At Bloomberg View Tyler Cowen has a post on the role of British rule in India’s lagging economic development:
Another way to make the historical comparison is to consider which Southeast Asian economy never fell under colonial rule. That would be Thailand, which has a per capita income in the range of $16,300 by World Bank estimates, compared with India’s $6,100. Again, that single comparison is not dispositive, but it hardly favors the British record in India. If you are looking for the upside of British colonialism, you are more likely to find it in the wealthier and better-treated Singapore or Malaysia.
I wish he supplied more specifics. What he presents are hints and third stage observations but not much else.
What I have observed is that former colonies are all undercapitalized and the longer they were colonies the worse that condition is. That’s not just true for India. It’s true for Greece which was a harshly-treated colony of the Ottoman Empire for most of a half millennium. Or Canada.
And I think it stands to reason. Why do countries have colonies? And how do they treat them?
Colonialization isn’t India’s only problem, however. In addition to the lingering effects of colonialism it has ethnic and sectarian factionalism and colossal mismanagement since independence. What’s amazing is that India’s doing as well as it is.
The main Indian problem is its large very low IQ population. Gross incompetence pervades the Indian economy, even critical areas like military procurement.