As PTI comes onto two years, I felt like making this post on account of seeing multiple people supporting PML-N for having an allegedly better economy for Pakistan, particularly with allegations present that PTI has done nothing for the economy. So here's a short list of some major achievements done by PTI in contrast to PML-N.
Stopping Pakistan from defaulting: The move to devalue the rupee was one done despite knowing the backlash that would be faced. Under Nawaz Sharif the rupee was artificially overvalued through loans and forex reserves, this meant Pakistan had no sustainable way for repaying those massive loans. Imran Khan on the other hand had to approach the IMF due to these overlaying maturing debts, lack of growth in exports under PMLN, decline in Foreign Direct Investment and an ever higher import bill. This was done at the cost of letting the rupee massively devalue against the dollar, however paved the path for economic stability as noted by the IMF.
Renewed focus on taxation: Easily the most controversial facet of the economic policy by PTI, but one that has shown merit and results. Overall, there has been a 40% increase in returns filers and a 17% revenue increase. This coupled with a massive austerity scheme, meant that the government has started an incline towards increasing it's revenues. While this hasn't been met with open arms, it presents a solution to the everpresent crisis that the Pakistan government has faced, in it's inability to increase it's revenues. Not only that, but the general taxation system was streamlined, making it easier for individuals to file taxes. Introductions of new apps and consolidating activities for the FBR were among the efforts as well. Moreover, businesses that were entitled to tax refunds are finally being granted them, under PMLN they were held onto so as to inflate collection numbers, however under PTI that has changed and it's not inflated. It is worth noting, that because of the covid-19 pandemic, the effect of the austerity schemes and feasibility have seriously dampened, and it's created a bigger problem for increasing revenue collection.
It is worth noting, that some may criticise the overall decrease in the account deficit to be a result of the decrease in imports, and the increase in worker remittances, however this was indeed a result of the overall economic impact from the covid-19 pandemic. And that general trends support the notion of exports increasing and the account deficit decreasing in the second quarter of 2019.
Tourism: The reforms and measures taken to facilitate tourism in Pakistan were evidently among the most successful — Pakistan went from being sidelined to being amongst the worlds top destinations to visit. There were multiple reasons for this, the removal of the mandatory NOC, the initiative for online visas for upto 175 countries alongside visa-on-arrival for 50 countries were among the facilitating measures taken for tourism.
Foreign Direct Investment: What can be appreciated is the general reception of Pakistan's economic outlook, where FDI climbed by upto 137% within this fiscal year, gathering upto nearly $2.1 billion. Yet, once again — the pandemic will undoubtedly cause most countries to rethink their economic policies for now, and the overall FDI might see a downward trend with regards to global decrease in FDI. Despite, the increases in FDI are welcomed, especially considering total foreign investment rose 380 percent to $2.375 billion in July-March FY2020. Yet the sustainability of this remains to be seen.
Dealing with covid: Despite all odds, Pakistan has somehow managed to deal well with the pandemic. Coming out relatively alright, in perspective of countries such as India, Mexico, Italy, Brazil etc. The factor that plays out, is that despite being incredibly vulnerable, the country managed to pull through and has markedly reduced the impact of the virus. With regards to the economy, taking a bold risk of abating a complete lockdown, whilst met with criticism was once again a factor that showed competency. Keeping in mind that 51 million Pakistanis lived below the poverty line, and the adverse effect it would have on the economy. Pakistan managed to come through the economic contraction with only a -0.38% growth. Although the full effects are still not abated or understood, what's commendable is the fact that Pakistan under PTI has kept itself from an even worse situation. Whilst managing to keep covid under relative control. Especially given increases in exports despite the pandemic in countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Italy.
This is by no means a highly comprehensive list, just my opinion on some of the bigger achievements; saving the economy from defaulting, adopting tax reforms, tourism reforms, export reforms among them whilst managing covid and economic stability with relative success. There are of course a multitude of other factors, successfully avoiding a blacklist from the FATF, macroeconomic reforms, attempts to strengthen the working class; ehsaas programs, Naya Pakistan housing schemes alongside other relief efforts. These are measures in accordance with curtailing the effect of increasing taxation and attempts to abate the economic slowdown that came as a result of forcing an increase in government revenue. Alongside the focus on multiple new hydroelectric dams, industrial cities, reduction of the PM office staff from 552 to 298, 10 billion tree project and an overall renewed interest in renewable energy and green Pakistan. The list is comprehensive. Pakistan remains on a rocky path, it is not out of the woods yet. Covid-19 has seriously hampered the overall projections, and caused a worldwide economic contraction. Not only that, but there are criticisms that can be attributed to the government as well, as they are not without fault. However, the overall achievements of the government with regards to the economy do present hope for the long-term fiscal policy and development of Pakistan.
