Arthasastra and Thirukural were pointed out as sources of information to rebut the notion that ancient Indian society prized renunciation over (economic)activity not claimed to be books on economics (not economic science, which is an oxymoron). You are wedded to von Mises and Hayek from LSE, while Nehru was wedded to Harold Laski and Fabian socialism from LSE. Lee Kuan Yew was a Fabian socialist who later gave it up and made Singapore prosperous. At one end of the continuum is laissez-faire and at the other end is complete control like the USSR communist variety. Most countries including India operate some where in the middle along that continuum. As Deng Xiaoping said, 'It does not matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse'. We need to be pragmatic and evolve models that work for us in India and not be wedded to ideologies and if that means learning from other's experiences, including the west, that is perfectly fine. But if you want to blame India's slow economic growth on a philosophy, it would not be any native philosophy, but a western philosophy, namely Fabian socialism. In fact I would argue, that we are yet to let our native genius flourish, which is made harder by people like you, who even question the existence of native economic philosophies, disregarding the fact that we have had many prosperous kingdoms since antiquity.