I think that’s far more a legacy of of the socialism that grew out of the post-colonial context which had enamored quite a bit of the leaders in the third world more than out of any traditional stigma within Indian culture-brahminnical or otherwise. Afterall, where else do people place their account ledgers, gold coins etc. in front of their altars?

many economic historians have done good work on this. see ha-joon chang’s works, or richard sylla’s work on the capital market in the united states (the result of wars etc.). in contrast the indian state (i.e. the colonial state) was genuinely laissez faire (by default) or at least more so than other economies at that time(where businessmen were routinely helped by the state; in fact i think the connotation of the term was that the state should do nothing to hinder business, but do everything to help, when its help is asked for). it did not necessarily always harm the indigenous sector (though it did that too), but it did nothing to help it either; in fact that state was completely separate from the “informal” sector (defined as such because of the participation of the indigenous business class).

btw, i like ken pomaranz’s work a lot (of course being a china specialist, he is better on china).

That explains all the Bengali “intellectuals” who kept regurgitating socialist crap that they learned abroad and because of the unfortunately colonial legacy, the entire India had to suffer. It is easy to “philosophise” on someone else’s dime. Eastern India where these socialist ideas came from remains till today the most impoverished place in India.

i don’t think the bengalis controlled all of india/were disproportionately represented in the indian government post-independence that one can blame then for the economic suffering of all india. may be bengal itself, but other than that i don’t see bengal post-independence as a beacon to the rest of india as it was at the end of the 19th c. i don’t recall a bhadralok babu adda in delhi that held the parliament in sway, but may be you know better. we have accepted wholesale from the british their stereotyping of the bangali babu (which the bengalis also bought into somewhat at the end of the 19th c), which unfortunately carries on to this day. the only exception to this is the naxalite movement – but it is hardly ‘philophie on someone else’s dime.’ even if you disagree with the methods of those who participated and instigated it – it was characterized by personal commitment and huge consequences to those individuals and their families (vikram chandra’s new book has a character who participates in a naxalbari type movement which is decently done for a fictional account). also props RC, for talking about succesful sindhi assimilation – but the earlier trading experience of sindhi communities can’t be discounted in that analysis. what i’m saying is it’s not like there is an intrinsic sindhi character that makes them capable of acting independent of the state and being successful businessman thanks to some native endowments – but their historical familiarity with trade and migration in central asia led to entire communities (eg thattais, shikarpuris, or the broader ‘vanya’ category) that had deep entrepreneurial knowledge cultivated over centuries. if sindhis had occupations or social structures that were not initially centered around trade, it’s not clear whether they would be equally successful post-partition. also – sindhis in india were never faced overt discrimination in india like the mohajirs did in pakistan. moreover, many were rightly compensated for the property they lost in sindh. anecdotally, most hindu sindhis that i know in pakistan also belong to professional/service class – unable to succeed in business because they just don’t have the resources, connections, or security like other pakistani entrepreneurs – necessary wherewithal to deal with the state. they hope to do well academically, become doctors and engineers and move to the us or canada. that is an example of (hindu) sindhis being unable to succeed when the state is unhelpful or discriminatory. muslim sindhis in sindh are not exactly happy either- as shown by the active sindhi separatist movement there. (disclosure – i am a sindhi whose family received some compensation from the government of india post-partition)

gandhi was very shrewd in this respect….he knew that the support of native businessmen was crucial.

right – in this respect gandhi’s relationship with birla is odd and full of contradiction – gandhi’s sharp critique of industrialization and capitalist exploitation, their shared grounding in hindu tradition and dharama philosophy, birla’s strategic use of his exploitation with Gandhi etc etc. also, sigh! thanks for highlighting the sophistication of the indian merchant class pre-east india company. kenneth pomeranz also does a great job dispelling the notion that instruments of capitalism were not present in the sub-continent pre-british rule (eg lending instruments, shareholding, double-entry book-keeping; he rehearses this is in support of his larger argument, many others produced the original analysis) in his ‘the great divergence.’ that book is a great analysis of why the industrial revolution happened in england rather than india, china, or japan – economies which were equal/superior to western european economies just prior to the ir. by no means the final word on the subject, but a taste of what good economic history can be like.

