The economic history of India is the story
of India's evolution from a largely agricultural
and trading society to a mixed economy of
manufacturing and services while the majority
still survives on agriculture. Prior to 1947
that history encompasses the economy of the
Indian subcontinent, corresponding to the
modern nations of India, Pakistan, Nepal,
Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh.
This history begins with the Indus Valley
Civilization (3300–1300 BC), whose economy
appears to have depended significantly on
trade. Around 600 BC, the Mahajanapadas minted
punch-marked silver coins. The period was
marked by intensive trade activity and urban
development. By 300 BC, the Maurya Empire
had united most of the Indian subcontinent.
The resulting political unity and military
security allowed for a common economic system
and enhanced trade and commerce, with increased
agricultural productivity.
The Maurya Empire was followed by classical
and early medieval kingdoms, including the
Cholas, Guptas, Western Gangas, Harsha, Palas,
Rashtrakutas and Hoysalas. During this period,
Between 1 CE and 1000 CE, the Indian subcontinent
is estimated to have accounted for one-third,
to one-fourth of the world's population, and
product, though GDP per capita was stagnant.
India experienced per capita GDP growth in
the high medieval era after 1000, during the
Delhi Sultanate, but was not as productive
as 15th century Ming China. After most of
the subcontinent was reunited under the Mughal
Empire, the empire became the largest economy
by 1700, producing about a quarter of global
GDP, before fragmenting, and being conquered
over the century. According to the Balance
of Economic Power, India had the largest and
most advanced economy for most of the interval
between the 1st century and 18th century,
the most of any region for a large part of
the last two millennia.During the Mughal Empire,
India was the world leader in manufacturing,
producing 25% of the world's industrial output
up until the mid-18th century, prior to British
rule. Due to its ancient history as a trading
zone and later its colonial status, colonial
India remained economically integrated with
the world, with high levels of trade, investment
and migration. India experienced deindustrialization
under British rule, which along with fast
economic and population growth in the Western
World resulted in India's share of the world
economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2%
in 1950, and its share of global industrial
output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in
1900.The Republic of India, founded in 1947,
adopted central planning for most of its independent
history, with extensive public ownership,
regulation, red tape and trade barriers. After
the 1991 economic crisis, the central government
launched economic liberalisation, allowing
it to emerge as one of the world's fastest
growing large economies.
== Indus Valley Civilization ==
Indus Valley Civilisation, the first known
permanent and predominantly urban settlement,
flourished between 3500 BCE and 1800 BCE.
It featured an advanced and thriving economic
system. Its citizens practised agriculture,
domesticated animals, made sharp tools and
weapons from copper, bronze and tin and traded
with other cities. Evidence of well-laid streets,
layouts, drainage system and water supply
in the valley's major cities, Dholavira, Harappa,
Lothal, Mohenjo-daro and Rakhigarhi reveals
their knowledge of urban planning.
== Ancient and medieval characteristics ==
Although ancient India had a significant urban
population, much of India's population resided
in villages, whose economy was largely isolated
and self-sustaining. Agriculture was the predominant
occupation and satisfied a village's food
requirements while providing raw materials
for hand-based industries such as textile,
food processing and crafts. Besides farmers,
people worked as barbers, carpenters, doctors
(Ayurvedic practitioners), goldsmiths and
weavers.
=== Religion ===
Religion played an influential role in shaping
economic activities.
Pilgrimage towns like Allahabad, Benares,
Nasik and Puri, mostly centred around rivers,
developed into centres of trade and commerce.
Religious functions, festivals and the practice
of taking a pilgrimage resulted in an early
version of the hospitality industry.Economics
in Jainism is influenced by Mahavira and his
philosophy. He was the last of the 24 Tirthankars,
who spread Jainism. Relating to economics
he explained the importance of the concept
of 'anekanta' (non-absolutism).
=== Family business ===
In the joint family system, members of a family
pooled their resources to maintain the family
and invest in business ventures. The system
ensured younger members were trained and employed
and that older and disabled persons would
be supported by their families. The system
prevented agricultural land from splitting
with each generation, aiding yield from the
benefits of scale. Such sanctions curbed the
spirit of rivality in junior members and instilled
a sense of obedience.
=== Organisational entities ===
Along with the family- and individually-owned
businesses, ancient India possessed other
forms of engaging in collective activity,
including the gana, pani, puga, vrata, sangha,
nigama and sreni. Nigama, pani and sreni refer
most often to economic organisations of merchants,
craftspeople and artisans, and perhaps even
para-military entities. In particular, the
sreni shared many similarities with modern
corporations, which were used in India from
around the 8th century BCE until around the
10th century CE. The use of such entities
in ancient India was widespread, including
in virtually every kind of business, political
and municipal activity.The sreni was a separate
legal entity that had the ability to hold
property separately from its owners, construct
its own rules for governing the behaviour
of its members and for it to contract, sue
and be sued in its own name. Ancient sources
such as Laws of Manu VIII and Chanakya's Arthashastra
provided rules for lawsuits between two or
more sreni and some sources make reference
to a government official (Bhandagarika) who
worked as an arbitrator for disputes amongst
sreni from at least the 6th century BCE onwards.
Between 18 and 150 sreni at various times
in ancient India covered both trading and
craft activities. This level of specialisation
is indicative of a developed economy in which
the sreni played a critical role. Some sreni
had over 1,000 members.
The sreni had a considerable degree of centralised
management. The headman of the sreni represented
the interests of the sreni in the king's court
and in many business matters. The headman
could bind the sreni in contracts, set work
conditions, often received higher compensation
and was the administrative authority. The
headman was often selected via an election
by the members of the sreni, and could also
be removed from power by the general assembly.
The headman often ran the enterprise with
two to five executive officers, also elected
by the assembly.
=== Coinage ===
Punch marked silver ingots were in circulation
around the 5th century BCE. They were the
first metallic coins minted around the 6th
century BCE by the Mahajanapadas of the Gangetic
plains and were India's earliest traces of
coinage. While India's many kingdoms and rulers
issued coins, barter was still widely prevalent.
Villages paid a portion of their crops as
revenue while its craftsmen received a stipend
out of the crops for their services. Each
village was mostly self-sufficient.
