The Institutional Deficit: How a Lack of Forward Thinking Stunted India's Financial Evolution
The
Institutional Deficit: How a Lack of Forward Thinking Stunted India's Financial
Evolution
India's financial history is not
merely one of evolution, but of profound missed opportunities. While possessing
a sophisticated, trust-based system of hundis and sahukars, the
subcontinent failed to institutionalize these innovations, leaving it
vulnerable to colonial repurposing. The critical failure was a pre-colonial and
colonial-era lack of forward-thinking to build permanent, impersonal financial
institutions. China invented paper currency; Europe developed central banking
and joint-stock companies. India, in contrast, remained trapped in personalized
networks and metallic money, viewing currency as a tangible store of value
rather than a lever for sovereign economic power. The British brilliantly
exploited this institutional vacuum, not creating a modern financial
architecture for India's development, but a parasitic one for extraction. The
consequence was a nation that, despite its commercial prowess, entered the 20th
century with a financial system deliberately designed to serve another's
interests, leaving a legacy of underdevelopment that independent India would
struggle to reverse.
The Indigenous Prowess and Its Institutional Ceiling
Long before the East India Company's arrival, the Indian
subcontinent was a commercial powerhouse. The silver rupiya of
Sher Shah Suri was, as historian John Keay acknowledges,
"a masterpiece of monetary standardization," providing a reliable
medium of exchange across vast empires (1). The hundi system
was a financial instrument of remarkable efficiency, a "highly evolved
tool of credit and remittance that rivaled anything in contemporary
Europe," according to economic historian Tirthankar Roy (2).
However, herein lies the first critical failure. These
innovations remained embedded in personalized, community-based trust networks.
The system was reliant on the sahukar and his ledger, not on
an impersonal, legally constituted bank. As renowned economist L.C.
Jain critically observed, "Indigenous banking was brilliant in
its operation but myopic in its organization. It failed to transcend its
personalistic confines to create broad-based, public financial
institutions" (3). This was a profound lack of forward-thinking. While the
Medici in Italy were pioneering double-entry bookkeeping and branch banking,
India's financial genius remained atomized and vulnerable. The system worked,
but it did not evolve. It lacked the institutional scaffolding to survive a
political shock or scale into a national financial architecture.
The Colonial Exploitation of an Institutional Vacuum
The British did not dismantle a modern financial state; they
occupied an institutional vacuum. Their genius lay in recognizing that India's
financial system was ripe for co-option, not replacement. They retained the
rupee because, as historian S. Ambirajan argues, "it was
the path of least resistance and maximum control. Why impose an alien pound
when you could master the native rupee and commandeer the entire economy?"
(4).
The core of the colonial project was not development but
extraction, and its financial architecture was meticulously designed to this
end. The Sterling Exchange Standard was the linchpin of this
system. Lord Keynes, in his analysis of it, pointed out that it
made India's monetary policy a mere derivative of Britain's, subordinating
"the entire Indian economy to the stability of the London money
market," a clear act of institutional subjugation (5). This was not an
oversight; it was policy. The British created a Public Debt Office not
to fund Indian industry, but to finance railways that transported raw materials
out and troops in. By 1900, this debt stood at £224 million, a
massive liability incurred not for India's development, but for its deeper
entrenchment within the imperial economy. As critical historian Maria
Misra concludes, this debt was "the golden chain that bound India
to Britain, a chain forged in London and paid for by the Indian peasant"
(6).
The criticism here is severe: the British were
forward-thinking for their own interests. They institutionalized
everything necessary for control and revenue extraction—a unified currency, a
public debt market, a legal framework—but deliberately failed to build
institutions that would foster indigenous capital formation and industrial
growth. The stock market, formalized in 1875, remained a club for financing a
narrow set of export-oriented industries. There was no strategic vision for a
national banking system or a development-oriented central bank until the RBI
was established in 1935, and even then, its powers were limited.
|
The rupee
was first introduced as a silver coin by Sultan Sher Shah Suri around
1540–1545. However, to
fully understand its history, it's best to break it down: 1. The
Ancestor: The Rupiya (1540s) Who: Sher
Shah Suri, an Afghan ruler who displaced the Mughal Emperor Humayun and
established the Sur Empire in North India. When: During
his brief but highly influential reign from 1540 to 1545. What: He
introduced a silver coin called the Rupiya. Specifications: Weight: 178 grains (approximately 11.53 grams). Purity: High-quality silver. Design: The coin was beautifully designed and
standardized, a marked improvement over the earlier, less consistent coinage. This
"Rupiya" became the standard currency of his empire and was so
well-designed that it was continued by his successors. 2.
