? while its a headlines in our channels, press has the freedom, while you don't .
A post graduate student jumped from hospital 15th floor, died due to some administrative favouritism, her family was hushed up, but the news never came in tv.
My friend told me when you enter a chinese hospital, first look up and then go, cos there are many Jumpers, committing suicide in chinese hospitals, you dont want to end up as casualty if they land on you.
Only your buildings and infrastructure have changed nothing else,China is Capitalist masquerading as communist! i can show you discovery channels programes. 

You were never one country before the British came, how can you expect to have the entire subcontinent to yourself as one country? Civil war would have erupted if there was no partition. And the partition merely created a separate country, it has no ground for comparison with a country's social-economic policy. To draw a parallel between the partition and Mao's policy is as good as comparing apple with orange. Using the British partition as an excuse for India's slow development is as valid as crediting the British for Singapore's rapid economic growth.

Says the Chinese, is it not funny!India was always called Aryavarta, after Bharata came it was called Bharat, and its inhabitants Bharati, Who gave the name 'Cheen' or 'China' nowadays it could have been Han for all i know, Hanguo right?but people of world call you China not Hanguo.
So you are known by what we described you in ancient times.So much for Chinese boys history, i wonder if they know when Mainlanders enter game rooms of Hongkong and Taiwanese, they are called chinese dog in chinese and they are kicked out of the game.

 

[Jlaw]

Pictures aside,what is there to show?do you even show crime reports on the CCTV news? while its a headlines in our channels, press has the freedom, while you don't .
A post graduate student jumped from hospital 15th floor, died due to some administrative favouritism, her family was hushed up, but the news never came in tv.
My friend told me when you enter a chinese hospital, first look up and then go, cos there are many Jumpers, committing suicide in chinese hospitals, you dont want to end up as casualty if they land on you.
Only your buildings and infrastructure have changed nothing else,China is Capitalist masquerading as communist! i can show you discovery channels programes. 

Says the Chinese, is it not funny!India was always called Aryavarta, after Bharata came it was called Bharat, and its inhabitants Bharati, Who gave the name 'Cheen' or 'China' nowadays it could have been Han for all i know, Hanguo right?but people of world call you China not Hanguo.
So you are known by what we described you in ancient times.So much for Chinese boys history, i wonder if they know when Mainlanders enter game rooms of Hongkong and Taiwanese, they are called chinese dog in chinese and they are kicked out of the game.

印度犬吠雪.
words of wisdom: 姦少啲,做多啲

 

[Sid Bhattacharya]

So, here's what the final score is looking like in the China vs. India Nominal GDP Competition 2013:

China's GDP is expected to rise by around $1 trillion, while India's GDP is expected to shrink by $84 billion.

Interestingly enough, back in 1981 India's GDP ranked as the 10th largest ($196 billion) in the world while China's GDP ranked 15th ($168 billion) for the same year.

However, by 1982 China overtook India jumping to the 8th position and never looked back ever since.


This is for my Indian friends. Know this and keep it in your head.

* Between 1980-1989, India's Nominal GDP ranking fluctuated between the 9th and the 12th position.
* Between 1990-1999, India's Nominal GDP ranking fluctuated between the 12th and the 16th position.
* Between 2000-2009, India's Nominal GDP ranking fluctuated between the 11th and the 14th position.
* Between 2010-2013, India's Nominal GDP ranking fluctuated between the 9th and the 11th position.

Interesting, yet the woes of chinese who are not members of CCP is worse than the common indian citizens

 

[fast]

41% only? I would expect more in the land of delusional idiots called India.

 

[wolfschanzze]

Infact When you enter a Hong kong or taiwan game room from mainland china

印度犬吠雪.
words of wisdom: 姦少啲,做多啲

Yeah,yeah whatever go eat some mifan and baozi, i play battlefield 3 online and i get kicked out of servers in japan,taiwan,hongkong cos my ip was from mainland, i get notice in origin launcher saying, sorry players from china not allowed.

Watch this about china being capitalist, ohh, i forgot you cannot watch youtube my bad.