=== Maurya Empire ===
During the Maurya Empire (c. 321–185 BCE),
important changes and developments affected
the Indian economy. It was the first time
most of India was unified under one ruler.
With an empire in place, trade routes became
more secure. The empire spent considerable
resources building and maintaining roads.
The improved infrastructure, combined with
increased security, greater uniformity in
measurements, and increasing usage of coins
as currency, enhanced trade.
==== West Coast ====
Maritime trade was carried out extensively
between South India and Southeast and West
Asia from early times until around the fourteenth
century AD. Both the Malabar and Coromandel
Coasts were the sites of important trading
centres from as early as the first century
BC, used for import and export as well as
transit points between the Mediterranean region
and southeast Asia. Over time, traders organised
themselves into associations which received
state patronage. Historians Tapan Raychaudhuri
and Irfan Habib claim this state patronage
for overseas trade came to an end by the thirteenth
century AD, when it was largely taken over
by the local Parsi, Jewish, Syrian Christian
and Muslim communities, initially on the Malabar
and subsequently on the Coromandel coast.
==== Silk Route ====
Other scholars suggest trading from India
to West Asia and Eastern Europe was active
between the 14th and 18th centuries. During
this period, Indian traders settled in Surakhani,
a suburb of greater Baku, Azerbaijan. These
traders built a Hindu temple, which suggests
commerce was active and prosperous for Indians
by the 17th century.Further north, the Saurashtra
and Bengal coasts played an important role
in maritime trade, and the Gangetic plains
and the Indus valley housed several centres
of river-borne commerce. Most overland trade
was carried out via the Khyber Pass connecting
the Punjab region with Afghanistan and onward
to the Middle East and Central Asia. Although
many kingdoms and rulers issued coins, barter
was prevalent. Villages paid a portion of
their agricultural produce as revenue to the
rulers, while their craftsmen received a part
of the crops at harvest time for their services.
=== Delhi Sultanate ===
Before and during the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526
CE), Islam underlay a cosmopolitan civilization.
It offered wide-ranging international networks,
including social and economic networks. They
spanned large parts of Afro-Eurasia, leading
to escalating circulation of goods, peoples,
technologies and ideas. While initially disruptive,
the Delhi Sultanate was responsible for integrating
the Indian subcontinent into a growing world
system.India's GDP per capita was lower than
the Middle East from 1 CE (16% lower) to 1000
CE (about 40% lower), but by the late Delhi
Sultanate era in 1500, India's GDP per capita
approached that of the Middle East.
=== GDP estimates ===
According to economic historian Angus Maddison
in Contours of the world economy, 1–2030
CE: essays in macro-economic history, India
had the world's largest economy from 1 CE
to 1000 CE. However, productivity did not
grow during the period. Between 1000 and 1500,
in the high medieval era (during the Delhi
Sultanate), India began to experience GDP
growth, but more slowly than East Asia, which
overtook India to become the world's most
productive region. Ming China and India remained
the largest economies through 1600. India
experienced its fastest economic growth under
the Mughal Empire, during the 16th–18th
centuries, boosting Mughal India above Qing
China by 1700.
== Mughal Empire ==
The Mughal India's (1526–1858) economy was
prosperous into the early 18th century. Parthasarathi
estimated that 28,000 tonnes of bullion (mainly
from the New World) flowed into the Indian
subcontinent between 1600 and 1800, equating
to 20% of the world's production in the period.An
estimate of the annual income of Emperor Akbar
the Great's treasury, in 1600, is £17.5 million
(in contrast to the tax take of Great Britain
two hundred years later, in 1800, totaled
£16 million). The South Asia region, in 1600,
was estimated to be the second largest in
the world, behind China's.By the late 17th
century, the Mughal Empire was at its peak
and had expanded to include almost 90 percent
of South Asia. It enforced a uniform customs
and tax-administration system. In 1700, the
exchequer of the Emperor Aurangzeb reported
an annual revenue of more than £100 million,
or $450 million, more than ten times that
of his contemporary Louis XIV of France, while
controlling just 7 times the population.
By 1700, Mughal India had become the world's
largest economy, ahead of Qing China and Western
Europe, contains approximately 23% of the
World's population, and producing about a
quarter of world output. Mughal India produced
about 25% of global industrial output into
the early 18th century. India's GDP growth
increased under the Mughal Empire, exceeding
growth in the prior 1,500 years. The Mughals
were responsible for building an extensive
road system, creating a uniform currency,
and the unification of the country. The Mughals
adopted and standardized the rupee currency
introduced by Sur Emperor Sher Shah Suri.
The Mughals minted tens of millions of coins,
with purity of at least 96%, without debasement
until the 1720s. The empire met global demand
for Indian agricultural and industrial products.Cities
and towns boomed under the Mughal Empire,
which had a relatively high degree of urbanization
(15% of its population lived in urban centres),
more urban than Europe at the time and British
India in the 19th century. Multiple cities
had a population between a quarter-million
and half-million people, while some including
Agra (in Agra Subah) hosted up to 800,000
people and Dhaka (in Bengal Subah) with over
1 million. 64% of the workforce were in the
primary sector (including agriculture), while
36% were in the secondary and tertiary sectors.
The workforce had a higher percentage in non-primary
sectors than Europe at the time; in 1700,
65–90% of Europe's workforce were in agriculture,
and in 1750, 65–75% were in agriculture.
=== Agriculture ===
Indian agricultural production increased.
Food crops included wheat, rice, and barley,
while non-food cash crops included cotton,
indigo and opium. By the mid-17th century,
Indian cultivators had begun to extensively
grow two crops from the Americas, maize and
tobacco. Bengali peasants learned techniques
of mulberry cultivation and sericulture, establishing
Bengal Subah as a major silk-producing region.
Agriculture was advanced compared to Europe,
exemplified by the earlier common use of the
seed drill.