Adoption and Standardization by the Mughals When the
Mughal Empire was re-established by Sher Shah's rival, Akbar the
Great, he recognized the excellence of the Rupiya. He not only continued
minting it but also standardized it across the vast Mughal Empire, making it
one of the most widely used currencies in the world for centuries. 3. The
"First Use" in a Modern Sense: The Paper Rupee (18th Century) While the
coin was ancient, the paper rupee is a much more recent
invention. The First
Paper Rupees were not issued by a central Indian authority but
by private banks and regional presidencies during
the 18th century. The Bank
of Hindustan (1770-1832), the General Bank of Bengal and
Bihar (1773-75), and the Bengal Bank (1784-91) are
among the earliest issuers of paper currency in rupees. This practice
was later taken over by the British East India Company and
eventually, the colonial government. 4. The
"Indian Rupee" as a Unified National Currency (1861) The modern,
unified Indian Rupee took shape under British rule: The Paper
Currency Act of 1861: This act gave the British colonial government
a monopoly over issuing paper currency in India. The
Victoria Portrait Series: In 1862, the first set of uniform paper
notes, known as the "Victoria Portrait" series, were issued by the
British government, establishing the rupee as India's sole official currency. Summary
Timeline: c.
1540-1545: The silver Rupiya is first introduced
by Sher Shah Suri. 1556-1605: The
Mughal Emperor Akbar adopts and standardizes the Rupiya
across his empire. Late
1700s: Private and Presidency banks issue the
first paper rupees. 1861: The Paper
Currency Act is passed, creating a unified, government-issued paper
rupee for British India. So, while the
concept of the rupee as a coin is almost 500 years old, its
journey from a silver coin of an Afghan ruler to the official paper currency
of modern nations like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and others is a
fascinating story of economic evolution. The
Political Context in 1650 This was the
peak of the Mughal Empire under Emperor Shah Jahan (r.
1628-1658). The empire was in an aggressive expansionist phase, pushing
southwards. The currency of an empire follows its armies and its
administration. 1. The
Deccan and Southern India This was a
active war zone and a frontier in 1650, leading to a mixed monetary
landscape. Mughal
Presence: The Mughals were heavily engaged in a long war against
the Sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda. They had established a
significant foothold, but had not yet fully conquered the region (that would
happen under Aurangzeb, later in the century). Currency
Situation: Rupee Use: The Mughal rupee was certainly present,
used for paying large armies, financing the war effort, and trade within the
territories they controlled. It was a familiar and trusted currency in the
major trading centers and camps. Local Currencies: However, the Deccan Sultanates
minted their own coins. Golconda was famous for its gold pagodas or hun,
and Bijapur also minted its own coins (like the larin). These
local currencies remained in widespread daily use among the general
population. Further
South (Tamil Country): In the far south, beyond the reach of the
Mughals, the Hindu Kingdom of Vijayanagara had collapsed a
century earlier, but its successor states (Nayak kingdoms) and other smaller
polities continued to use the Vijayanagara pagoda, a gold coin.
