Oh this is crap. The way to glory is to recognize weakness and not live in fools paradise.
India like any other part was VERY poor. Economic disparity was the order of the day. Before we answer "whether India was rich" lets answer - WHO was india?" The kings and queens only? The rich dynasties only OR everyone? Did we not have the tribes? The Gonds, the santhals, The baigas, the Bodos, The Khasis, The Paintias, Ahirs, gujjars? Were they all rich?
Remember, the history does not talk of common people. It talks of only kings. Even then The Ramayana had a Shabri, did it not?
Lets have data before we speak. It is true we had immense wealth. The doab was as fertile as Tigris banks or Nile Delta, we had precious stones and we were prolific traders. But this wealth did not get distributed evenly. Reasons being our caste system created artificial barriers. Also, our financial market were weak. We did not have stock exchange or wider ownerships. Business was always family driven. Any economics student will explain you what a Hindu growth rate is. Europe had Stock exchanges, Venture capital and bonds in 1500s. We did not. That meant poor wealth distribution.
Although some studies have shown 25% of world GDP (and some other have disputed it) please know that it was nothing significant!!! Understand from historic perspective.
There was no North America, no South America, No oil (middle east) and Africa was dark. So 25% figure practically means 1/4 of Europe China india indo-china. Not bad but nothing great. And remember, those days only wealth was farm products and Precious metal, both a gift of nature, nothing ingenious (farm tools were invented 8000 yrs ago). Once industrial revolution came, Europeans made slaves out of us.
Look I am a proud Indian. But these misleading articles do no good for our development and make us lazy - like our cricket team - which everybody feels is greatest - but no data points to that.
