Rename Hindu rate of growth as Nehru rate of growth

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

If you observe my posts on DFI, you will see that I have been propagating and using this term for more than 1 year now. I call it the "NehruGandhi rate of growth". But no one seems to have picked it up so far. Hopefully after this thread, more people will begin using the term.

Cool..Lets hope people use it now!

 

[hello_10]

Don't you think that it is right time to rename the slow rate of growth seen by India in the first four decades after independence?

For those who do not know the term, here is wiki definition:



To be factually correct, this slow growth rate should now be named after the founding father of License Raj--i.e. Nehru rate of growth.

What do you think about this idea? Is it politically possible?

Lower the Share of Agriculture, higher Overall Growth for a 'developing' economy

I responded this topic one time. It would certainly be named as Nehru Growth rate as he was not interested in industrialization, and also there was none who could advise him for that also, its also true.......

but first we would get to know that Average Annual Growth Rate of India was around 5.4% for the 11 years in between 1981 to 1990, and again we find the Average Growth Rate around 5.35% for the 12 years of 1991-2000 again, as below:

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy

from here, its also the fact that Mr Nehru had to build a base in India first, which was absent due to British Rule. for example of building agriculture sector, dams/rivers etc, science/research institutes, government organisations etc. and it was mainly the Agriculture which can't growth for more that 2.0% on long run, and hence it resulted in so low growth during that time of 50s, 60s, 70s as share of Agriculture was very high till 1980. for example, share of Agriculture was around 60% in 50s, and if it grew by around 2% on average during those decades then rest of 40%, Industries+Services, might have certainly grew by around 6.0% during that time too, hence resulting in an overall growth of 3.5% during that time, as below :ranger:

0.02*60 + 0.06*40 = 1.2+2.4 = 3.6% annually (almost)

and the same right now, now share of Agriculture is around 16% and if it grows by 2%, and rest of Industry+Services by total 6.0%, then it would result in an over all growth = 0.02*16 + 0.06*84% = 0.32 + 5.04% = 5.36% ~ 5.4% for the first 3 quarters of this year :thumb:

hence, for a 'developing' country, lower the share of Agriculture, higher the growth due to expansion of Industries+Services during 80s and 90s, and quite high during last decade as its share then came below to even 20% to total GDP, and now we again find Growth Rate gone back to its 23 years average in between 1980 to 2002... :thumb:
and thats why Per Capita Income of India was higher than China till 1991 too

India GDP per capita PPP at 1991

China GDP per capita PPP at 1991

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Lower the Share of Agriculture, higher Overall Growth for a 'developing economy

I responded this topic one time. It would certainly be named as Nehru Growth rate as he was not interested in industrialization, and also there was none who could advise him for that also, its also true.......

but first we would get to know that Average Annual Growth Rate of India was around 5.4% for the 11 years in between 1981 to 1990, and again we find the Average Growth Rate around 5.35% for the 12 years of 1991-2000 again, as below:

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy

from here, its also the fact that Mr Nehru had to build a base in India first, which was absent due to British Rule. for example of building agriculture sector, dams/rivers etc, science/research institutes, government organisations etc. and it was mainly the Agriculture which can't growth for more that 2.0% on long run, and hence it resulted in so low growth during that time of 50s, 60s, 70s as share of Agriculture was very high till 1980. for example, share of Agriculture was around 60% in 50s, and if it grew by around 2% on average during those decades then rest of 40%, Industries+Services, might have certainly grew by around 6.0% during that time too, hence resulting in an overall growth of 3.5% during that time, as below :ranger:

0.02*60 + 0.06*40 = 1.2+2.4 = 3.6% annually (almost)

and the same right now, now share of Agriculture is around 16% and if it grow by 2%, and rest of Industry+Services by total 6.0%, then it would result in an over all growth = 0.02*16 + 0.06*84% = 0.32 + 5.04% = 5.36% ~ 5.4% for the first 3 quarters of this year :thumb:

hence, lower the share of Agriculture, higher the growth due to expansion of Industries+Services during 80s and 90s, and quite high during last decade as its share then came below to even 20% to total GDP, and now we again find growth rate gone back to its 22 years average in between 1980 to 2002... :thumb:
and thats why Per Capita Income of India was higher than China till 1991 too

India GDP per capita PPP at 1991

China GDP per capita PPP at 1991

What is your point??

You mean Nehru was not responsible for the slow growth.

 

[hello_10]

What is your point??

You mean Nehru was not responsible for the slow growth.

did you read the first line of my response, I cleared it in my very first paragraph of the post#22 as below :thumb:

rest, too many factors altogether affected the growth of India during 50s, 60s, 70s, I explained it this post too.....

