Here is the Hindutva bigots' favourite historian. Such idiotic analysis passes off as fact, merely because they cite Angus Maddison's data to make outlandish claims.
[Thread (1/n)...]
[Thread (1/n)...]
According to Maddison's ESTIMATES
India as %age of World's GDP: 32% in 1 CE & 16% in 1820 CE
In 1820 CE, India was the 2nd richest world region
Hardly one of the world's poorest countries, but ignore this True Indology falsehood. What about the decline from 32% to 16%?
(2/n...)
India as %age of World's GDP: 32% in 1 CE & 16% in 1820 CE
In 1820 CE, India was the 2nd richest world region
Hardly one of the world's poorest countries, but ignore this True Indology falsehood. What about the decline from 32% to 16%?
(2/n...)
Maddison's studies are ESTIMATES; even he presented them as stats to be challenged/corrected by his peers. Look at Indian GDP/Population numbers in 1 & 1000 CE in the table below, and you'll understand how the data lacks in quality.
(3/n...)
(3/n...)
If True Indology accepts Maddison's charts as fact, are they conceding that "Indian" rulers like Satavahanas, Guptas, Harsha, Rashtrakutas, Cholas, etc., let India's GDP stagnate for 1000 years, & it began growing only after the Mughals "invaded"?
(4/n...)
(4/n...)
When True Indology claims that India's GDP was half of China's in 1820 CE, why do they conceal the fact that China's population at the time was nearly double of India's, meaning India's GDP per capita still would be 89% of China's
(5/n...)
(5/n...)
Why does True Indology not discover that the reason India dropped to 16% of World GDP in 1820 was the explosion in GDP sizes of Europe/USA/Canada (& to a lesser degree China), and not due to drop in GDP of "India" under the Mughals?
(6/n...)
(6/n...)
Why does True Indology ignore the inconvenient chart that shows India's GDP constantly INCREASING in the period 1000 CE - 1820 CE (as did population of course)? Increases that meant Maddison's data still ranked India at No. 2 in absolute GDP size during that period.
(7/n...)
(7/n...)
Finally, True Indology probably hopes that we won't read beyond their distortion of Maddison's GDP estimates. We read Maddison's other works too. Here for example he explains that the Hindu Caste System devastated economic and social conditions in the Indian region.
(8/n...)
(8/n...)
So, the root cause of our socio-economic issues wasn't Mughals: at a macro level, the region's GDP continued to rise. It was Caste that kept the overwhelming majority impoverished before Mughal rule and after.
Poor True Indology. Hoist by their own petard. Or is it a brahmastra?
Poor True Indology. Hoist by their own petard. Or is it a brahmastra?