The Mughal administration emphasized agrarian
reform, which began under the non-Mughal Emperor
Sher Shah Suri. Akbar adopted this and added
more reforms. The Mughal government funded
the building of irrigation systems, which
produced much higher crop yields and harvests.One
reform introduced by Akbar was a new land
revenue system called zabt. He replaced the
tribute system with a monetary tax system
based on a uniform currency. The revenue system
was biased in favour of higher value cash
crops such as cotton, indigo, sugar cane,
tree-crops, and opium, providing state incentives
to grow cash crops, adding to rising market
demand. Under the zabt system, the Mughals
conducted extensive cadastral surveying to
assess the cultivated area. The Mughal state
encouraged greater land cultivation by offering
tax-free periods to those who brought new
land under cultivation.According to evidence
cited by economic historians Immanuel Wallerstein,
Irfan Habib, Percival Spear, and Ashok Desai,
per-capita agricultural output and standards
of consumption in 17th-century Mughal India
was higher than in 17th-century Europe and
early 20th-century British India.
=== Manufacturing ===
Until the 18th century, Mughal India was the
most important manufacturing center for international
trade. Key industries included textiles, shipbuilding
and steel. Processed products included cotton
textiles, yarns, thread, silk, jute products,
metalware, and foods such as sugar, oils and
butter. This growth of manufacturing has been
referred to as a form of proto-industrialization,
similar to 18th-century Western Europe prior
to the Industrial Revolution.Early modern
Europe imported products from Mughal India,
particularly cotton textiles, spices, peppers,
indigo, silks and saltpeter (for use in munitions).
European fashion, for example, became increasingly
dependent on Indian textiles and silks. From
the late 17th century to the early 18th century,
Mughal India accounted for 95% of British
imports from Asia, and the Bengal Subah province
alone accounted for 40% of Dutch imports from
Asia. In contrast, demand for European goods
in Mughal India was light. Exports were limited
to some woolens, unprocessed metals and a
few luxury items. The trade imbalance caused
Europeans to export large quantities of gold
and silver to Mughal India to pay for South
Asian imports. Indian goods, especially those
from Bengal, were also exported in large quantities
to other Asian markets, such as Indonesia
and Japan.The largest manufacturing industry
was cotton textile manufacturing, which included
the production of piece goods, calicos and
muslins, available unbleached in a variety
of colours. The cotton textile industry was
responsible for a large part of the empire's
international trade. The most important center
of cotton production was the Bengal Subah
province, particularly around Dhaka. Bengal
alone accounted for more than 50% of textiles
and around 80% of silks imported by the Dutch.
Bengali silk and cotton textiles were exported
in large quantities to Europe, Indonesia and
Japan.Mughal India had a large shipbuilding
industry, particularly in the Bengal Subah
province. The annual shipbuilding output of
Bengal alone totaled around 2,232,500 tons,
larger than the output of the Dutch (450,000–550,000
tons), the British (340,000 tons), and North
America (23,061 tons).
=== Bengal Subah ===
Bengal Subah was the Mughal's wealthiest province,
generating 50% of the empire's GDP and 12%
of the world's GDP. It was globally dominant
in industries such as textile manufacturing
and shipbuilding. Bengal's capital city Dhaka
was the empire's financial capital, with a
population exceeding one million. It was an
exporter of silk and cotton textiles, steel,
saltpeter and agricultural and industrial
products.Domestically, much of India depended
on Bengali products such as rice, silks and
cotton textiles.Mughal India had a higher
per-capita income in the late 16th century
than British India had in the early 20th century,
and the secondary sector contributed a higher
percentage to the Mughal economy (18.2%) than
it did to the economy of early 20th-century
British India (11.2%).
=== Post-Mughal states ===
In the early half of the 18th century, Mughal
Empire fell into decline, with Delhi sacked
in Nader Shah's invasion of the Mughal Empire,
the treasury emptied, tens of thousands killed,
and many thousands more carried off, with
their livestock, as slaves, weakening the
empire and leading to the emergence of post-Mughal
states. The Mughals were replaced by the Marathas
as the dominant military power in much of
India, while the other smaller regional kingdoms
who were mostly late Mughal tributaries, such
as the Nawabs in the north and the Nizams
in the south, declared autonomy. However,
the efficient Mughal tax administration system
was left largely intact, with Tapan Raychaudhuri
estimating revenue assessment actually increased
to 50 percent or more, in contrast to China's
5 to 6 percent, to cover the cost of the wars.
Similarly in the same period, Maddison gives
the following estimates for the late Mughal
economy's income distribution:
Among the post-Mughal states that emerged
in the 18th century, the dominant economic
powers were Bengal Subah (under the Nawabs
of Bengal) and the South Indian Kingdom of
Mysore (under Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan).
The former was devastated by the Maratha invasions
of Bengal, which experienced six invasions,
over a decade, claimed to have killed hundreds
of thousands, and weakened the territory's
economy to the point the Nawab of Bengal agreed
to a peace treaty with the Marathas. The agreement
made Bengal Subah a tributary to the Marathas,
agreeing to pay Rs. 1.2 million in tribute
annually, as the Chauth of Bengal and Bihar.
The Nawab of Bengal also paid Rs. 3.2 million
to the Marathas, towards the arrears of chauth
for the preceding years. The chauth was paid
annually by the Nawab of Bengal, up to his
defeat at the Battle of Plassey by the East
India Company in 1757.
Sivramkrishna states that the economy of the
Kingdom of Mysore then overtook that of Bengal,
with real income five times higher than subsistence
level, i.e. five times higher than $400 (1990
international dollars), or $2,000 per capita.
In comparison, Maddison estimates the 1820
GDP per-capita (PPP 1990 $) of the Netherlands
at $1,838, and $1,706 for Britain.Jeffrey
G. Williamson argued that India went through
a period of deindustrialization in the latter
half of the 18th century as an indirect outcome
of the collapse of the Mughal Empire, and
that British rule later caused further deindustrialization.
According to Williamson, the Mughal Empire's
decline reduced agricultural productivity,
which drove up food prices, then nominal wages,
and then textile prices, which cost India
textile market share to Britain even before
the latter developed factory technology, though
Indian textiles maintained a competitive advantage
over British textiles until the 19th century.
Prasannan Parthasarathi countered that several
post-Mughal states did not decline, notably
Bengal and Mysore, which were comparable to
Britain into the late 18th century.
== British rule ==
The British East India Company conquered Bengal
Subah at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. 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 parts
of India. Consequently, in the period 1760–1800,
Bengal's money supply was greatly diminished.