Indian sugar industry’s major player Nirani Group projects going forward as a bio-energy company with sugar a by-product
Indian sugar industry’s major player Nirani Group is looking to evolve beyond the traditional sugar business model and expand further as it targets new long-term supply deals for the ethanol, leaving sugar as a by product. The company's Managing Director - Mr. Vijay Nirani told ChiniMandi News in an interview. Speaking on his assessment on the sugar season in terms of sugar production, exports and profitability he said, “With a very good monsoon this year, Karnataka is set to see a record breaking crushing season this year. The district of Bagalkot itself has forecasted a crushing of 14 million Mt, which is the highest ever. This year is an opportunity to crush with high efficiency and try and make it even with the preceding 3 bad seasons where we had to face huge natural calamities like droughts and flash floods. The high crushing that is forecasted is not all merry, as there will be a huge gap between demand and supply as there is going to excess production of sugar, it is going to be a challenge in itself this year to get a good realisation for sugar. With speculations from the Government of India, that they may not consider giving subsidy for exports, it will only multiply the challenges in hand. Though mills in the state and the country have a great chance to make up for the accumulated losses in the past, with good availability of quality cane, the millers are all set to exhibit their talents by ensuring high efficiency crushing with maximum value additions, the true crux of profitability lies with the sugar market dynamics, the Govt. has to ensure proper regulation to make sure the mills get a fair share in order to ensure timely and proper payments to farmers who are already in great distress due to continued draught, flash floods and now the spread of this deadly pandemic of COVID-19. On being asked how he sees the prices of sugar in Karnataka State considering the aftermath of Covid-19 and no announcement of hike in MSP Nirani said, “It is definitely going to be a great challenge to get a proper realisation for sugar though there is an Minimum Selling Price (MSP), if we look at the pretext of MSP being set at ₹3100 is itself not a thorough price, in order to bridge the cost gap between FRP to MSP the MSP has to be revised to ₹3500. Since sugar being an essential commodity there is not going to be a huge drop in consumption by any means at the same time we know there is already carried forward stock from the last season and the production this year is going to be massive by all measures and the consumption of sugar is not going to increase all of a sudden. This is definitely going to directly impact the price, the symptoms have already begun, the rates are already in a downward trajectory.” Sharing views about the growth prospect in Karnataka state for the sugar industry he shared, “It is definitely going to be value addition and ensuring zero wastage, we need to ensure there is a proper backward and a forward integration for all the mass that is being generated or put into use in the mills.” “The major advantages that the sugar industries have are yet untapped by many, with just sugar cane as a raw material, we can generate - Sugar, jaggery powder, jaggery cakes, sugar syrup, icing sugar, Electricity, Pulp from Bagasse, furniture from bagasse, biodegradable products from bagasse, CNG and Bio gases, bio fuels, chemicals, ENA, Ethanol the list goes on. The key to sustain is to add value to every product, rather create products of value and not just depend on sugar as a product.” He further added. Over the couple of years, Nirani Group has been widening its wings in the business of sugar, answering whether there are any further plans on expansion in capacity and beyond Karnataka Nirani said, “We started off about 2 decades ago as the smallest industry in the country with a crushing capacity of 500 mT per day, but now stand tall with a consolidated crushing capacity of 60,000mT with 230 MW of Co-Generation and with allied integration spread across 6 mills. We have understood the weight that the sector carries and envision the thousands of lives that each of our mills have an effect on. We have been turning around sick units in the state, like Kedarnath Sugars and Agro, Badami Sugars Ltd, Pandavapura SSk, Sreerama Sugars SSK, SPR sugars, these were all closed/distressed units that we took over and are being run professionally and successfully, directly helping out all the families that were associated with those mills by means of employment, by crushing farmers cane in time, by creating many unorganised businesses around the campuses and creating revenue for the state and the country. Coming towards, how we at Nirani Group are taking measures to step up for the Ethanol Blending Programme (EBP); our chairman Shri Murugesh R Nirani ji was one of the pioneers of this EBP programme, he being a close associate in the govt and decision making, had key impact in developing of this scheme. As a group we already have a production capacity of 650 KLPD and are in an advanced stage of expanding the capacities to over 1000 KLPD by December of 2021. The EBP program has truly been a blessing not just for the health of the sugar industry but also achieves major goals like, reducing crude imports, directly benefiting our FOREX and addressing major ecological crises. We were one of the first in the state to divert sugarcane juice to Ethanol, during the previous crushing season 19-20, we have produced close to 16 Million litres of Ethanol from Sugarcane juice/Syrup. Going forward also we have all the plans to divert maximum of sugar into producing Ethanol we estimate a production of close to 96 Million liters of Ethanol purely from Sugarcane juice/syrup, the decision to allow Sugar cane juice/Syrup/B-heavy molasses for Ethanol and giving attractive incentives have