I responded this topic one time. It would certainly be named as Nehru Growth rate as he was not interested in industrialization, and also there was none who could advise him for that also, its also true.......

from here, its also the fact that Mr Nehru had to build a base in India first, which was absent due to British Rule. for example of building agriculture sector, dams/rivers etc, science/research institutes, government organisations etc. and it was mainly the Agriculture which can't growth for more that 2.0% on long run, and hence it resulted in so low growth during that time of 50s, 60s, 70s as share of Agriculture was very high till 1980.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

did you read the first line of my response, I cleared it in my very first paragraph of the post#22 as below :thumb:

rest, too many factors altogether affected the growth of India during 50s, 60s, 70s, I explained it this post too.....

I responded this topic one time. It would certainly be named as Nehru Growth rate as he was not interested in industrialization, and also there was none who could advise him for that also, its also true.......

He was interested in industrialization but did not believe in free enterprise.

Same problem grips current India with people having no expertise guiding the economic decisions.

 

[hello_10]

He was interested in industrialization but did not believe in free enterprise.

Same problem grips current India with people having no expertise guiding the economic decisions.

wrong.

as, why did the same wasn't true in case of SU, which also had a wide range of industries, mainly in the field of Space Research? also, we find Japan and migrant professionals behind US's industrial growth/gains during 50s, 60s. 70s and 80s.... ::ranger:

first, India didn't have enough infrastructure or Industrial base that time, as British never let that happen in India, check the news/video as below regarding it also

second, time has been changed and now India has a wide range of Industries, being discussed by me in "Made in India" thread as below too, check it :thumb:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-india-indian-firms-shine-across-globe-5.html

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

wrong.

as, why did the same wasn't true in case of SU, which also had a wide range of industries, mainly in the field of Space Research? also, we find Japan and migrant professionals behind US's industrial growth/gains during 50s, 60s. 70s and 80s.... ::ranger:

first, India didn't have enough infrastructure or Industrial base that time, as British never let that happen in India, check the news/video as below regarding it also

second, time has been changed and now India has a wide range of Industries, being discussed by me in "Made in India" thread as below too, check it :thumb:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-india-indian-firms-shine-across-globe-5.html

So, you think red-tapism was not the culprit for slow growth!! We were not even self-sufficient in food till 70s, courtesy chacha Nehru. There was no reason to hold back even the agricultural growth to 2% in those times when most were engaged in primitive agricultural practices. But thanks to Nehru, he believed in reinventing every wheel.

And everyone knows why a planned economy like SU tanked in the end. How do you explain the rapid turnaround of China after Deng Xiaoping? China was behind us in all parameters, but overtook us in less than two decades.

 

[hello_10]

So, you think red-tapism was not the culprit for slow growth!! We were not even self-sufficient in food till 70s, courtesy chacha Nehru. There was no reason to hold back even the agricultural growth to 2% in those times when most were engaged in primitive agricultural practices. But thanks to Nehru, he believed in reinventing every wheel.

And everyone knows why a planned economy like SU tanked in the end. How do you explain the rapid turnaround of China after Deng Xiaoping? China was behind us in all parameters, but overtook us in less than two decades.

now you have to read my post#22 again, I did explained it there. thanks


=> do you know about the number of Institutes/infrastructures established during his time?

including nuclear/defense facilities and tests too?

do you know the number of geo-plotical issues which always pulled India's leg during those period, including wars from the neighbors?

you do have enough to build the nation from now but there was 'none' in 1947 to start from

read the post#2 of the thread as below, where India stood in 1947, in the view of a British writer itself

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-s-transition-receiver-donor-foreign-aid.html

 

[Joji]

It is not just used colloquially but is used even officially sometimes. For eg. this term is frequently used in UPSC exams.

Can you give example where UPSC used this phrase. Once they used terrorist for Bhagat Singh they were bashed for the same.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Can you give example where UPSC used this phrase. Once they used terrorist for Bhagat Singh they were bashed for the same.

It is too much effort to dig it up now. My room-mate was preparing for UPSC and IES and that is when I first came across the term and it was quoted there in some exam.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

now you have to read my post#22 again, I did explained it there. thanks


=> do you know about the number of Institutes/infrastructures established during his time?

including nuclear/defense facilities and tests too?

do you know the number of geo-plotical issues which always pulled India's leg during those period, including wars from the neighbors?

you do have enough to build the nation from now but there was 'none' in 1947 to start from

read the post#2 of the thread as below, where India stood in 1947, in the view of a British writer itself

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-s-transition-receiver-donor-foreign-aid.html

You are just reiterating simple stuff which everyone knows.