The closing of some local mints and close
supervision of the rest, the fixing of exchange
rates and the standardization of coinage added
to the economic downturn.During the period
1780–1860 India changed from an exporter
of processed goods paid for in bullion to
an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of
manufactured goods. In the 1750s fine cotton
and silk was exported from India to markets
in Europe, Asia, and Africa, while 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. From the late 18th century the British
cotton mill industry began to lobby their
government to tax Indian imports and allow
them access to markets in India. Starting
in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear
in—and then inundate—Indian markets, with
the value of the textile imports growing from
£5.2 million in 1850 to £18.4 million in
1896. The abolition of slavery encouraged
Caribbean plantations to organize the import
of South Asian labor.British colonial rule
created an institutional environment that
stabilized Indian society, while they stifled
trade with the rest of the world. They created
a well-developed system of railways, telegraphs
and a modern legal system. This infrastructure
was mainly geared towards the exploitation
of resources, leaving industrial development
stalled and agriculture unable to feed a rapidly
accelerating population. Indians were subject
to frequent famines, had one of the world's
lowest life expectancies, suffered from pervasive
malnutrition and were largely illiterate.
=== Relative decline in productivity ===
India accounted for 25% of the world's industrial
output in 1750, declining to 2% of the world's
industrial output in 1900. Britain replaced
India as the world's largest textile manufacturer
in the 19th century. In terms of urbanization,
Mughal India had a higher percentage of its
population (15%) living in urban centers in
1600 than British India did in the 19th century.Several
economic historians claimed that in the 18th
century real wages were falling in India,
and were "far below European levels". This
has been disputed by others, who argued that
real wage decline occurred in the early 19th
century, or possibly beginning in the late
18th century, largely as a result of "globalization
forces".Clingingsmith and Williamson argue
India deindustrialized, in the period between
1750 and 1860, due to two very different causes,
before reindustrialization. Between 1750 and
1810, they suggest the loss of Mughal hegemony
allowed new despotic rulers to revenue farm
their conquered populations, seeing tax and
rent demands increase to 50% of production,
compared to the 5–6% extracted in China
during the period, and levied largely to fund
regional warfare. Combined with the use of
labour and livestock for martial purposes,
grain and textile prices were driven up, along
with nominal wages, as the populus attempted
to meet the demands, reducing the competitiveness
of Indian handicrafts, and impacting the regional
textile trade. Then from 1810 to 1860, the
expansion of the British factory system drove
down the relative price of textiles worldwide,
through productivity advances, a trend that
was magnified in India as the concurrent transport
revolution dramatically reduced transportation
costs, and in a sub-continent that had not
seen metalled roads, the introduction of mechanical
transport exposed once protected markets to
global competition, hitting artisanal manufacture,
but stabilizing the agricultural sector.
Angus Maddison states:
... This was a shattering blow to manufacturers
of fine muslins, jewellery, luxury clothing
and footwear, decorative swords and weapons.
My own guess would be that the home market
for these goods was about 5 percent of Moghul
national income and the export market for
textiles probably another 1.5 percent.
Amiya Bagchi estimates:
=== British East India Company rule (1764–1857)
===
During this period, the East India Company
began tax administration reforms in a fast
expanding empire spread over 250 million acres
(1,000,000 km2), or 35 percent of Indian domain.
Indirect rule was established on protectorates
and buffer states.
Ray (2009) raises three basic questions about
the 19th-century cotton textile industry in
Bengal: when did the industry begin to decay,
what was the extent of its decay during the
early 19th century, and what were the factors
that led to this? Since no data exist on production,
Ray uses the industry's market performance
and its consumption of raw materials. Ray
challenges the prevailing belief that the
industry's permanent decline started in the
late 18th century or the early 19th century.
The decline actually started in the mid-1820s.
The pace of its decline was, however, slow
though steady at the beginning, but reached
a crisis by 1860, when 563,000 workers lost
their jobs. Ray estimates that the industry
shrank by about 28% by 1850. However, it survived
in the high-end and low-end domestic markets.
Ray agrees that British discriminatory policies
undoubtedly depressed the industry's exports,
but suggests its decay is better explained
by technological innovations in Britain.Other
historians point to colonization as a major
factor in both India's deindustrialization
and Britain's Industrial Revolution. The capital
amassed from Bengal following its 1757 conquest
supported investment in British industries
such as textile manufacture during the Industrial
Revolution as well as increasing British wealth,
while contributing to deindustrialization
and famines in Bengal; following the British
conquest, a devastating famine broke out in
Bengal in the early 1770s, killing a third
of the Bengali population and 5 percent of
the national population. Colonization forced
the large Indian market to open to British
goods, which could be sold in India without
tariffs or duties, compared to heavily taxed
local Indian producers. In Britain protectionist
policies such as high tariffs restricted Indian
textile sales. By contrast, raw cotton was
imported without tariffs to British factories
which manufactured textiles and sold them
back to India. British economic policies gave
them a monopoly over India's large market
and cotton resources. India served as both
a significant supplier of raw goods to British
manufacturers and a large captive market for
British manufactured goods.Indian textiles
had maintained a competitive advantage over
British textiles up until the 19th century,
when Britain eventually overtook India as
the world's largest cotton textile manufacturer.
In 1811, Bengal was still a major exporter
of cotton cloth to the Americas and the Indian
Ocean. However, Bengali exports declined over
the course of the early 19th century, as British
imports to Bengal increased, from 25% in 1811
to 93% in 1840. By 1820, India had fallen
from the top rank to become the second-largest
economy in the world, behind China.
=== Absence of industrialisation ===
Historians have questioned why India failed
to industrialise in the 19th century. As the
global cotton industry underwent a technological
revolution in the 18th century, while Indian
industry stagnated after adopting the Flying
shuttle, and industrialisation began only
in the late 19th century. Several historians
have suggested that this was because India
was still a largely agricultural nation with
low Commodity money wage levels, arguing that
nominal wages were high in Britain so cotton
producers had the incentive to invent and
purchase expensive new labour-saving technologies,
and that wages levels were low in India so
producers preferred to increase output by
hiring more workers rather than investing
in technology.Economic historians such as
Prasannan Parthasarathi have criticized this
argument, pointing to earnings data that show
Real wages in 18th-century Bengal and Mysore
were higher than in Britain. Instead, Parthasarathi
argues that Indian textile prices were lower
because of India's lower food prices, which
was the result of higher agricultural productivity.