The rupee was a foreign trading currency here, not a unit of daily
transaction. Verdict
for Deccan/South: Widespread but not exclusive. The rupee was a
major currency of war, politics, and long-distance trade, but it coexisted
with, and in many places was secondary to, strong local gold and silver
coinages. 2. Bengal Bengal was a
core, wealthy province of the Mughal Empire, having been fully integrated
decades earlier. Mughal
Integration: Bengal was conquered by the Mughals in the late 16th
century and was one of the empire's most prosperous provinces, known as
"The Paradise of the Nations." Currency
Situation: The Mughal rupee was the standard and official currency for
revenue collection, administration, and major commerce. The Mughal mint in Dhaka (and others) actively
produced rupees that circulated widely. While the rupee was dominant, smaller, local fractional coins (kobari, dam)
were still used for everyday small-scale transactions. Verdict
for Bengal: Very Widespread. The rupee was the established, dominant
currency of the province. Anyone involved in tax-paying, large-scale
agriculture (like silk or cotton), or trade would have used it. 3. Assam Assam
presents a stark contrast to Bengal. It was a fiercely independent kingdom,
successfully resisting Mughal expansion. Political
Status: The Ahom Kingdom ruled Assam. The period
around 1650 falls between two major Mughal-Ahom conflicts. The Ahoms had
decisively defeated the Mughals and maintained their sovereignty. Currency
Situation: The Ahom Kingdom had its own unique monetary system. They minted
coins, but these were not machine-struck silver rupees. They used hand-hammered
silver coins, often called narayani rupees or sika,
which had a different weight standard and design. They also used a system based on bricks of salt (pi or sali)
as a medium of exchange for smaller transactions, a practice that continued
for a long time. The Mughal rupee likely entered Assam through limited trade, but
it was not a legal tender or a widely circulated currency within
the Ahom kingdom. Verdict
for Assam: Not Widespread. The Mughal rupee was a foreign coin with
very limited circulation. The Ahom Kingdom successfully maintained its own
distinct currency and economic system. Summary
Map of the Rupee's Reach c. 1650:
In
conclusion, by 1650, the rupee was the currency of empire. Its use was
directly correlated with Mughal political and military control. It was
supreme in the north and east (Bengal), contested in the center (Deccan), and
marginal in the independent regions of the deep south and northeast (Assam). The
Mughals never used or issued paper currency. Their entire
monetary system was based on coinage, specifically minted coins
of gold, silver, and copper. Here's a detailed explanation of why: 1. A
Coin-Based Economy The Mughal
fiscal system was renowned for its vast and standardized coinage: Gold
Mohurs: Used for high-value transactions, ceremonial gifts, and
hoarding as treasure. Silver
Rupees: The primary currency for revenue collection, military pay,
and large-scale trade. The rupee's consistency and purity were a cornerstone
of the Mughal economy. Copper
Dams: The everyday currency for the masses, used in local markets
and for small transactions. This system
was highly effective and deeply entrenched in the economy. 2. Why No
Paper Money? Several Key Reasons The absence
of paper currency wasn't an oversight; it was a result of the economic,
technological, and cultural context of the time. Lack of a
Central Bank: The Mughals did not have a central banking institution
that could issue currency, manage its supply, and guarantee its value (a
concept known as fiat money). Paper money requires a high degree
of institutional trust that a piece of paper can be redeemed for something of
value. Intrinsic
Value of Coinage: A silver rupee was valuable precisely because
it was silver. Its metal content gave it intrinsic value,
which was recognized across the globe. Paper, on the other hand, had no
intrinsic value. The concept of trusting a government's promise on a piece of
paper was alien to the monetary thinking of the era. Technological
and Infrastructural Hurdles: Widespread paper currency requires: Advanced Printing: To prevent counterfeiting, which
would have been a massive problem. Complex Administration: A system to issue, regulate,
and replace notes. Cultural
and Practical Trust: People trusted tangible precious metals. A coin
could be weighed and tested for purity anywhere. A paper note would have been
viewed with deep suspicion by merchants, soldiers, and peasants alike. 3.
Precursors to Paper: The Hundi While they
didn't use paper currency, the Mughals and the wider Indian
merchant community did use a sophisticated financial instrument made of
paper: the Hundi. A Hundi was
a bill of exchange or a form of credit note. It was not
currency, but it performed some similar functions: A merchant in
Agra could deposit money with a banker (sahukar) and receive a hundi. He could then
send that hundi to his agent in Surat, who could present it
to the banker's correspondent there and receive the cash. This allowed
for the safe transfer of large sums of money over long distances without the
risk and hassle of transporting heavy coinage. The Key
Difference: A hundi was a specific instruction to
pay a specific person a specific sum. It was not a general-purpose,
circulating note that could be used to buy goods in a market like a rupee
coin could. The
Historical Turning Point The first
official paper rupees were introduced much later, as mentioned in the
previous answer, by: Private
European banks in the 18th century (like the Bank of Hindustan). The British
East India Company as it consolidated its power. Formally and
uniformly by the British Colonial Government with the Paper
Currency Act of 1861. In
summary, the Mughal Empire was a peak of metallic currency. The transition to
paper money was a later development, introduced by colonial rulers who had
the necessary banking structures and a different model of state-controlled
finance. |
|
Paper
currency became widespread in India in a gradual process that unfolded over
nearly a century, but if we must pinpoint a single period when it became
truly common for the public, it would be the early 20th century,
particularly after the 1910s. Here is a
timeline of its phased evolution from a limited instrument to a widespread
necessity: Phase 1:
The First Experiments (Late 18th - Early 19th Century) 1770s-1830s: The
first paper rupees were issued by private banks like the
Bank of Hindustan and Presidency Banks (the Bank of Bengal,
Bank of Bombay, and Bank of Madras). These notes were not legal tender and
were used primarily by European merchants, company officials, and for large
commercial transactions within the presidencies. They were not
widespread among the general public. Phase 2:
Government Monopoly and Slow Adoption (1861 - 1910) Paper
Currency Act of 1861: This was the foundational moment. The Act gave
the British colonial government a monopoly over issuing paper currency in
India to resolve the chaos of multiple issuers. The
Victoria Portrait Series (1860s-1900s): The first government notes
were introduced. However, their circulation was limited for several reasons: Public Mistrust: People were deeply accustomed to and
trusted metallic coins (silver rupees) which had intrinsic value. A piece of
paper was viewed with suspicion. Lack of Convenience: Early notes were large and
existed only in high denominations (like Rs. 10, Rs. 20, Rs. 50, Rs. 100, Rs.
