I agree, a lot of economic woes go back to the Nehruvian Socialism, but could that be the whole sole problem, what if India had been on the right of center on economic policies right from the start, and where do factor in the population in all this?
I take Nehruvian Socialism as a part of the problem, India was engulfed in a lot of turmoil back in days after independence, the fear of the 'unknown foreigner' persisted, BJP and the left as late as 2013 debated this fear and psyched up people when the FDI in retail was being discussed, and people echoed, shouting the re-emergence of the East India Company, on this very forum, some very well educated, and excellent debaters were taken in by the sentiment, now imagine the complexities back in those days when the lala, the private investor and the foreigner were seen in no different light, and a population that was 80% illiterate and those literate, hardly understood the A of economics, more importantly, the extremist left trying to grab power. I believe, a line somewhere had to be drawn, and Nehru took the middle path, neither here not there, a typical of Indian mindset, and not as much a typical of Nehru, of course this later was to be associated with him alone.
I do not as much blame Nehru, as I do Indira. This lady had all going for her, and all she did, she brought in more regressive economic policies, and it was during her time, the left seized the power in West Bengal, which further pulled India back. The common theme became the unions, and her reaction to it was violent initially, and then become a part of the process, this lady ruined India the most, economically. The concept of elitism was developed in her era, corruption seeped into the system deep in her time, grab the power at any cost was introduced by her, and in doing all this, when India should have moved to the right on economic policies, she took us more to the left, and by then the second socialist generation was developing ideas, and they were being fed more socialism. India's think tank literally became the JNU in Delhi, and this was the time when your average to top bureaucrat had to be a JNU pass out, and now not only did we have a regressive leader at the top, but a complete body of bureaucracy that was left leaning but elitist.
Of all the Gandhis, one who was really keen on shaping a new India, was Rajiv, made a decent start but succumbed to the antics of power all too soon, nor did he ever get a second chance.
Population has to be a factored in, and the beliefs of the population. Can you enlighten a crude mindset overnight, only a miracle would do, no man can! Our population was no different, and a decent part, still is. Nehru was no miracle man. We were a deeply casteist society, and had fixated minds on who would do what, nor would people be ready to work with any and everyone. To shake up this mindset, it would have meant time, and so more blame heads Indira's way, for she was sitting on the luxury of time, her dad never had. We hardly fared well in education, and thankfully, because of Nehru, we had top level educational facility, whatever was of it. The other, this was a struggling class, looking for secured jobs, that provided them security, would these people have taken to private jobs as easily, do not forget, even today a private job is not as highly looked up to as is a "secured" government job in India.
Over population is a concern, and when you singularly look at it, yes Nehru comes off as a villian. The most simple answer seems be on the right of center for economic policies, and all would have been fixed with India being a thriving society. Fair enough but for this Nehru or any leader at the helm of affairs would have to be an out right authoritarian, where no opposition would have been tolerated, a very strong military ready to toe state's and the leader's ideology, and basically shape up the country as this leader would have wanted, and yes I agree, a lot of nonsense in this country is because there is too much freedom, and this freedom is taken for granted by one and all! But look at the bigger picture, would we have been able to sustain even as a nation, let alone think about economic policies? Would a South Indian or a North Eastern have taken to the dictates of a North Indian of vice-versa on cultural issues, because an authoritarian would have flirted with all the issues and tried and make them his way!
Imagine if Modi would have happened to India a couple of decades ago, would the Indians have taken to him as he has been now? Would his economic policies have had as much sway? I do not think so. Things and situations evolve. May be we would have had huge economic development by now, but we would have been debating freedom, cursing, having moved from the Mugals to the Brits to a dictator!
.