Explain a single thing, why did it took 20 years after independence to do a "Green revolution" in India?? If in the end we still used American support to do it.

Why did state had a monopoly over creating institutes? Are you even aware that capital is needed to build anything and Nehru shut the country off from all kinds of private capital.

Do not get me started on the geo-political issues? Those issues were themselves a creation of Nehru, not to mention that his foolishness cost us the war with China and loss of PoK. We needed a statesman to lead the country and get the best from the hostile world. Sadly, he failed on most accounts and people like you have taken the history books too seriously to believe that it was the British plunder that cost us 40 years to turn around the economy.

 

[cinoti]

Perhaps you need comprehension lessons?

The term was used because it was thought by some economists that the "Hindu" mentality of contentedness with one's current state caused the rate of growth to decay but it was later found to be Nehru/Congress' protectionist policies of rolling out red tape instead of red carpet to FDI/private venture industries that caused it.

You guys are just too addicted with superficial rate of GDP growth, without proper infrastructure, any impressive growth rate is a castle built on the sand, be it Nehru or Hindi.
FDI/Privatization is not the answer, without the buffer of stronger domestic heavy industry, open FDI equals to handing your life out to foreigners.

Nehru failed India because he did not build enough infrastructure, not because he did not open to global market.

 

[no smoking]

You guys are just too addicted with superficial rate of GDP growth, without proper infrastructure, any impressive growth rate is a castle built on the sand, be it Nehru or Hindi.
FDI/Privatization is not the answer, without the buffer of stronger domestic heavy industry, open FDI equals to handing your life out to foreigners.

Nehru failed India because he did not build enough infrastructure, not because he did not open to global market.

It is not Nehru failed India, but india failed Nehru. When he was in charge, india didn't prepare all the necessary basis for an industrilization. For example, one of the key pre-condition for industrilization is land reform. India, however, has not completely archieve that even today. So, basically, all he did was to build up these pre-conditions from scratch.

 

[cinoti]

It is not Nehru failed India, but india failed Nehru. When he was in charge, india didn't prepare all the necessary basis for an industrilization. For example, one of the key pre-condition for industrilization is land reform. India, however, has not completely archieve that even today. So, basically, all he did was to build up these pre-conditions from scratch.

you are right.
Maybe the whole concept of their non violence non cooperation is fundamentally wrong, to level their foundation of development, they really need a revolution at the first place. Their social structure has never been shaken up and restructured, it thus denied equality of opportunity and further hindered the progress in economy and society.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

you are right.
Maybe the whole concept of their non violence non cooperation is fundamentally wrong, to level their foundation of development, they really need a revolution at the first place. Their social structure has never been shaken up and restructured, it thus denied equality of opportunity and further hindered the progress in economy and society.

It is not Nehru failed India, but india failed Nehru. When he was in charge, india didn't prepare all the necessary basis for an industrilization. For example, one of the key pre-condition for industrilization is land reform. India, however, has not completely archieve that even today. So, basically, all he did was to build up these pre-conditions from scratch.

Both India and China had their own style of stupid leaders leading their respective countries in the 50s and 60s. Say thanks to Deng Xiaoping vision, else you would have been in a worse shit-hole dug by Mao. Nehru was dumb on economics matters but had atleast some good qualities. I am sorry to say but Mao comes out as a despot and barbarian when compared to him.

 

[hello_10]

You are just reiterating simple stuff which everyone knows.
.

I will answer your post properly after few research soon, thanks :thumb:

You guys are just too addicted with superficial rate of GDP growth, without proper infrastructure, any impressive growth rate is a castle built on the sand, be it Nehru or Hindi.
FDI/Privatization is not the answer, without the buffer of stronger domestic heavy industry, open FDI equals to handing your life out to foreigners.

thats the very first thing which people miss here. for example of the biggest Dam of India, which was made under policy of Mr Nehru as below, making its the biggest source of electricity that time and the most importantly, a reservoir for farming etc...

Bhakra Dam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here, why dont people try to understand the state India had in 1947, just no industry and 65% share of just agriculture only. means economy for 'food' only as industries were built in Britain to feed their workers by selling those products in India??? and Mr Nehru tried bit more than that, having more Dams, rivers connecting different region, and hence helping people get 'more'/'better' food, with having electricity in homes also, at least in cities, with opening many institutes/making government resources first/building defence etc :thumb:

from here, just have a look on this biggest sources of electricity in early 60s, and the biggest reservoir too for farming, the Bhakra Dam. here, how many industries can you run on this much power supply, along with little light in homes also???? Mr Nehru at least started many "one lane" road projects to first connect the key districts

This is because Chinese industries consume over 75% of China's total power generated whereas this share in India is only 36%.