500, Rs. 1000). The Rs. 5 note was only introduced in 1891, and
the Rs. 10 note in 1861. There was no small-denomination paper
money for everyday use. Limited Banking Reach: The vast majority of the
population lived in rural areas with no access to banks. Without banks to
dispense and accept notes, paper currency couldn't circulate widely. During this
phase, paper currency was largely confined to government transactions, large
trade, and use by the urban elite. Phase 3:
The Tipping Point - World War I and After (1910s-1930s) This period
was the true catalyst that made paper currency widespread. World War
I (1914-1918): The war put immense financial strain on Britain. To conserve
Britain's gold reserves, the Gold Standard was suspended in
India. This broke the direct link between the rupee and gold,
fundamentally changing the public's perception of money. The trust began to
shift from the metal itself to the promise of the government. The government printed more money to finance the war effort,
forcibly increasing the supply of notes in circulation. Introduction
of the One Rupee Note (1917): This was a revolutionary step. For the first time,
the government issued a small-denomination note that could be used for daily
transactions. Initially introduced as a war measure, it continued afterward,
bringing paper currency into the reach of the common person. The Great
Depression (1930s): Economic turmoil and a collapse in prices further eroded public
confidence and increased the practicality of using state-backed paper money. By the end of
the 1930s, paper rupees (especially the Rs. 1, 2.5, 5, and 10 notes) had
become a common sight in both urban and, to a growing extent, rural markets. Phase 4:
Consolidation and Universality (Post-1947 Independence) Independence
(1947): The new Indian government continued and expanded the
existing paper currency system. Reserve
Bank of India as Sole Issuer (1935 onward): The RBI, established in
1935, took over note issuance and actively managed the money supply, further
cementing the legitimacy and ubiquity of paper currency. Banking
Expansion: Post-independence, the nationalization of banks and the
expansion of banking networks into rural areas in the 1960s and 70s finally
brought the entire population into the fold of the formal monetary system,
making paper currency universal. Summary Introduced: 1861
(Government monopoly) Became
Practical for the Public: 1917 (with the One Rupee note) Became
Widespread: 1920s-1930s, driven by WWI economic policies and
the introduction of small denominations. Became
Universal: Post-1947, especially after the expansion of the banking
system. Therefore,
while the legal framework was created in 1861, it took the economic shocks of
World War I and the practical step of issuing a one-rupee note to make paper
currency a truly widespread feature of everyday life in India. |
|
the British did create a bond
market in India, and it was a cornerstone of their colonial financial system. The creation and evolution of
this market happened in distinct phases, driven primarily by the British
government's need to finance its activities in India. The Short Answer The British bond market in India
was formally created with the establishment of the Public Debt Office
(PDO) in Calcutta in 1843. However, the practice of issuing debt in India
began much earlier, with the first major British Indian bond issued
by the East India Company in 1770. The Detailed Timeline and
Reasons Here’s a breakdown of the key
phases: Phase 1: The East India Company
Era (Pre-1858) - The Genesis When: The first significant debt
issuance is traced to 1770. Why: Financing
War and Expansion: The
East India Company was constantly engaged in wars of conquest (e.g., against
the Marathas, Mysore). These were incredibly expensive, and funds from
Britain were slow and insufficient. Managing
Cash Flow: The
Company's revenue from land tax (the primary source) was seasonal, but its
military and administrative expenses were constant. They needed a way to
smooth out cash flow. The Bengal
Famine (1770): This
catastrophe depleted the Company's treasury, creating a desperate need for
funds. How it Worked: The Company started
issuing securities, known as "Company's Paper," which
were essentially promissory notes or bonds. These were sold primarily to: European