been a landmark policy in the country for Sugar Sector. On being asked, what long term policies should be announced by the Govt. for the sugar industry to develop he said, “The Govt. should first eliminate the EBP hinges, like allowing for OMCs to enter into a 5 year supply contract and bringing in 2nd round of Interest subvention scheme, the GOI has already addressed a big crux, the enhancement of rate for ethanol by 3 odd rupees is an icing on the cake. The key policy that is thoroughly in need is the revision in MSP to ₹3500 at least, this is no way going to burden the average consumer as shelling out ₹3 to 5 more on sugar is not a huge impact for them, as compared to the benefits that this decision would bring, timely and prompt payments to farmers and sustainability of the mills. “Also to address the challenge of excess supply of sugar in the country the GOI usually gives export subsidy, which is usually released after a lot of scrutiny and delays, instead they should allow for this excess sugar to be diverted to ethanol so that the cash cycle is quicker and we address the demand that is there for ethanol. This diversion of excess sugar to Ethanol can be considered as deemed export and the same benefit can be given to the sugar mills that adopt this mechanism. To address the issue of excess production the GOI should increase the radial distance between the plants from the existing 15 Kms to atlest 35 Kms.” Nirani added. https://storage.googleapis.com/stateless-chinimandi-com/2020/11/8b27b37c-indian-sugar-industry’s.dom\_.eng\_.02.11.2020.08.58.mp3
No, the British did not steal $45 trillion from India
This is an updated copy of the version on BadHistory. I plan to update it in accordance with the feedback I got. I'd like to thank two people who will remain anonymous for helping me greatly with this post (you know who you are) Three years ago a festschrift for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri was published by Shubhra Chakrabarti, a history teacher at the University of Delhi and Utsa Patnaik, a Marxist economist who taught at JNU until 2010. One of the essays in the festschirt by Utsa Patnaik was an attempt to quantify the "drain" undergone by India during British Rule. Her conclusion? Britain robbed India of $45 trillion (or £9.2 trillion) during their 200 or so years of rule. This figure was immensely popular, and got republished in several major news outlets (here, here, here, here (they get the number wrong) and more recently here), got a mention from the Minister of External Affairs & returns 29,100 results on Google. There's also plenty of references to it here on Reddit. Patnaik is not the first to calculate such a figure. Angus Maddison thought it was £100 million, Simon Digby said £1 billion, Javier Estaban said £40 million see Roy (2019). The huge range of figures should set off some alarm bells. So how did Patnaik calculate this (shockingly large) figure? Well, even though I don't have access to the festschrift, she conveniently has written an article detailing her methodology here. Let's have a look.
How exactly did the British manage to diddle us and drain our wealth’ ? was the question that Basudev Chatterjee (later editor of a volume in the Towards Freedom project) had posed to me 50 years ago when we were fellow-students abroad.
This is begging the question.
After decades of research I find that using India’s commodity export surplus as the measure and applying an interest rate of 5%, the total drain from 1765 to 1938, compounded up to 2016, comes to £9.2 trillion; since $4.86 exchanged for £1 those days, this sum equals about $45 trillion.
This is completely meaningless. To understand why it's meaningless consider India's annual coconut exports. These are almost certainly a surplus but the surplus in trade is countered by the other country buying the product (indeed, by definition, trade surpluses contribute to the GDP of a nation which hardly plays into intuitive conceptualisations of drain). Furthermore, Dewey (2019) critiques the 5% interest rate.
She [Patnaik] consistently adopts statistical assumptions (such as compound interest at a rate of 5% per annum over centuries) that exaggerate the magnitude of the drain
The exact mechanism of drain, or transfers from India to Britain was quite simple.
Drain theory possessed the political merit of being easily grasped by a nation of peasants. [...] No other idea could arouse people than the thought that they were being taxed so that others in far off lands might live in comfort. [...] It was, therefore, inevitable that the drain theory became the main staple of nationalist political agitation during the Gandhian era.
The key factor was Britain’s control over our taxation revenues combined with control over India’s financial gold and forex earnings from its booming commodity export surplus with the world. Simply put, Britain used locally raised rupee tax revenues to pay for its net import of goods, a highly abnormal use of budgetary funds not seen in any sovereign country.
The issue with figures like these is they all make certain methodological assumptions that are impossible to prove. From Roy in Frankema et al. (2019):
the "drain theory" of Indian poverty cannot be tested with evidence, for several reasons. First, it rests on the counterfactual that any money saved on account of factor payments abroad would translate into domestic investment, which can never be proved. Second, it rests on "the primitive notion that all payments to foreigners are "drain"", that is, on the assumption that these payments did not contribute to domestic national income to the equivalent extent (Kumar 1985, 384; see also Chaudhuri 1968). Again, this cannot be tested. [...] Fourth, while British officers serving India did receive salaries that were many times that of the average income in India, a paper using cross-country data shows that colonies with better paid officers were governed better (Jones 2013).
