oct 10th, 2006
yes, this is growing, but it is the wrong priority. india needs a balance of manufacturing, services, and agriculture.
the story has been that the nehruvians idolized manufacturing (just because the soviets did), and perversely created public-sector monsters, while stunting the entrepreneurial private sector.
services have grown precisely because the economist babus in the government did not think they were important, or understand them (after all, the soviets and chinese only focused on manufacturing) and so left them alone.
agriculture has been deliberated under-emphasized, belittled at every turn, and under-invested in.
there should be balanced growth and appropriate policies to fend off the rampaging 'fair traders' of the west who put in place massive tariff and non-tariff barriers.
this sort of step-brotherly treatment is not appropriate.
the nehruvians have treated agriculture with contempt just as they have treated hindus; manufacturing, their cossetted favorites, is just like their favored mohammedans -- getting lavish subsidies and tender-loving-care from the government, but not producing any results for the nation.
and why is nobody talking about the so-called 'hindu rate of growth' any more? is that because the true 'hindu rate of growth', as i have consistently asserted, is 10%? the 2-3% growth of the UPA is the 'nehruvian rate of growth', which has been enjoyed by all marxist economies.
after all, it was the hindus who made india the richest nation in the world from 3000 BCE to 1500 CE (the numbers for 0 to 1500 CE are from the famous economic historian angus maddison -- without exception, india was the richest nation in that entire period).