India, Sept. 27 -- Modern Indian nationalism has, from its earliest days, been built on three pillars - political freedom, social reform, and economic development. The long history of the ideas that helped craft the third pillar has faded away from public memory. This is unfortunate,especially at a time when the old economic consensus is splintering. Countries are trying to figureout alternative paths that are alignedto their specific circumstances, allagainst the backdrop of seismic changesin the global order. Shining a light on the past may helpilluminate the way forward. That is trueof India as well. Cut to 1892. The jurist, public intellectual and social reformer Mahadev Govind Ranade gave a speech in Pune on the principles of Indian political economy. He challenged the claim that economic ideas have universal applicability, adding that the lessons from one country cannot automatically be transplanted on to another without understanding the realities of the latter. Ranade then listed out some of therealities that Indian economics wouldhave to adapt to. Social life was dominated by status rather than contract. Labourwas abundant but unskilled. Capitalwas scarce as well as wary of taking risks. Cooperation between labour and capital on a large scale was scarce. The economic lives of the large majority were hostage to erratic monsoons. The traditional institutions of Indian society favored the division rather than the consolidation of wealth. Religioustradition looked down upon the pursuit of wealth. Any strategy for India's economic transformation hadto recognise these facts. Much has changed since then - and so has Indian economic policy. It has had to adapt as the country transitioned from being a colony to an independent nation-State to an emerging global power. Each era solved some problemswhile seeding new ones. The ideas thatpowered the shifts in policy regimesover these eras came from a stellar castof economists, political leaders, civilservants, businessmen, farmers, trade unionists, and public intellectuals. There have been decision-makers as well as dissenters. Indian economics has thus been a flowing conversation rather than a frozen orthodoxy immune from change. Naturally, these shifts in economic thinking were not smooth affairs. There were intense debates at every point in time. Should India focus on building a new industrial economy or try to revive the traditional economy where the vast majority toiled? What role should the State play in the economic transformation of a country with a vast private sector? How should India engage with the world economy even as it builds domestic capacity? How does one measure the size of the economy, the extent of poverty, and the living standards of people? Can the quest for economic development be divorced from the risk of ecological destruction? What economic principles should be embedded in the Indian Constitution? Many of these questions linger in public debate even today.Each has had a profound impact on the course of Indian history after 1870, when DadabhaiNaoroji read his paper in front of a London audience on how British rule was further impoverishing Indians. Others followed, not just with sharpcritiques of existing policies but alsowith road maps for the way forward, aconstructive approach that went beyond listing out problems. The result is a rich repository of ideas that has shaped modern India, in good ways and bad, and which can inform our present as well. The main characters in the long storyof Indian economics include manywhose names are still recognised by most modern readers. And then there are the greats of the past who have slipped away from public memory. Among these are Jehangir Coyajee, BP Adarkar, HL Dey, Radhakamal Mukherjee, VG Kale, JK Mehta, PJ Thomas, Gyan Chand, RK Hazari, ML Dantwala, Hannan Ezekiel and BS Minhas, for example. They deserve to be read again today. It is the same with political leaders. The economic views of the men who held power over the decades is known, but less so with others such as Madan Mohan Malaviya, Lala Lajpat Rai, Hridaynath Kunzru, Charan Singh, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Ram Manohar Lohia, HM Patel and Sharad Joshi. BR Ambedkar occupies a unique place in this constellation, as a scholarly economist as well as a political leader. The Indians who engaged seriously with the economic challenges facing the country did so for four big reasons that spanned human dignity, national unity, geopolitical heft, and social mobility. First, a higher national incomewould help Indians lead their lives onfirm ground rather than flailing in the quicksand of poverty. Second, a modern economy would promote economic integration which, in turn, many national leaders saw as a key catalyst for political integration. Third, economic strength would allow India to protect its political autonomy in a troubled world. Fourth, economic dynamism would help reduces the layers of traditional privilege that denied opportunities to millions based on their gender, caste, and region. The men and women who wrestled with the big questions of Indian economics were not infallible, but their successes as well as failures have much to teach us. They often anticipated dilemmas that India still faces. To forget them is to lose a usable past. As the world searches for neweconomic paths, India would do well tofirst engage with its own forgotten archive of economic ideas, not to copy blindlyfrom it but as a source of inspiration onhow to think about our challenges....