Indeed, drain theory rests on some very weak foundations. This, in of itself, should be enough to dismiss any of the other figures that get thrown out. Nonetheless, I felt it would be a useful exercise to continue exploring Patnaik's take on drain theory.
The East India Company from 1765 onwards allocated every year up to one-third of Indian budgetary revenues net of collection costs, to buy a large volume of goods for direct import into Britain, far in excess of that country’s own needs.
So what's going on here? Well Roy (2019) explains it better:
Colonial India ran an export surplus, which, together with foreign investment, was used to pay for services purchased from Britain. These payments included interest on public debt, salaries, and pensions paid to government offcers who had come from Britain, salaries of managers and engineers, guaranteed profts paid to railway companies, and repatriated business profts. How do we know that any of these payments involved paying too much? The answer is we do not.
So what was really happening is the government was paying its workers for services (as well as guaranteeing profits - to promote investment - something the GoI does today Dalal (2019), and promoting business in India), and those workers were remitting some of that money to Britain. This is hardly a drain (unless, of course, Indian diaspora around the world today are "draining" it). In some cases, the remittances would take the form of goods (as described) see Chaudhuri (1983):
It is obvious that these debit items were financed through the export surplus on merchandise account, and later, when railway construction started on a large scale in India, through capital import. Until 1833 the East India Company followed a cumbersome method in remitting the annual home charges. This was to purchase export commodities in India out of revenue, which were then shipped to London and the proceeds from their sale handed over to the home treasury.
While Roy's earlier point argues better paid officers governed better, it is honestly impossible to say what part of the repatriated export surplus was a drain, and what was not. However calling all of it a drain is definitely misguided. It's worth noting that Patnaik seems to make no attempt to quantify the benefits of the Raj either, Dewey (2019)'s 2nd criticism:
she [Patnaik] consistently ignores research that would tend to cut the economic impact of the drain down to size, such as the work on the sources of investment during the industrial revolution (which shows that industrialisation was financed by the ploughed-back profits of industrialists) or the costs of empire school (which stresses the high price of imperial defence)
Since tropical goods were highly prized in other cold temperate countries which could never produce them, in effect these free goods represented international purchasing power for Britain which kept a part for its own use and re-exported the balance to other countries in Europe and North America against import of food grains, iron and other goods in which it was deficient.
Re-exports necessarily adds value to goods when the goods are processed and when the goods are transported. The country with the largest navy at the time would presumably be in very good stead to do the latter.
The British historians Phyllis Deane and WA Cole presented an incorrect estimate of Britain’s 18th-19th century trade volume, by leaving out re-exports completely. I found that by 1800 Britain’s total trade was 62% higher than their estimate, on applying the correct definition of trade including re-exports, that is used by the United Nations and by all other international organisations.
While interesting, and certainly expected for such an old book, re-exporting necessarily adds value to goods.
When the Crown took over from the Company, from 1861 a clever system was developed under which all of India’s financial gold and forex earnings from its fast-rising commodity export surplus with the world, was intercepted and appropriated by Britain. As before up to a third of India’s rising budgetary revenues was not spent domestically but was set aside as ‘expenditure abroad’.
So, what does this mean? Britain appropriated all of India's earnings, and then spent a third of it aboard? Not exactly. She is describing home charges see Roy (2019) again:
Some of the expenditures on defense and administration were made in sterling and went out of the country. This payment by the government was known as the Home Charges. For example, interest payment on loans raised to finance construction of railways and irrigation works, pensions paid to retired officers, and purchase of stores, were payments in sterling. [...] almost all money that the government paid abroad corresponded to the purchase of a service from abroad. [...] The balance of payments system that emerged after 1800 was based on standard business principles.India bought something and paid for it.State revenues were used to pay for wages of people hired abroad, pay for interest on loans raised abroad, and repatriation of profits on foreign investments coming into India. These were legitimate market transactions.
Indeed, if paying for what you buy is drain, then several billions of us are drained every day.
The Secretary of State for India in Council, based in London, invited foreign importers to deposit with him the payment (in gold, sterling and their own currencies) for their net imports from India, and these gold and forex payments disappeared into the yawning maw of the SoS’s account in the Bank of England.
It should be noted that India having two heads was beneficial, and encouraged investment per Roy (2019):
The fact that the India Office in London managed a part of the monetary system made India creditworthy, stabilized its currency, and encouraged foreign savers to put money into railways and private enterprise in India. Current research on the history of public debt shows that stable and large colonies found it easier to borrow abroad than independent economies because the investors trusted the guarantee of the colonist powers.
Against India’s net foreign earnings he issued bills, termed Council bills (CBs), to an equivalent rupee value. The rate (between gold-linked sterling and silver rupee) at which the bills were issued, was carefully adjusted to the last farthing, so that foreigners would never find it more profitable to ship financial gold as payment directly to Indians, compared to using the CB route. Foreign importers then sent the CBs by post or by telegraph to the export houses in India, that via the exchange banks were paid out of the budgeted provision of sums under ‘expenditure abroad’, and the exporters in turn paid the producers (peasants and artisans) from whom they sourced the goods.