Compared to Britain, the silver coin prices
of grain were about one-half in Mysore and
one-third in Bengal, resulting in lower silver
coin prices for Indian textiles, giving them
a price advantage in global markets. According
to evidence cited by Immanuel Wallerstein,
Irfan Habib, Percival Spear and Ashok Desai,
per-capita agricultural output and standards
of consumption in 17th-century Mughal India
was higher than in 17th-century Europe and
early 20th-century British India.Stephen Broadberry
and Bishnupriya Gupta gave the following comparative
estimates for Indian and UK populations and
GDP per capita during 1600–1871 in terms
of 1990 international dollars.
However, Parthasarathi criticised the per-capita
GDP estimates from Broadberry and Gupta. Workers
in the textile industry, for example, earned
more in Bengal and Mysore than they did in
Britain, while agricultural labour in Britain
had to work longer hours to earn the same
amount as in Mysore. Others such as Andre
Gunder Frank, Robert A. Denemark, Kenneth
Pomeranz and Amiya Kumar Bagchi also criticised
estimates that showed low per-capita income
and GDP growth rates in Asia (especially China
and India) prior to the 19th century, pointing
to later research that found significantly
higher per-capita income and growth rates
in China and India during that period.Economic
historian Sashi Sivramkrishna estimates Mysore's
average per-capita income in the late 18th
century to be five times higher than subsistence,
i.e. five times higher than $400 (1990 international
dollars), or $2,000 per capita. In comparison,
the highest national per-capita incomes in
1820 were $1,838 for the Netherlands and $1,706
for Britain. According to economic historian
Paul Bairoch, India as well as China had a
higher GDP per capita than Europe in 1750.
For 1750, Bairoch estimated the GNP per capita
for the Western world to be $182 in 1960 US
dollars ($804 in 1990 dollars) and for the
non-Western world to be $188 in 1960 dollars
($830 in 1990 dollars), exceeded by both China
and India. Other estimates he gives include
$150–190 for England in 1700 and $160–210
for India in 1800. Bairoch estimated that
it was only after 1800 that Western European
per-capita income pulled ahead.
=== British Raj (1858–1947) ===
The formal dissolution of the Mughal Dynasty
heralded a change in British treatment of
Indian subjects. During the British Raj, massive
railway projects were begun in earnest and
government jobs and guaranteed pensions attracted
a large number of upper caste Hindus into
the civil service for the first time. British
cotton exports absorbed 55 percent of the
Indian market by 1875. In the 1850s the first
cotton mills opened in Bombay, posing a challenge
to the cottage-based home production system
based on family labour.The Great Depression
of 1929 had a small direct impact on traditional
India, with relatively little impact on the
modern secondary sector. The government did
little to alleviate distress, and was focused
mostly on shipping gold to Britain. The worst
consequences involved deflation, which increased
the burden of the debt on villagers. Total
economic output did not decline between 1929
and 1934. The worst-hit sector was jute, based
in Bengal, which was an important element
in overseas trade; it had prospered in the
1920s but prices dropped in the 1930s. Employment
also decline, while agriculture and small-scale
industry exhibited gains. The most successful
new industry was sugar, which had meteoric
growth in the 1930s.The newly independent
but weak Union government's treasury reported
annual revenue of £334 million in 1950. In
contrast, Nizam Asaf Jah VII of south India
was widely reported to have a fortune of almost
£668 million then. About one-sixth of the
national population were urban by 1950. A
US Dollar was exchanged at 4.79 rupees.
=== Fall of the rupee ===
See also: The crisis of silver currency and
bank notes (1750–1870)After its victory
in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), Germany
extracted a huge indemnity from France of
£200,000,000, and then moved to join Britain
on a gold monetary standard. France, the US,
and other industrialising countries followed
Germany in adopting gold in the 1870s. Countries
such as Japan that did not have the necessary
access to gold or those, such as India, that
were subject to imperial policies remained
mostly on a silver standard. Silver-based
and gold-based economies then diverged dramatically.
The worst affected were silver economies that
traded mainly with gold economies. Silver
reserves increased in size, causing gold to
rise in relative value. The impact on silver-based
India was profound, given that most of its
trade was with Britain and other gold-based
countries. As the price of silver fell, so
too did the exchange value of the rupee, when
measured against sterling.
=== Agriculture and industry ===
The Indian economy grew at about 1% per year
from 1880 to 1920, matching population growth.
The result was no change in income levels.
Agriculture was still dominant, with most
peasants at the subsistence level. Extensive
irrigation systems were built, providing an
impetus for growing cash crops for export
and for raw materials for Indian industry,
especially jute, cotton, sugarcane, coffee,
and tea.Entrepreneur Jamsetji Tata (1839–1904)
began his industrial career in 1877 with the
Central India Spinning, Weaving, and Manufacturing
Company in Bombay. While other Indian mills
produced cheap coarse yarn (and later cloth)
using local short-staple cotton and simple
machinery imported from Britain, Tata did
much better by importing expensive longer-stapled
cotton from Egypt and buying more complex
ring-spindle machinery from the United States
to spin finer yarn that could compete with
imports from Britain.In the 1890s, Tata launched
plans to expand into the heavy industry using
Indian funding. The Raj did not provide capital,
but aware of Britain's declining position
against the U.S. and Germany in the steel
industry, it wanted steel mills in India so
it promised to purchase any surplus steel
Tata could not otherwise sell. The Tata Iron
and Steel Company (TISCO), headed by his son
Dorabji Tata (1859–1932), opened its plant
at Jamshedpur in Bihar in 1908. It became
the leading iron and steel producer in India,
with 120,000 employees in 1945. TISCO became
an India's symbol of technical skill, managerial
competence, entrepreneurial flair, and high
pay for industrial workers.
=== Railways ===
British investors built a modern railway system
in the late 19th century—it became the then
fourth-largest in the world and was renowned
for the quality of construction and service.
The government was supportive, realising its
value for military use and for economic growth.
