The subject of Indian national income has generated partisanship and controversy. As Daniel Thorner has remarked, where can one find a more dramatic presentation of conclusions than that of William Digby, who had imprinted in gold on the spine of his book the per capita income of ‘Prosperous’ British India in 1850 as 2d, 1882 at ½d, and 1900 as less than ¾d? And Digby's adversaries were persons of moment like Lord Curzon of Kedleston who had claimed that per capita income in India had risen between 1880 and 1900. And when his claims were attacked, Curzon could fall back on reliable statistical studies, to take on the likes of Digby; such a confrontation took place between Fred T. Atkinson, allegedly Curzon's man, and Digby at the 1902 meeting of the Royal Statistical Society, where Digby was asked to comment on Atkinson's paper which confirmed Curzon's claim. As one of the observers of the session noted, ‘…. rarely that they had the extreme views on both sides of the question presented so clearly and fully as they had been on that occasion. Both sides had adopted more of a tone of advocacy than they were accustomed to in that room, both in the treatment and criticism of the paper’.

While the temper of this controversy has long since subsided, many of the questions raised are important and remain unanswered. One question concerning many students of India was its level of income relative to England.