Sunderland (2013) argues CBs had two main roles (and neither were part of a grand plot to keep gold out of India):
Council bills had two roles. They firstly promoted trade by handing the IO some control of the rate of exchange and allowing the exchange banks to remit funds to India and to hedge currency transaction risks. They also enabled the Indian government to transfer cash to England for the payment of its UK commitments.
The United Nations (1962) historical data for 1900 to 1960, show that for three decades up to 1928 (and very likely earlier too) India posted the second highest merchandise export surplus in the world, with USA in the first position. Not only were Indians deprived of every bit of the enormous international purchasing power they had earned over 175 years, even its rupee equivalent was not issued to them since not even the colonial government was credited with any part of India’s net gold and forex earnings against which it could issue rupees. The sleight-of-hand employed, namely ‘paying’ producers out of their own taxes, made India’s export surplus unrequited and constituted a tax-financed drain to the metropolis, as had been correctly pointed out by those highly insightful classical writers, Dadabhai Naoroji and RCDutt.
It doesn't appear that others appreciate their insight Roy (2019):
K. N. Chaudhuri rightly calls such practice ‘confused’ economics ‘coloured by political feelings’.
Surplus budgets to effect such heavy tax-financed transfers had a severe employment–reducing and income-deflating effect: mass consumption was squeezed in order to release export goods. Per capita annual foodgrains absorption in British India declined from 210 kg. during the period 1904-09, to 157 kg. during 1937-41, and to only 137 kg by 1946.
If even a part of its enormous foreign earnings had been credited to it and not entirely siphoned off, India could have imported modern technology to build up an industrial structure as Japan was doing.
This is, unfortunately, impossible to prove. Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication that India would've united (this is arguably more plausible than the given counterfactual1). Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication India would not have been nuked in WW2, much like Japan. Had the British not arrived in India, there is no clear indication India would not have been invaded by lizard people, much like Japan. The list continues eternally. Nevertheless, I will charitably examine the given counterfactual anyway. Did pre-colonial India have industrial potential? The answer is a resounding no. From Gupta (1980):
This article starts from the premise that while economic categories - the extent of commodity production, wage labour, monetarisation of the economy, etc - should be the basis for any analysis of the production relations of pre-British India, it is the nature of class struggles arising out of particular class alignments that finally gives the decisive twist to social change. Arguing on this premise, and analysing the available evidence, this article concludes that there was little potential for industrial revolution before the British arrived in India because, whatever might have been the character of economic categories of that period,the class relations had not sufficiently matured to develop productive forces and the required class struggle for a 'revolution' to take place.
Yet all of this did not amount to an economic situation comparable to that of western Europe on the eve of the industrial revolution. Her technology - in agriculture as well as manufacturers - had by and large been stagnant for centuries. [...] The weakness of the Indian economy in the mid-eighteenth century, as compared to pre-industrial Europe was not simply a matter of technology and commercial and industrial organization. No scientific or geographical revolution formed part of the eighteenth-century Indian's historical experience. [...] Spontaneous movement towards industrialisation is unlikely in such a situation.
So now we've established India did not have industrial potential, was India similar to Japan just before the Meiji era? The answer, yet again, unsurprisingly, is no. Japan's economic situation was not comparable to India's, which allowed for Japan to finance its revolution. From Yasuba (1986):
All in all, the Japanese standard of living may not have been much below the English standard of living before industrialization, and both of them may have been considerably higher than the Indian standard of living. We can no longer say that Japan started from a pathetically low economic level and achieved a rapid or even "miraculous" economic growth. Japan's per capita income was almost as high as in Western Europe before industrialization, and it was possible for Japan to produce surplus in the Meiji Period to finance private and public capital formation.
The circumstances that led to Meiji Japan were extremely unique. See Tomlinson (1985):
Most modern comparisons between India and Japan, written by either Indianists or Japanese specialists, stress instead that industrial growth in Meiji Japan was the product of unique features that were not reproducible elsewhere. [...] it is undoubtably true that Japan's progress to industrialization has been unique and unrepeatable
So there you have it. Unsubstantiated statistical assumptions, calling any number you can a drain & assuming a counterfactual for no good reason gets you this $45 trillion number. Hopefully that's enough to bury it in the ground. 1. Several authors have affirmed that Indian identity is a colonial artefact. For example seeRajan 1969:
Perhaps the single greatest and most enduring impact of British rule over India is that it created an Indian nation, in the modern political sense. After centuries of rule by different dynasties overparts of the Indian sub-continent, and after about 100 years of British rule, Indians ceased to be merely Bengalis, Maharashtrians,or Tamils, linguistically and culturally.
