""India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was characterised by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership

""India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was characterised by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow growth.[12][13][14][15] Since 1991, continuing economic liberalisation has moved the economy towards a market-based system." I didn't know what year it ended until I saw that piece (1991), but I did know some of Indian economic history from the withdrawl of the British to the late 1970's, because I studied it in contrast to the Japanese. India had a larger population, more capital, more natural resources, and Japan became a world power from ruins while India languished. Why is that? It was because of modern mercantalism and protectionism. Modern machinery and industrial techniques were actually banned to protect traditional industry - thus the Japanese output-per-worker was 30 times higher. Yes, 30 times higher. India also severely restricted foreign investment." A couple of subtle errors here. (1) India didn't do well compared to the Japanese in the period 1947 to 1990. This doesn't prove that India didn't improve from its colonial days. If you have any evidence for India's econmoy declining from its colonial days till the 90's (vs not growing as sharply as the Japanese economy), let us see it. (2) Let us look at the first five year plan initiated just after independence. (From wikipedia) "First plan (1951-1956) The first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru presented the first five-year plan to the Parliament of India on December 8, 1951. The first plan sought to get the country's economy out of the cycle of poverty. The plan addressed, mainly, the agrarian sector, including investments in dams and irrigation. The agricultural sector was hit hardest by partition and needed urgent attention.[1] The total plan budget of 206.8 billion INR (23.6 billion USD in the 1950 exchange rate) was allocated to seven broad areas: irrigation and energy (27.2 percent), agriculture and community development (17.4 percent), transport and communications (24 percent), industry (8.4 percent), social services (16.64 percent), land rehabilitation (4.1 percent), and other (2.5 percent).[2] The target growth rate was 2.1 percent annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth; the achieved growth rate was 3.6 percent. During the first five-year plan the net domestic product went up by 15 percent. The monsoon was good and there were relatively high crop yields, boosting exchange reserves and the per capita income, which increased by 8 percent. National income increased more than the per capita income due to rapid population growth. Many irrigation projects were initiated during this period, including the Bhakra Dam and Hirakud Dam. The World Health Organization, with the Indian government, addressed children's health and reduced infant mortality, indirectly contributing to population growth. At the end of the plan period in 1956, five Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) were started as major technical institutions. University Grant Commission was set up to take care of funding and take measures to strengthen the higher education in the country.[3]" Does any of that spell "decline" to you ? This was just 9 years after Independence. Did India not progress as fast as the japanese? of course she didn't. But did India do better than under British rule? Of course she did. More errors. " Before that, people of any caste were eligible to join Indian regimes of the British Armed Forces and join the civil service." This is completely wrong. The British targeted specific warrior castes and upper castes (besides muslims) and did not have an "anybody can join the army" policy (except in WW1 where massive losses on the Western Front made them grateful for any warm body willing to join). Pre independence, the Civil Service did have a (very very) few exceptional lower caste people(like Ambedkar) but by and large was almost completely upper caste during colonial rule. It is after independence that people of any caste could join (though there was unoffical discrimination). A policy of reservations was brought in and since then we have had lower caste Indians at the highest levels. More importantly and the situation is getting better every day and was so well before 1990 . How is any of this "decline from the days of colonialization"? "Economic mobility was much higher under British rule than post-British rule for the next 50 years." Rubbish. Show me a few lower caste industrialists/statesmen/diplomats from the British days. I can show you dozens post independence. Economic mobility increased post independence(again relative to colonial rule, not relative to teh japanese!). You are saying this "Well, I didn't say all British colonies declined, but yes, India did decline in economy, safety, sanitation, and infrastructure after British withdrawal, only starting to turn it around in the 1980's. " This is completely incorrect. All the evidence you have is that India didn't progress as fast as the Japanese. This is a very different proposition from India declining from pre colonial levels. There was a massive increase in economy, safety , health, sanitation and infrastructure from the British days (though growth was MUCH slower than Japan certainly). "But I digress, when I critique the policy of India from 1950-1990, it's a critique of a shoddy government of bureaucrats" That still doesn't explain the fact that while the bureaucrats did slow down Idnia's growth relative to other nations, they were much better than British colonizers. If you are caliming that their polciies stopped India from growing as fast as it could have, sure that is valid. But to claim that they drove prosperity below pre independence days is flatly untrue. and that was the point I opposed. PS: I apologize for calling you an idiot. It isn't so much that I am some kind of defender of all thinsg Indian (I am fairly critical of my country) but I get irritated when people pontiicate about what they know very little about. Bad trait and it is totally my fault not yours. If you ever happen to cme to Bangalore, beer is on me. PPS: My favorite Mughal emperor is Akbar, not Shah Jahan. I think SJ was a bit of a wuss.