officials and officers in
India who had accumulated wealth. Wealthy
Indian merchants and bankers (sahukars) in cities like Calcutta and Bombay. British
investors in London (through
the Court of Directors). This was the nascent, informal
beginning of the bond market. Phase 2: Formalization and the
"Public Debt of India" (Post-1858) After the Indian Rebellion of
1857, the British Crown took direct control of India from the East India
Company in 1858. This led to the formalization of the debt. Key Institution: The Public Debt
Office (PDO) Established
in 1843 in Calcutta, its role became crucial after 1858. The PDO was
responsible for the issuance, servicing (paying interest), and management of
all government debt. It created a centralized and trustworthy system for
handling bonds. Why the Market Expanded
Dramatically: Infrastructure
Financing (The "Railway Boom"): This was the single biggest driver. The
British built a massive railway network across India, primarily to move
troops quickly and transport raw materials (like cotton and jute) to ports
for export to Britain. These projects were financed largely by issuing "Railway
Bonds." Financing
Colonial Administration: The day-to-day running of the vast Indian administration
was expensive. When tax revenues fell short, the government covered the
deficit by issuing bonds. Creating a
"Safe" Investment for Europeans in India: The British government
guaranteed the bonds, making them a very safe and attractive investment for
Europeans living in India, as well as for British capital looking for secure
returns from the colonies. World War I
(1914-1918): The
British Indian government issued massive amounts of debt, known as "War
Loans," to fund its contribution to the British war effort.
Indians were actively encouraged to buy these bonds to demonstrate their
loyalty to the Empire. The "Why" - The
Colonial Motives The creation of the bond market
was not for the development of India's domestic capital market. It was a tool
for colonial extraction and control: Revenue Extraction: It was a mechanism to
raise money within India to pay for the very structure that
ruled and exploited it. Indians were effectively lending money to their
rulers to fund their own subjugation. Transferring Wealth to Britain: A significant portion of
the debt raised in India was used to pay the "Home Charges" –
a massive annual payment made to the British Treasury in London to cover
pensions for British officials in India, interest on debts held in Britain,
and the cost of purchasing British goods for the Indian government. Serving Imperial Interests: The infrastructure built
with this debt (like railways) was designed to serve British economic and
military interests, not to integrate the Indian economy for its own benefit. Summary: Key Dates ~1770: First major British Indian
bond issued by the East India Company to fund wars and cover deficits. 1843: Public Debt Office
(PDO) established in Calcutta, marking the formal beginning of a
managed bond market. 1858 onwards: The "Public Debt of
India" is formally recognized under the British Crown. The bond market
expands rapidly to fund railways and administration. 1914-1918: World War I leads
to massive issuance of "War Loans," deeply entrenching government
bonds in the financial system. In conclusion, the British did
not create a bond market to foster Indian financial development. They created
it as a fiscal tool of the colonial state—a highly effective
system for raising capital from India for the
purposes of governing, exploiting, and shaping India to serve the British
Empire. This legacy, however, provided the institutional framework for the
Government Securities (G-Sec) market that the Reserve Bank of India manages
today. |
The Stubborn Cling to Metal and the Lag in Financial
Thought
The most telling evidence of this institutional lag was the
agonizingly slow adoption of paper currency. The technology of papermaking and
printing was sufficiently advanced by the mid-19th century. The real obstacle
was a deep-seated intellectual and cultural conservatism. The public's
"deep-seated and almost superstitious reverence for metallic money,"
noted by official James Wilson, was mirrored by a lack of visionary
leadership to champion the strategic advantage of a sovereign fiat currency
(7).