The railways at first were privately owned
and operated, and run by British administrators,
engineers and skilled craftsmen. At first,
only the unskilled workers were Indians.A
plan for a rail system was first advanced
in 1832. The first train ran from Red Hills
to Chintadripet bridge in Madras, inaugurated
in 1837. It was called Red Hill Railway. It
was used for freight transport. A few more
short lines were built in the 1830s and 1840s.
They did not interconnect and were used for
freight transport. The East India Company
(and later the colonial government) encouraged
new railway companies backed by private investors
under a scheme that would provide land and
guarantee an annual return of up to five percent
during the initial years of operation. The
companies were to build and operate the lines
under a 99-year lease, with the government
retaining the option to buy them earlier.
In 1854 Governor-General Lord Dalhousie formulated
a plan to construct a network of trunk lines
connecting the principal regions. A series
of new rail companies were established, leading
to rapid expansion.In 1853, the first passenger
train service was inaugurated between Bori
Bunder in Bombay and Thane, covering a distance
of 34 km (21 mi). The route mileage of this
network increased from 1,349 km (838 mi) in
1860 to 25,495 km (15,842 mi) in 1880 – mostly
radiating inland from the port cities of Bombay,
Madras and Calcutta. Most of the railway construction
was done by Indian companies supervised by
British engineers. The system was sturdily
built. Several large princely states built
their own rail systems and the network spread
across India. By 1900 India had a full range
of rail services with diverse ownership and
management, operating on broad, metre and
narrow gauge networks.In the First World War,
the railways were used to transport troops
and grains to Bombay and Karachi en route
to Britain, Mesopotamia and East Africa. With
shipments of equipment and parts from Britain
curtailed, maintenance became much more difficult;
critical workers entered the army; workshops
were converted to make artillery; some locomotives
and cars were shipped to the Middle East.
The railways could barely keep up with the
increased demand. By the end of the war, the
railways had deteriorated badly. In the Second
World War the railways' rolling stock was
diverted to the Middle East, and the railway
workshops were again converted into munitions
workshops. This severely crippled the railways.Headrick
argues that both the Raj lines and the private
companies hired only European supervisors,
civil engineers and even operating personnel,
such as locomotive engineers. The government's
Stores Policy required that bids on railway
contracts be submitted to the India Office
in London, shutting out most Indian firms.
The railway companies purchased most of their
hardware and parts in Britain. Railway maintenance
workshops existed in India, but were rarely
allowed to manufacture or repair locomotives.
TISCO first won orders for rails only in the
1920s. Christensen (1996) looked at colonial
purpose, local needs, capital, service and
private-versus-public interests. He concluded
that making the railways dependent on the
state hindered success, because railway expenses
had to go through the same bureaucratic budgeting
process as did all other state expenses. Railway
costs could therefore not respond to needs
of the railways or their passengers.In 1951,
forty-two separate railway systems, including
thirty-two lines owned by the former Indian
princely states, were amalgamated to form
a single unit named the Indian Railways. The
existing rail systems were abandoned in favor
of zones in 1951 and a total of six zones
came into being in 1952.
=== Economic impact of imperialism ===
Debate continues about the economic impact
of British imperialism on India. The issue
was first raised by Edmund Burke who in the
1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company,
claiming that Warren Hastings and other top
officials had ruined the Indian economy and
society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray
(1998) continued this line of reasoning, saying
that British rule in the 18th century took
the form of plunder and was a catastrophe
for the traditional economy. According to
the economic drain theory, supported by Ray,
the British depleted food, and money stocks
and imposed high taxes that helped cause the
terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third
of the people of Bengal.British historian
P. J. Marshall reinterpreted the view that
the prosperity of the Mughal era gave way
to poverty and anarchy, arguing that the British
takeover was not a sharp break with the past.
British control was delegated largely through
regional rulers and was sustained by a generally
prosperous economy through the 18th century,
except for the frequent, deadly famines. Marshall
notes the British raised revenue through local
tax administrators and kept the old Mughal
tax rates. Instead of the Indian nationalist
account of the British as alien aggressors,
seizing power by brute force and impoverishing
the region, Marshall presents a British nationalist
interpretation in which the British were not
in full control, but instead were controllers
in what was primarily an Indian-run society
and in which their ability to keep power depended
upon cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall
admitted that much of his interpretation is
rejected by many historians.The Bank of England
records the Indian reserve Bank held a positive
balance of £1160 million, with it, on 14
July 1947, and that British India maintained
a trade surplus, with the United Kingdom,
for the duration of the British Raj eg.
Source: Indian sterling balances, p. 2, 15
Jan.1.1947, Bank of England (BoE), OV56/55.
=== British Raj's impact on productivity ===
Modern economic historians have blamed the
colonial rule for the dismal state of India's
economy, with investment in Indian industries
limited since it was a colony. Under British
rule, India's native manufacturing industries
shrank. During the British East India Company's
rule in India, production of food crops declined,
mass impoverishment and destitution of farmers
and numerous famines. The economic policies
of the British Raj caused a severe decline
in the handicrafts and handloom sectors, with
reduced demand and dipping employment; the
yarn output of the handloom industry, for
example, declined from 419 million pounds
in 1850 to 240 million pounds in 1900. The
result was a significant transfer of capital
from India to England, which led to a massive
drain of revenue rather than any systematic
effort at modernisation of the Indian economy.
There is no doubt that our grievances against
the British Empire had a sound basis. As the
painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge
historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's
share of world income collapsed from 22.6%
in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of
23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952.
Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century,
"the brightest jewel in the British Crown"
was the poorest country in the world in terms
of per capita income.
== Republic of India ==
After independence India adopted a socialism-inspired
economic model with elements of capitalism.
India adopted a USSR-like centralized and
nationalized approach called Five-Year Plans.
This policy hindered economic growth for decades.
=== Socialist rate of growth ===
The phrase "Nehruvian Socialist rate of growth"
is used to refer to the low annual growth
rate of the economy of India before 1991.
It remained around 3.5% from the 1950s to
1980s, while per capita income growth averaged
1.3% a year. During the same period, South
Korea grew by 10% and Taiwan by 12%.
=== Socialist reforms (1950–1990) ===
In 1975 India's GDP (in 1990 US dollars) was
$545 billion, $1,561 billion in the USSR,
$1,266 billion in Japan, and $3,517 billion
in the US.Before independence a large share
of tax revenue was generated by the land tax.
