Marc was ill informed just like many in west. A lot of people think that India was economically better off under an oppressive colonial rule.
Facts:
- India's rate of growth under Britain was 1% and basically stagnant.
- India's rate of growth under Socialist policies was 3% (Racists people often refer to his a Hindu rate of growth implying Hinduism is responsible for the poverty though the term was not coined initially for that purpose)
- India's rate of growth post half hearted economic liberalization has been around 6% or more.
Comparing the rate of growth of an independent country vs colony is not really required.
Having/Being a colony is not justified, whatever be the growth. An independent country where natives freely decide how to run themselves is far more important than any metric.
When people say "xyz was ill informed" - thats BS. Marc should educate himself before he opens his mouth. He can make an ill informed investment decision but if he makes a comment that hurts a nations sentiments then there's no way to justify it.
You are right. But very often people in west do not want to acknowledge poor Indian Hindus as even people let alone natives who can govern themselves. This might sound like a stretch but look at the propaganda that is trying to revive now discredited Aryan Invasion theory.
This post would do better to provide citations for these facts (is this 1% growth for nearly 200 years?), and what was the original purpose for the term 'Hindu' rate of growth?
Also, why brand 'many in the west' as ill informed - was that nessisary?
You can always look this information yourself by couple of google searches.
Many in west is a perfectly valid use of phrase. Deep Hinduphobia causes a lot of (even liberal) westerners to look down on Hindus and India in general.
For example Benedict Evans displayed his ignorance using the phrase "Hindu Rate" of growth in reply to that infamous tweet. This is both Hinduphobic and racist in my opinion.
Original background of "Hindu rate of growth".
Independent India followed Soviet Styled socialist policies (should I say Bernie Sander styled). India could not grow under such policies not matter what government did. An economist Prof. Raj Krishna concluded that this was India's destiny to remain poor linking it with Hindu concept of Karma. He was not joking. Marx and Weber have serious influence on India's leftist academia (which is almost all academia). Marx dismissed Hindus as barberic because they worshiped trees and monkeys. Where as Weber argued that Hindus and Buddhists can not achieve prosperity through industrialization and capitalism because according to him they lacked individualism. Prof. Raj Krishna's phrase originated there.
Research by a Belgian Paul Bairoch has collected data about India and China's economy since 1700s. Both China and India contributed to world GDP 24% and 33% respectively which fell to 20% in 1800.
Originally - derogatory term that implies that India, a majority Hindu country, is full of people who are too content with their standards of living and are too lazy to work towards a higher standard of growth. Often used as a contrasting term with South Korea's "Miracle on the Han River"
Facts: - India's rate of growth under Britain was 1% and basically stagnant. - India's rate of growth under Socialist policies was 3% (Racists people often refer to his a Hindu rate of growth implying Hinduism is responsible for the poverty though the term was not coined initially for that purpose) - India's rate of growth post half hearted economic liberalization has been around 6% or more.