I would argue that India's present success is in spite of the government, not because of it. The sectors that have seen the most success in India, namely the telecom, IT and services industries, were also those that were the least regulated (because our politicians weren't smart enough to even begin to comprehend technology to regulate it before it really took off in a big way).
As for the being a nation state part, sometimes I think we would have been better off in an EU type situation rather than being one large entity.
> As for the being a nation state part, sometimes I think we would have been better off in an EU type situation rather than being one large entity.
I have the same idea. But I'm not very sure about it, specially because our divide has been the main cause of Britishers colonizing us. An united single state gives us much more resources to function properly and defend our interest against neighbors like Pakistan & China.
I could be wrong though, as EU seems to be a good example of governance
> specially because our divide has been the main cause of Britishers colonizing us
This is just plainly false. Ask any serious student of history, and he will tell you that most of India has very little in common with each other. There are at least 4 major groups of languages (groups, not counting the myriad dialects), differing opinions on laws, clothing and even food. India was never a nation before the Britishers consolidated power over present day India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan, and made it one.
As for the being a nation state part, sometimes I think we would have been better off in an EU type situation rather than being one large entity.