But then, it would be anachronistic to condemn eighteenth-century Indians, who served the British, as collaborators, when the notion of 'democratic' nationalism or of an Indian 'nation' did not then exist.[...]Indians who fought for them, differed from the Europeans in having a primary attachment to a non-belligerent religion, family and local chief, which was stronger than any identity they might have with a more remote prince or 'nation'.
Chakrabarti, Shubra & Patnaik, Utsa (2018). Agrarian and other histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri. Colombia University Press Hickel, Jason (2018). How the British stole $45 trillion from India. The Guardian Bhuyan, Aroonim & Sharma, Krishan (2019). The Great Loot: How the British stole $45 trillion from India. Indiapost Monbiot, George (2020). English Landowners have stolen our rights. It is time to reclaim them. The Guardian Tsjeng, Zing (2020). How Britain Stole $45 trillion from India with trains | Empires of Dirt. Vice Chaudhury, Dipanjan (2019). British looted $45 trillion from India in today’s value: Jaishankar. The Economic Times Roy, Tirthankar (2019). How British rule changed India's economy: The Paradox of the Raj. Palgrave Macmillan Patnaik, Utsa (2018). How the British impoverished India. Hindustan Times Tuovila, Alicia (2019). Expenditure method. Investopedia Dewey, Clive (2019). Changing the guard: The dissolution of the nationalist–Marxist orthodoxy in the agrarian and agricultural history of India. The Indian Economic & Social History Review Chandra, Bipan et al. (1989). India's Struggle for Independence, 1857-1947. Penguin Books Frankema, Ewout & Booth, Anne (2019). Fiscal Capacity and the Colonial State in Asia and Africa, c. 1850-1960. Cambridge University Press Dalal, Sucheta (2019). IL&FS Controversy: Centre is Paying Up on Sovereign Guarantees to ADB, KfW for Group's Loan. TheWire Chaudhuri, K.N. (1983). X - Foreign Trade and Balance of Payments (1757–1947). Cambridge University Press Sunderland, David (2013). Financing the Raj: The City of London and Colonial India, 1858-1940. Boydell Press Dewey, Clive (1978). Patwari and Chaukidar: Subordinate officials and the reliability of India’s agricultural statistics. Athlone Press Smith, Lisa (2015). The great Indian calorie debate: Explaining rising undernourishment during India’s rapid economic growth. Food Policy Duh, Josephine & Spears, Dean (2016). Health and Hunger: Disease, Energy Needs, and the Indian Calorie Consumption Puzzle. The Economic Journal Vankatesh, P. et al. (2016). Relationship between Food Production and Consumption Diversity in India – Empirical Evidences from Cross Section Analysis. Agricultural Economics Research Review Gupta, Shaibal (1980). Potential of Industrial Revolution in Pre-British India. Economic and Political Weekly Raychaudhuri, Tapan (1983). I - The mid-eighteenth-century background. Cambridge University Press Yasuba, Yasukichi (1986). Standard of Living in Japan Before Industrialization: From what Level did Japan Begin? A Comment. The Journal of Economic History Tomblinson, B.R. (1985). Writing History Sideways: Lessons for Indian Economic Historians from Meiji Japan. Cambridge University Press Rajan, M.S. (1969). The Impact of British Rule in India. Journal of Contemporary History Bryant, G.J. (2000). Indigenous Mercenaries in the Service of European Imperialists: The Case of the Sepoys in the Early British Indian Army, 1750-1800. War in History
Have any of you radically changed your political views since childhood?
I grew up in a typical conservative middle-class household in the 90s. Like most conservative families, I grew up hearing about how horrible Sheikh Mujib became after 71, and how people were so relieved after he was murdered in 1975. This is something I heard from everyone, relatives, friends, etc. I, too, used to hate Sheikh Mujib. I thought he was a dictator, pro-India, anti-Islam, traitor, just wanted to be Pakistan's PM, etc. Of course, I was a teenager in the 2001-2006 period when the BNP-Jamat government rammed the entire country into the ground. There were hartals and oborodhs all the time, electricity used to go off every other hour, terrorist would blast a bomb every other week while the government would term it all as a "conspiracy", there was no development and we would stagger from one crisis to another. Mullahs would carry out misils all the time calling for Shariah law, and attacking Ahmadiyya houses. Khaleda Zia had zero control over the country. She just didn't have any leadership qualities. I felt that I wanted to leave this shithole as soon as I got the first opportunity. The BNP regime was interrupted by the caretaker government. Full of "highly educated" bureaucrats, I naturally supported them. But their "Minus 2" plan went nowhere, and they weren't being able to handle the country either. Fakhruddin Ahmed and Moinuddin Ahmed just didn't' have any leadership qualities either. Facing an unfavourable situation, they at least had the decency to organize elections and arrange a respectable exit for themselves. Then we the Awami League get power in 2008. I still hated them back then. Their first term, 2009-2013 was full of turmoil, with the "Shahbag movement" and the "ICT Tribunal" and the hanging of the senior Jamat leaders. But the country gradually started getting into shape. If you look at the economic indicators we started taking off in 2010. By 2014 political stability was re-established. This was all possible due to Sheikh Hasina's leadership qualities, which