The debate as to whether the Indian economy under the British rule was characterised by growth or stagnation or progressive impoverishment has not yet come to an end. What is the major reason for the inconclusive character of the debate?

The debate as to whether the Indian economy under the British rule was characterised by growth or stagnation or progressive impoverishment has not yet come to an end. What is the major reason for the inconclusive character of the debate? Correct Answer Ideological preferences of the particular writer.

The debate was based on structural thinking. 

There were three main ways economists tried to explain the industrial stagnation.

• First, India had been unlucky to be hit by a series of exogenous shocks that weakened the economy—two wars, two oil crises and two severe droughts.
• Second, there were explanations on the demand side—demand for capital goods was weak because of a fall in public investment, while demand for consumer goods was anaemic because of low-income growth as well as rising inequality. 
• Third, there was a set of reasons on the supply side—a web of industrial controls, trade restrictions and poor allocation of investments across sectors had led to an inefficient industrial structure, as was evident in the decline in capital efficiency across the economy.

In terms of growth,

•  First, economic growth was being held back by problems in India’s farm sector.
• Second, going ahead with ambitious investment plans would be inflationary under the circumstances.
• Third, greater export-orientation would require radical changes in the fundamental principles of Indian planning.
• Fourth, modest growth would make re-distributive measures inevitable.
• Fifth, a growth model focused on employment generation, infrastructure investments and productive agricultural projects.
• There is less evidence of growth than stagnation.

So, we can say that the debate was mainly shaped by different ideologies of writers and their opinions.