I agree completely.

but the consequence of the fact that the british continued to promote certain attitudes among the indigenous clerks to promote their own ends

That explains all the Bengali “intellectuals” who kept regurgitating socialist crap that they learned abroad and because of the unfortunately colonial legacy, the entire India had to suffer. It is easy to “philosophise” on someone else’s dime. Eastern India where these socialist ideas came from remains till today the most impoverished place in India.

of course this started to change very slowly after india gained independence…and it continues to change; all this talk of brahminical thinking is bs in my opinion. “brahminical” attitudes is not the cause, but the consequence of the fact that the british continued to promote certain attitudes among the indigenous clerks to promote their own ends, i.e. of not promoting the indian business class (when others in europe were doing so) ; gandhi was very shrewd in this respect….he knew that the support of native businessmen was crucial.

Less regulation to enable business is crucial but let’s not gloss over the benefits that have accrued from regulation to stimulate India’s “Industrial Revolution.” For example, in Varma’s piece, he writes,

In the absence of competition, there was no threat to the existence of public sector firms. There was no accountability, so inefficiency was not punished, and there were no incentives for efficiency. Labour unions became powerful, and wages were not dependent on performance. Decisions were not taken on the basis of market signals, which could safely be ignored, but on the basis of what special interest groups, such as labor unions and powerful politicians wanted—or on the basis of bribes paid.

which is a cursory take on the infant industry topic. Here’s John Sutton via Dani Rodrik:

In the decade prior to WTO entry, both China and India used domestic content restrictions to stimulate development of the component industry, with a view to widening and deepening the benefits accruing from attracting international car-makers. The requirements were stringent, requiring about 70% domestic content within about 3 years, and this led to adverse comment from some of the car-makers who cast doubt on whether this target was feasible or sensible. Policies of this kind are not always appropriate, or successful; but in the present cases the ‘infant industry’ has been successfully nurtured, and international car-makers show no inclination to turn away from local suppliers following WTO entry. [link]

and Pranab Bardhan:

Both China and India (but China more so) have succeeded in exporting more sophisticated products than is usual in countries in their respective per capita income ranges: China, in consumer electronics, including computers and other information- and communication-technology-related goods, and auto parts; India, in software, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, steel, and auto parts. This performance is remarkable (though more in gross value of exports than in value-added terms, as some of the components and technology used in production are acquired from abroad) and is due primarily to sizeable skill and technological bases, enriched over the years of “socialist slumbering� by indigenous learning-by-doing and nurtured by government policies of building domestic capability—sometimes at the expense of static resource allocation efficiency. Of course, there are many cases in which protection from foreign competition sheltered massive inefficiency. But the overall storyline is by no means so simple. Consider auto parts. For many decades both countries practiced protection of “local content� (of components) in automobiles, contrary to the orthodox free-trade policy prescription. As a result workers in the auto parts industry acquired skills necessary to compete successfully in the global economy and have now reached international best practice. [link]

and I think Bardhan captures India’s fawning over China’s industrialization with this precious retort:

When I grew up in India, I used to hear leftists say that the Chinese were better socialists than us. Now I am used to hearing that the Chinese are better capitalists than us. I tell people, only half-flippantly, that the Chinese are better capitalists now because they were better socialists then!

Das too recurringly expresses the sentiment about how the art of making money is not as respected in India.

Reminds me of Ashoke, in Namesake urging Gogol to grab the pen (future scholar)in Annaprasan, instead of dirt (future landowner)or money (future businessman).

In the Fifties, when P.C. Mahalonobis drafted the Soviet-inspired second five year plan, A.D. Shroff responded by starting the Forum of Free Enterprise.

So its NOT that all Indians looked down upon making money. Gujratis, Sindhis, Marwadis and other groups for most part never believed in the socialist elitist, state-controls-everything model.

who could blame Indians for being distrustful of trade?

There were plenty Indians who trusted ONLY “trade” as livelihood. The problem was English speaking socialists (studied in London School of Economics)who had ALL THE POLICY MAKING POWER and were considered the “only” intellectuals. Gurusharan Das is singing praises of “trade” now, because he was a CEO (or a Babu) in a company. What risk did he take?? What does he really know about running business?

The government is “mother and father,� protecting me from my rapacious brother.

Wrong again. Even after being pushed out into India, Sindhis did not ask for a minority status from the government (the so called Mother and Father) and mostly thrived in India by trading.