Infranomics | Infrastructure Investments

talking about industrialization is quite easy while the same wasn't that easy in 50s, when even research/defence industries were to be built, science/research institutes had to be opened first before turning to industrialization :thumb:

=> Bhabha and Jawaharlal Nehru Correspondence on Indian Nuclear History

http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/...habha_and_Jawaharlal_Nehru_Correspondence.pdf

=> with that, always keep in mind that "Average Growth Rate" of India under Indira Gandhi+Rajiv Gandhi during 80s was around 5.4% for the 11 years in between 1980 to 1990. and even after the economic reforms in 1991, it was hardly 5.36% for the 12 years in between 1991 to 2002, which then achieved its highest growth rate at 8.2% for the financial year 2003-04 under Vajpayee Government, the highest since 1980, and from where only it came on the path of High Growth Projectory.....:thumb:

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy

India logs 8.2% GDP growth rate in 2003-04

 

[hello_10]

Lower the Share of Agriculture, higher Overall Growth for a 'developing' economy

I responded this topic one time. It would certainly be named as Nehru Growth rate as he was not interested in industrialization, and also there was none who could advise him for that also, its also true.......

but first we would get to know that Average Annual Growth Rate of India was around 5.4% for the 11 years in between 1981 to 1990, and again we find the Average Growth Rate around 5.35% for the 12 years of 1991-2000 again, as below:

India GDP - real growth rate - Economy

from here, its also the fact that Mr Nehru had to build a base in India first, which was absent due to British Rule. for example of building agriculture sector, dams/rivers etc, science/research institutes, government organisations etc. and it was mainly the Agriculture which can't growth for more that 2.0% on long run, and hence it resulted in so low growth during that time of 50s, 60s, 70s as share of Agriculture was very high till 1980. for example, share of Agriculture was around 60% in 50s, and if it grew by around 2% on average during those decades then rest of 40%, Industries+Services, might have certainly grew by around 6.0% during that time too, hence resulting in an overall growth of 3.5% during that time, as below :ranger:

0.02*60 + 0.06*40 = 1.2+2.4 = 3.6% annually (almost)

and the same right now, now share of Agriculture is around 16% and if it grows by 2%, and rest of Industry+Services by total 6.0%, then it would result in an over all growth = 0.02*16 + 0.06*84% = 0.32 + 5.04% = 5.36% ~ 5.4% for the first 3 quarters of this year :thumb:

hence, for a 'developing' country, lower the share of Agriculture, higher the growth due to expansion of Industries+Services during 80s and 90s, and quite high during last decade as its share then came below to even 20% to total GDP, and now we again find Growth Rate gone back to its 23 years average in between 1980 to 2002... :thumb:
and thats why Per Capita Income of India was higher than China till 1991 too

India GDP per capita PPP at 1991

China GDP per capita PPP at 1991

just to provide a more reliable source from IMF in this regard, we have "Per Capita Income on PPP" of China and India for the last 32 years as below. it also clearly states that Per Capita Income of India was higher than that of China till 1991, the year when economic reforms took place in India. while China also had the similar type of economic reforms even since 1981, but India could learn just nothing from China+ASEAN even since 1991 :thumb:

India GDP - per capita (PPP) - Economy

China GDP - per capita (PPP) - Economy

 

[sayareakd]

do different religions have different rates of economic growth?

this is news to me.

yeah those who dont know developmental economics talks it like this

If people have properly understood what we were trying to do in 1950s they would not have said all these things.

 

[cinoti]

Both India and China had their own style of stupid leaders leading their respective countries in the 50s and 60s. Say thanks to Deng Xiaoping vision, else you would have been in a worse shit-hole dug by Mao. Nehru was dumb on economics matters but had atleast some good qualities. I am sorry to say but Mao comes out as a despot and barbarian when compared to him.

Best joke of the year.
Do you hate Nehru this much that you just use hime to insult Mao?

During Mao, we fought off US twice in Korea and Vietnam, We had our first A bomb, H bomb, Satellite, ICBM, a whole set of solid infrascture,
a Major Third-line Construction (Industrialization of Innerland China such as Sichuan, Yunan, Shanxi ,Gansu), We raised our life expendancy from early 50 to 68, we raised of our 91% adult illiteracy to 11% less (stats by 1968). What Nehru did for India? lost the 1962 War?

 

[Snuggy321]

Socialism