Thereafter land taxes steadily declined as
a share of revenues.The economic problems
inherited at independence were exacerbated
by the costs associated with the partition,
which had resulted in about 2 to 4 million
refugees fleeing past each other across the
new borders between India and Pakistan. Refugee
settlement was a considerable economic strain.
Partition divided India into complementary
economic zones. Under the British, jute and
cotton were grown in the eastern part of Bengal
(East Pakistan, after 1971, Bangladesh), but
processing took place mostly in the western
part of Bengal, which became the Indian state
of West Bengal. As a result, after independence
India had to convert land previously used
for food production to cultivate cotton and
jute.Growth continued in the 1950s, the rate
of growth was less positive than India's politicians
expected.Toward the end of Nehru's term as
prime minister, India experienced serious
food shortages.
Beginning in 1950, India faced trade deficits
that increased in the 1960s. The Government
of India had a major budget deficit and therefore
could not borrow money internationally or
privately. As a result, the government issued
bonds to the Reserve Bank of India, which
increased the money supply, leading to inflation.
The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 led the US
and other countries friendly towards Pakistan
to withdraw foreign aid to India, which necessitated
devaluation. India was told it had to liberalise
trade before aid would resume. The response
was the politically unpopular step of devaluation
accompanied by liberalisation. Defence spending
in 1965/1966 was 24.06% of expenditure, the
highest in the period from 1965 to 1989. Exacerbated
by the drought of 1965/1966, the devaluation
was severe. GDP per capita grew 33% in the
1960s, reaching a peak growth of 142% in the
1970s, before decelerating to 41% in the 1980s
and 20% in the 1990s.From FY 1951 to FY 1979,
the economy grew at an average rate of about
3.1 percent a year, or at an annual rate of
1.0 percent per capita. During this period,
industry grew at an average rate of 4.5 percent
a year, compared with 3.0 percent for agriculture.
Prime minister Indira Gandhi proclaimed a
national emergency and suspended the Constitution
in 1975. About one-fifth of the national population
were urban by 1975.
==== Steel ====
Prime Minister Nehru was a believer in socialism
and decided that India needed maximum steel
production. He, therefore, formed a government-owned
company, Hindustan Steel Limited (HSL) and
set up three steel plants 
in the 1950s.
=== 1990–2000 ===
Economic liberalisation in India in the 1990s
and first decade of the 21st century led to
large economic changes.
About one-fourth of the national population
was urban by 2000.
=== 2000–present ===
The Indian steel industry began expanding
into Europe in the 21st century. In January
2007 India's Tata bought European steel maker
Corus Group for $11.3 billion. In 2006 Mittal
Steel (based in London but with Indian management)
acquired Arcelor for $34.3 billion to become
the world's biggest steel maker, ArcelorMittal,
with 10% of world output.The GDP of India
in 2007 was estimated at about 8 percent that
of the US. The government started the Golden
Quadrilateral road network connecting Delhi,
Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata with various Indian
regions. The project, completed in January
2012, was the most ambitious infrastructure
project of independent India.The top 3% of
the population still earn 50% of GDP. Education
was made a fundamental right by amending the
constitution.Economic activity remains limited
by poor infrastructure such as dilapidated
roads, electricity shortages and a cumbersome
justice system.
For purchasing power parity comparisons, the
US dollar is converted at 9.46 rupees. Despite
steady growth and continuous reforms since
the 1990s, the Indian economy is mired in
bureaucratic hurdles. This was confirmed by
a World Bank report published in late 2006
ranking Pakistan (at 74th) well ahead of India
(at 134th) based on ease of doing business.
== GDP post-Independence ==
== See also ==
Timeline of the economy of the Indian subcontinent
Demographics of India
History of agriculture in India
History of banking in India
History of India
List of regions by past GDP (PPP)
List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita
List of countries by past and projected GDP
(nominal)
== References ==
== Bibliography ==
=== Pre 1947 ===
Anstey, Vera. The economic development of
India (4th ed. 1952), 677pp; thorough scholarly
coverage; focus on 20th century down to 1939
Bowen, H. V. Business of Empire: The East
India Company and Imperial Britain, 1756–1833
(2006), 304pp
Balachandran, G., ed. India and the World
Economy, 1850–1950 Oxford University Press,
2005. ISBN 0-19-567234-8.
Chattopadhyaya, D. P., & Chaudhuri, B. B.
(2005). Economic history of India from eighteenth
to twentieth century. New Delhi: Centre for
Studies in Civilizations.
Chaudhuri, K. N.Trade and Civilization in
the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from
the Rise of Islam to 1750 (1985)
Derbyshire, I. D. (1987), "Economic Change
and the Railways in North India, 1860–1914",
Population Studies, 21 (3): 521–45, doi:10.1017/s0026749x00009197,
JSTOR 312641
Dutt, Romesh C. The Economic History of India
under early British Rule, first published
1902, 2001 edition by Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-24493-0
Farnie, DA (1979), The English Cotton Industry
and the World Market, 1815–1896, Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. Pp. 414, ISBN
978-0-19-822478-5
Ludden, David, ed. New Cambridge History of
India: An Agrarian History of South Asia (1999).
Habib, Irfan; Kumar, Dharma; Raychaudhur,
Tapan, eds. (1987). The Cambridge Economic
History of India (PDF). 1. Cambridge University
Press. p. 171.
Habib, Irfan. Agrarian System of Mughal India
(1963, revised edition 1999).
Habib, Irfan. Atlas of the Mughal Empire:
Political and Economic Maps (1982).
Habib, Irfan. Indian Economy, 1858–1914
(2006).
Kazanas, Nicholas, Economic principles in
the Vedic tradition (2010)
Kumar, Dharma, ed. (2005). The Cambridge Economic
History of India. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-81-250-2731-7.
Kumar, Prakash. Indigo Plantations and Science
in Colonial India (Cambridge University Press,
2012) 334 pp
Lal, Deepak. The Hindu Equilibrium: India
c. 1500 B.C.–2000 A.D. (2nd ed. 2005).
Lal, K. S. (1995). Growth of scheduled tribes
and castes in medieval India. New Delhi: Aditya
Prakashan.