others lack. The Awami League's electricity reforms paid off, and loadshedding is largely over in Dhaka. Awami League drastically reduced prices of broadband internet, and we got access to bufferless YouTube for the first time. BNP was jumping up and down screaming that government was looting crores of taka under the name of quick rental power plants. But our forex reserves zoomed from 10 billion to 30 billion. New roads were being built everywhere and Bangladesh's Debt-to-GDP ratio remains one of the lowest in South Asia, and in the world. So I was really forced to re-evaluate my hatred of Awami League, Sheik Hasina and Sheikh Mujib. When I looked back at the life of Sheikh Mujib, I found that he dedicated his life to the people of East Bengal. He was a part of the Muslim League to get independence for us, and after witnessing the bloody religious riots changed his worldview to secular democratic socialism. That's something very admirable! That's not anti-Islam at all! And then he joined forces with India to free East Pakistan. That's not treason, his loyalty was to the people of East Pakistan. He single-handedly united 60 million very backward and uneducated people and led them to independence. After that, he presided over the creation of a Constitution that was secular, in a overwhelmingly rural, uneducated Muslim country. He could easily have given in to Saudi Arabia in return for oil, like so many Muslim countries, but did not compromise. He could have chosen to recognize Israel, and have gotten instant recognition and support from the West, but stayed firm to his principles of loyalty to the Palestinian people. All of his actions point towards the qualities of a great leader. Sheikh Mujib did not allow the Indians to stay in Bangladesh and ensured their withdrawal. Just have a look at countries around the world today. Look at Syria, where they have a bastard dictator who murders his own people, and an opposition full of traitors and terrorists. Look at Libya, where the people have no leadership. Look at India, where they are under the thrall of a fascist religious dictator Modi. Sudan is only establishing secularism in their constitution in 2020, while Bangladesh did it 50 years ago!!! Look at Iran, where people are all trying to escape their religious government. Look at Pakistan with their blasphemy laws and their mullahs trying to oppose any law against child marriage! We bypassed all of this thanks to Sheikh Mujib and his foresight!!! The closest leader who resembles Sheikh Mujib would be Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. While Ataturk was objectively greater than Sheikh Mujib, since he was an accomplished military leader who led the actual Turkish War of Independence himself, Ataturk also modernized a backward, rural, uneducated nation overnight into a modern, secular and democratic state. Of course, Ataturk has many haters. They also accuse him of being a dictator. But his achievements greatly overshadow any sacrifices that may have been required to achieve the goal of a modern independent Turkey. The same goes for Shiekh Mujib. Whatever are his faults, Rakkhi Bahini, BAKSAL, I am willing to forgive him for his leadership during our independence and his creation of a secular and democratic Bangladesh. Today we are blessed to have his daughter Sheikh Hasina in power. Lots of you might call her "fascist". That's such a lazy and pathetic position to take. Trust me, if there was any other leader other than SH as PM the government would be just as "fascist" as her government is now. Its so easy to sit back behind a PC and cry "fascist fascist fascist". YOU try organizing a political party in a nation of 165 million people, and then successfully leading that country on the path towards economic development. Without a doubt, if those crying 'fascist fascist' were put into power as PM they would be 100 times more fascistic than Sheikh Hasina is right now. Without a doubt, human rights abuses occur under her. Abrar was beaten to death by BCL thugs (which was fully supported by the 'humanist' Taslima Nasrin btw). But those BCL thugs are in jail now. Major Sinha Rashed Khan was murdered by OC Liakat and Prodip. Both of them are in jail. If SH was as fascist as people claim, they would be out in the streets, like the Hindu thugs who carried out the Delhi riots in February, or the terrorist Mullahs in Pakistan who forcibly convert and kidnap Christian girls. So, from what I have seen, Awami League is an organic political party of the people of East Bengal. They have deeper roots in the hearts of the people than any other political movement. And they should be lauded because they have established secularism and inclusive nationalism where there is space for Bangladeshis of all religions and ethnicities in a united Bangladesh. While sometimes they have acted in a fascist manner, it is excusable because there is no other alternative in Bangladesh who can win elections and be more liberal than BAL. Instead of pathetically criticizing them, those who want the best for Bangladesh should work with them in order to reduce the human rights abuses which do still occur. BAL will be remembered in history like the PAP of Singapore, or the UMNO of Malaysia, or the Chinese Communist Party; all of whom were authoritarian, who were accused of being fascist, but ultimately ensured the evolution of their societies from backward uneducated agricultural societies to modern, secular democratic industrial ones.
What do you all make of the mainstreaming of the market?
