Was India really a "Sone Ki Chidiya" before the Mughals and Britishers came?

Yes, it was.?Indubitably.

How do you judge the prosperity of a Nation? - by total production within a Country, and how the same is distributed such that the overall standard of living of everyone in the Country rises concurrently.

Before the industrial revolution made the modern means of production and transportation possible in 1600s and more widespread in 1700s, the means and ways of the production which determines the?productivity?were almost the same across the Globe. For example- productivity in agriculture was largely same across the globe; India with diverse climatic conditions and landforms was, in fact, more fortunate with more types of grains, fruits and vegetables produced here.

The trade which began as early as in Indus Valley Civilization, refused to slower. Indian textiles, hand-woven and spun clothes, Spices, Silk and artifacts kept the World mesmerized and looking for ever increasing trade with the subcontinent.

If you have the same (read similar) means of production across the globe, leading to somewhat similar productivity per person, what would determine the relative production (read GDP) of a Country: Population. India today is host to 1/6th of World population, and had the broadly same proportion of population as it had a large fertile and environmentally conducive plains across a large landmass.

Of course, as the technology is again with India, the ℅ to World GDP and % to World Trade (the two indicators of our import here) has both improved since British left us in 1947. As the?technological gulf?between the Nations continue to diminish, may come a time when the productivity of everyone around the globe will be more or less same, and then the relative determinant will be the population (as it should be). India with 1/6 th of World population would have same proportion in the two indicators. Thankfully, India is quite on track. China, of course, is running faster. You can find the trade and other economic data for yesterday centuries well documented by late British economist Angus Maddison.

You may then wonder what happened during British time that the two indicators went awfully low, earning India a tag of 'super poor', instead of 'super power (or Sone Ki Chidiya)’? Here's what happened:-

1. Industrial revolution made Europians more productive, and their countries, thus, more prosperous

2. British colonial conquest of India and their direct attack on Indian manufacturers by flooding Indian markets with cheap industrially manufactured substitutes

3. The raw material extracted from India was not adequately paid for, keeping the India at gross disadvantage of a double-blow (best explained by Naroji’s “Drain theory” in Poverty and Un-British Rule in India)

4. Cultural and psychological degradation and humiliation breaking the civilizational strength of India

If India was indeed a superpower,?why text books do not mention?it?

It is, indeed, mentioned albeit not in so many words; It hardly helps if we romanticize our past, particularly since there are also not so great aspects of our past. The production, and trade in the past didn't see the whole of India participate in it. In fact, it benefited directly a very small fraction of us.

A consensus seems to be there to avoid celebrating to the extent we can the portions of history which have contesting narratives. But it is no brainer to understand back in time, with similar technological access what part of World GDP and World Trade did India had. And, if so, as I’m arguing it indeed was the case, it was a giant country, a super power, the “Sone Ki Chidiya”.

You can continue the thoughts at [email protected]