 

[Chanakya's_Chant]

Mythology? Mythological map? Are you intellectually sound? If Chakravartin and King Bharata did exist, so did Zeus and his thunderbolt, Medusa and her head of snakes. And our Jade Emperor, he ruled all mortals. On that basis, the world belongs to China. How does that sound? If you want an intellectual discussion, make your argument based on real history, don't give me this mythology crap.

Historical facts are facts: Maurya was 2000 years ago and it lasted only 130 years, that's not even 5% of your historical period. The rest of your history, you were a myriad of different kingdoms.

If you are one sovereign political entity, you can only have one empire, one emperor who ruled the land. What is the indian empire that ruled all india from 185 BC right to 1850 before the British came?? None!!!!

Since you don't have a single empire, on what basis can you argue the princely states are "rightfully yours"?????? Tibet belongs to Chinese empire during the dynasty of Qing, a single political entity. Your princely states never belong to any single sovereign empire. Don't make a mockery of this discussion with such absurd comparison.

There is no need to go into detail about Partition. The fact that muslims empire ruled for centuries, along side Hindu kingdoms is another proof that you were never one empire or one country.

Ancient Indian economy.
1) You come across as someone who is well read in the subject of economics, as evidenced by your various post, shouldn't you also know economics can hardly be considered as science without any empirical data? So why are you quoting Angus Maddison?????
His works on ancient world economy is guesstimate at best. At worst, academic trash. None of research on ancient world economy is based on empirical data. Sure, one would argue you can't pull data from 1000 AD. There you go. How could one meaningful compute ancient GDP when one cannot defined a proper border, the empire represented, and economics indicators like capital investment, labour, consumption?


Angus Maddison: Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD. Essays in Macro-Economic History. Oxford 2007. - H-Soz-u-Kult / Rezensionen / Bücher

There is a reason why there exists no ancient economics department from any top university. Neither was there any attempt to compute ancient GDP by any of these elite institutions.

2) You quoted many sources but are you saying anything of substance? None of the sources you posted made credible claim that India would industrialize if British didn't colonize. They merely talked about how an economy works in British colony. British India is no different from Malaysia and Singapore in the way British operated. Yet India fell behind these two countries in development post independent.

Find me better excuses. No mythology, no fake map, no irrelevant examples, no unproven/flawed research work.

If you think that you have the exclusive right to judge the credibility of each and every source or evidence produced then I am really sorry for you. If you think there is no difference between the British approach towards Malaysia Singapore and India then I doubt your intellectual soundness. I'm too flabbergasted that anyone with an college education would argue otherwise. You don't even need a degree, just read a college history book. You find me some better excuses please!!!

印度犬吠雪.
words of wisdom: 姦少啲,做多啲

~~~Words of wisdom~~~
~~~तेरा कुछ नहीं सकता~~~~​

 

[Fattyacids]

If you think that you have the exclusive right to judge the credibility of each and every source or evidence produced then I am really sorry for you. If you think there is no difference between the British approach towards Malaysia Singapore and India then I doubt your intellectual soundness. I'm too flabbergasted that anyone with an college education would argue otherwise. You don't even need a degree, just read a college history book. You find me some better excuses please!!!

~~~Words of wisdom~~~
~~~तेरा कुछ नहीं सकता~~~~​

It's not about what you or I think, academics had long established that mythology is not exactly history, simply, mythological figures never existed in real life. It is also academically accepted that economic research that is not empirically proven can hardly be qualified as scientific work. A college degree may be required to know what constitutes a scientific work, but it is not required to parrot the lines of others, word for word, one doesn't even creativity for that. However, a good college education is certainly needed to make intellectually sound argument that is based on valid sources. The least of all, staying relevant to the subject matter. I'm still waiting, but I'm no longer flabbergasted.

 

[by78]

41%?! Does India have a moonshine problem?

 

[Raphael]

Can't wait for the Indian shupapowa, putting all those white servants in their place.

 

[Sugarcane]

and 49% think India is already leading