There are so many new investors it’s almost staggering! I know this is known, but the scale of it finally caught up to me. My 22 year old nephew is Forex trading, and he didn’t even finish high school. The SoFi sponsored Cowboys game ran an ad claiming to give away free stock if your team wins....like fucking pizza!! The fully mainstreamed free trades and fractional shares. What in the world is this shit? CashApp has investing. Everybody I know is talking about this thing...as if it’s a brand new toy they just discovered! It reminds me of all those companies trying to buy up our gold before the 08 crash. As if they’re trying to get all the cash before we go to a new and fully digital currency (like the corporate fascist shit that’s been happening in India the past few years). On a more pertinent note, how has this changed your outlook on trading, investing and price targets? I mean if we are all now playing to the least common denominator of the hyped up FOMO and short sighted illogic of the masses, doesn’t this substantially change the game? And the ripple effects will be huge! For example: an already defunct, decontextualized, profit based media system will be pumping out market related garbage for clicks, and this could drastically increase prices (or at least volatility)...as if it already hasn’t. Schwab has a new warning ⚠️ note posted to their site about volatility being the “new normal”. Sure it may just be the recession-like/Covid situation we’re in...OR this could really be the new normal when the markets are completely mainstream. ...and we haven’t even mentioned the Fed...and I’m not going to. I really just feel like the game may be permanently changed. And if you pit Joe Blow against JP Morgan, that spells disaster for even more people. Thoughts?
1) ONION Trade rules/regulations 2) Extension of ESI Scheme to Arunachal Pradesh 3) IIT in Partnership with TCS Sets New Trends in India’s Advanced Manufacturing Sector 4) Astronomers from NCRA-TIFR, Pune, and RRI, Bangalore uncover the mystery behind the decline of star formation rate after its peak 8-10 billion years ago 5) Sustainable Processing of Municipal Solid Waste: ‘Waste to Wealth’ 6) Maharashtra Denies consent to CBI 7) Forex Reserves 8) Pakistan on FATF Grey List 9) South Asian Flash Flood Guidance System 10) Deworming in India In Details: https://dailynewsteller.blogspot.com/2020/10/daily-current-affairs-24-october-2020.html
Bloomberg Quint is a multiplatform, Indian business and financial news company. We combine Bloomberg’s global leadership in business and financial news and data, with Quintillion Media’s deep expertise in the Indian market and digital news delivery, to provide high quality business news, insights and trends for India’s sophisticated audiences. Get latest Forex news updates & stories. Explore Forex photos and videos on India.com Forex News: Get latest Forex News, Forex Market updates and Analysis on Economic Times. Benchmarks . Nifty 12,749.15 118.05. NSE Gainer-Large Cap . Tata Steel (PP) 80.90 7.35. FEATURED FUNDS ★★★★ ★ ICICI Prudential Bluechip Fund Direct-Growth. 5Y Return. 11.37 % Invest Now. FEATURED FUNDS ★★★★ ★ Axis Long Term Equity Direct Plan-Growth. 5Y Return. 13.22 % Invest Now ... India's forex reserves up $183 million to record high of $560.715 billion In the previous week ended October 23, the reserves had jumped $5.412 billion to $560.532 billion. Forex: Get Live Forex Rates on The Economic Times. Find latest Forex News and Updates, Live Currency Rates, Currency Convertor and more. India forex reserves jump $7.78 billion to record high of $568.49 billion: RBI Tata Steel Q2 results: Profit declines 59.5% to Rs 1,635 crore; net debt reduces by Rs 8,197 crore Forex news can break at any time and this is the page to get the details of what happened and how markets reacted. GBP/USD attempting to hold above 1.3100 after dropping 0.75% on the day The sterling accelerated its reversal from 1.3315 on Thursday, after having breached the 1.3200 level and has retreated to session lows at 1.3105.
Join Heyprofit & Earn Money Minimum Investment 1000 USD or More... Sure Shot Profit 10 %to 50 % Per Month Drop Down 20% to 30% Highest Profit Sharing 50/50 A... Our Backup Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQCHeIHOQxcpo13dcbnh7mQ #IndiaForeignExhangeReserve #IndiabreaksRecord #IndiplusNews #WorldLatestNews #In... We all want a simple and easy job and earn more , the best forex broker ever.... call / whatsapp for joining +91-9102273689 open account 📲 join octafx link 👇... join link . https://my.cabanacapitals.com/?q=8442_329299 trading plan launch lifetime earning more info call here. whatsapp me +919998032880 instagram https:... Learn This Here Now: https://bit.ly/2OPmALJ - India forex news - LiteForex - The Facts In the reporting week, the special illustration rights with the Intern... CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO: https://rebrand.ly/forex33 And start earning in the Forex Market Now! In our growing international corporate setting, there are bus... Hello Friends , Register Forex Broker - https://bit.ly/2NFSXfu Join Our Telegram Channel - https://t.me/cryptosignalsMG Join Binance From - www.binance.com/e...