Lal, K. S. (1999). Theory and practice of
Muslim state in India. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
Lockwood, David. ‘’The Indian Bourgeoisie:
A Political History of the Indian Capitalist
Class in the Early Twentieth Century’’
(I.B. Tauris, 2012) 315 pages; focus on Indian
entrepreneurs who benefited from the Raj,
but ultimately sided with the Indian National
Congress.
Majumdar, R. C. (2010). Corporate life in
ancient India. Charleston, SC: Bibliolife.
Mahajan, Nupam P. (1999) India's First Coinage.
Retrieved 24 February 2005.
Micklethwait, John & Wooldridge, Adrian (2003).
The Company: a short history of a revolutionary
idea. Modern library chronicles. ISBN 0-679-64249-8.
Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India (1946)
Peers, Douglas M. (2006), India under Colonial
Rule 1700–1885, Harlow 
and London: Pearson Longmans. Pp. xvi, 163,
ISBN 978-0582317383.
Sarkar, Jadunath, Economics of British India,
Kolkata: Sarkar.
Raychaudhuri, Tapan and Irfan Habib, eds.
The Cambridge Economic History of India: Volume
1, c. 1200–c. 1750 (1982).
Roy, Tirthankar. The Economic History of India
1857–1947 (2002, 2006, 2011).
Roy, Tirthankar. India in the World Economy
from Antiquity to the Present (2012).
Roy, Tirthankar (Summer 2002), "Economic History
and Modern India: Redefining the Link", The
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (3):
109–30, doi:10.1257/089533002760278749,
JSTOR 3216953
Simmons, Colin (1985), "'De-Industrialization',
Industrialization and the Indian Economy,
c. 1850–1947", Modern Asian Studies, 19
(3): 593–622, doi:10.1017/s0026749x00007745,
JSTOR 312453
Tomlinson, B. R. The Economy of Modern India,
1860–1970 (The New Cambridge History of
India) (1996) excerpt and text search
Tomlinson, B. H. "India and the British Empire,
1880–1935," Indian Economic and Social History
Review, (Oct 1975), 12#4 pp. 337–80
Max Weber, The Religion of India: The Sociology
of Hinduism and Buddhism
Yazdani, Kaveh. India, Modernity and the Great
Divergence: Mysore and Gujarat (17th to 19th
C.) (Leiden: Brill), 2017. xxxi + 669 pp.
online review
==== Gazetteers and statistics ====
The Imperial Gazetteer of India (26 vol, 1908–31),
highly detailed description of all of India
in 1901. online edition
East India (statistical Abstract).: Statistical
Abstract Relating to British India. H.M. Stationery
Office. 1906.
=== Since 1947 ===
Bardhan, Pranab. Awakening Giants, Feet of
Clay: Assessing the Economic Rise of China
and India by (Princeton University Press;
2010) 172 pages;
Datt, Ruddar & Sundharam, K.P.M. (1965). Indian
Economy (51st Revised ed. (2005)). S.Chand.
ISBN 81-219-0298-3.
Das, Gurcharan. India Unbound: The Social
and Economic Revolution from Independence
to the Global Information Age (2002).
Kumar, Dharma; Desai, Meghnad, eds. (1983).
The Cambridge Economic History of India: c.
1751–c. 1970. 2.Frankel, Francine R. India's
Political Economy, 1947–1977: The Gradual
Revolution (1978).
Lal, Deepak. The Hindu Equilibrium: India
c. 1500 B.C.-2000 A.D. (2nd ed. 2005).
Larue, C. Steven. The India Handbook (1997)
(Regional Handbooks of Economic Development).
Maddison, Angus (2006). The world economy,
Volumes 1–2. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/456125276116.
ISBN 978-92-64-02261-4. Retrieved 1 November
2011.
Maddison, Angus (25 September 2003). Development
Centre Studies The World Economy Historical
Statistics: Historical Statistics. OECD Publishing.
ISBN 978-92-64-10414-3.
Majumdar, Sumit K. India's Late, Late Industrial
Revolution: Democratizing Entrepreneurship
(Cambridge University Press; 2012), 426 pages;
focus on the entrepreneur-led revolution since
1990
Myrdal, Gunnar. Asian Drama: An Inquiry into
the Poverty of Nations (3 vol, 1968) 2284
pages; also 4th vol. on methodology (1970),
focus on India and neighbors; by winner of
Nobel prize in economics
Robb, Peter (17 January 2004). A History of
India. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-69129-8.
Richards, John F. (26 January 1996). The Mughal
Empire. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521566032.
Richards, John F. (15 May 2003). The Unending
Frontier: An Environmental History of the
Early Modern World. University of California
Press. ISBN 978-0-520-93935-6.
Roy, Tirthankar. Economic History of India
1857–1947 (3d ed., 2011).
Rudolph, Lloyd I. In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The
Political Economy of the Indian State (1987).
Sabhlok, Sanjeev. Breaking Free of Nehru (2008),
Anthem Press. ISBN 978-81-905835-8-9.
Sankaran, S. Indian Economy: Problems, Policies
and Development (Margham Publications, 7th
ed. 1994).
Tomlinson, B. R. et al. The Economy of Modern
India, 1860–1970 (1996) (The New Cambridge
History of India)
Ravinder Kaur (2012). "India Inc. and its
Moral Discontent". Economic and Political
Weekly.
Wolpert, Stanley, ed. Encyclopedia of India
(4 vol. 2005) comprehensive coverage by scholars
== External links ==
Infographic: Share of world GDP throughout
history | Infogram
Agarwal, Ankit. (2012), "Development of Economic
Organizations and their Role in Human Empowerment
during the Gupta Period", History Today 13,
New delhi, ISSN 2249-748X.
Khanna, Vikramaditya S. (2005). "The Economic
History of the Corporate Form in Ancient India".
University of Michigan. SSRN 796464.
Pearce, H. Thomas (Spring 2003). Weber's study
of the Hindu ethic and the caste system.
"Manmohan Singh's address at the Oxford in
July 2005". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 10
July 2005. Retrieved 10 December 2005.
Limca Book of Records (1993). Bisleri Beverages
Limited. ISBN 81-900115-6-1.
Economic History of India Precolonial times
to present.
The IMF database.
This article incorporates public domain material
from the Library of Congress Country Studies
website http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/.
