What is the reason for the under development of India?

Question

As many of them know, Japan suffered a huge loss during the second world war. When compared to India at that stage, Japan was a poor country. But during these years, it has developed so much that it makes India to look like a poor country. Similarly Malaysia and Singapore and such other country was also once under developed than India. But in today's economy, a average salary of a citizen of either country, exceeds the average salary of an Indian by atleast 10% . These countries seem more like a rich country, but in reality India is the rich country in every aspect. But it doesn't appear so. What do you think is the reason for this? What do you suggest to make India a wealthy, fully-developed country?

Answer 1

Very simple. In all the countries which have grown very fast, like Japan, the people are highly Nationalistic, and take pride in being a citizen of that country. Not so in India. In India, every individual thinks that the responsibility of building the country lies only in the Government - not with the individual. A small example; people throw trash wherever they wish, and blame the government for the lack of cleanliness - despite all this India has made significant advancement in many sectors. If only all the individuals realised their responsibility, India could certainly be highly developed.

Answer 2

Comparing India with China or Japan isn't a very good idea as India got independence only much later. The reason why India never got a high amount of growth was because we modelled our economy on the russian economy and kept the doors to globalization shut until 1991. Its only after that have we got economic growth in the country. As far as making India developed, we need to concentrate on basic infrastructure such as electricity, water and roads, thats where we are lacking the most... And of course, it will help if we have citizens with more civic sense

Answer 3

Japan had been an empire since the late 19th century; India had been subjected to colonial rule for centuries, be it by Portuguese traders on the coast, British companies affiliated with princes or the Raj. Comparing the two just isn't a good comparison.

As for the underdevelopment, it might have something to do with the high population, regional linguistic disparities, variety in geography, inequitable wealth distribution, the caste system and rapid growth. And the decades of central planning followed by a full liberalization kinda threw it on a developmental path that differed from other states.