Why did India, with its sophisticated credit instruments,
lag so far behind? The answer lies in a failure of financial imagination. As
economic historian G. Balachandran asserts, "The colonial
state had no interest in educating the public on the virtues of paper money;
its goal was fiscal stability for its own purposes, not financial modernization
for India's sake" (8). This contrasts sharply with the mercantilist
policies of European nations, which saw a managed currency as a tool of state
power. In India, the state's thinking was reactive and extractive, not
developmental. The introduction of the one-rupee note in 1917 was less a
visionary policy and more a desperate wartime measure, finally forcing a
technology the system had been ready for for decades. This chronic delay,
as David Landes might have generalized, is a classic symptom
of a society where the institutional and intellectual drivers of change are
absent or suppressed (9).
Sovereign India: The Struggle to Overcome a Colonial
Legacy
The tragedy of independent India was that it inherited a
financial system designed to hold it back. The nationalization of banks in 1969
was a direct, forceful response to this legacy. It was an attempt to use state
power to correct a historic institutional failure. As Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi declared, it was a move to "replace the closed, club-like system of
credit that served a privileged few with one that would actively fund a
nation's development" (10).
However, this too came with its own costs, creating a
bureaucracy that later stifled innovation. The 1991 reforms, as architect Montek
Singh Ahluwalia reflected, were essentially about "dismantling
the license-permit Raj and creating the institutional framework for a modern,
competitive market economy—a framework that should have been built over the
preceding century" (11). The digital revolution in finance, epitomized by
UPI, is perhaps the first time since the era of the hundi that
India is leading in financial innovation. Yet, it too operates within a system
still grappling with the deep-seated institutional weaknesses—bureaucratic
inertia, legacy bad debts in public sector banks—that are, in part, the long
shadow of a history that failed to prioritize resilient, forward-looking
financial institutions.
Reflection
The central critique of India's financial history is a story
of a profound institutional deficit. The pre-colonial world possessed the tools
but not the vision to create impersonal, scalable financial institutions. This
left it exquisitely vulnerable to a colonial power whose vision was sharp, but
narrowly focused on extraction. The British did not merely exploit India's
resources; they exploited its institutional void, building a financial
architecture that was sophisticated in its own right, but parasitic by design.
It was forward-thinking for the purpose of backwardness, ensuring India would
be a producer of raw materials and a consumer of manufactured goods, its
capital markets and currency policy rigged against its own industrial ascent.
This historical lag explains the ferocious urgency of
post-independence policy. The nationalization of banks was not mere socialism;
it was a desperate attempt to forge in a single generation the developmental
financial institutions that a century of colonial rule had actively prevented.
The state stepped in precisely because no other viable, large-scale
institutional framework existed. The criticism of this move for its
inefficiency must be balanced against the sheer scale of the institutional
failure it sought to correct.
The 1991 liberalization was the next logical step—an
admission that state-owned leviathans, while achieving mass banking, had failed
to generate the innovative, efficient capital allocation needed for global
competitiveness. It was an attempt to finally import and foster the
institutional ethos of a modern capital market.
The lesson is stark: financial systems are not neutral. They
are concrete manifestations of power and purpose. A nation without a sovereign,
forward-looking financial architecture is a nation without economic
sovereignty. India's history demonstrates that commercial ingenuity is not
enough. Without the concomitant development of resilient, evolving
institutions—central banks, robust equity and debt markets, and a legal
framework that enables trust to scale beyond personal networks—a society risks
having its economic destiny shaped by others, for their own ends. The challenge
for India's future is to build institutions that are not only strong but also
agile, capable of anticipating the next financial revolution rather than
lagging decades behind it.
References
Keay, J. (2000). India: A History. Harper Press.
Roy, T. (2012). *The Economic History of India
1857-1947*. Oxford University Press.
Jain, L.C. (1990). Indigenous Banking in India.
Macmillan.
Ambirajan, S. (1977). Classical Political Economy
and British Policy in India. Cambridge University Press.
Keynes, J.M. (1913). Indian Currency and Finance.
Macmillan and Co.
Misra, M. (2008). Vishnu's Crowded Temple: India
Since the Great Rebellion. Yale University Press.
Wilson, J. (1860). Memorandum on the Introduction of
a Paper Currency into India.
Balachandran, G. (2008). *India and the World Economy
1850-1950*. Oxford University Press.
Landes, D.S. (1998). The Wealth and Poverty of
Nations. W.W. Norton & Company.
Gandhi, I. (1969). Speech on the Nationalisation of
Banks.
Ahluwalia, M.S. (2019). Backstage: The Story Behind
India's High Growth Years. Rupa Publications.
Comments
Post a Comment