alternatehistory.com

Okay, it's pretty well established that the Indian National Congress's economic policies were a disaster for India; no rapid private development; no rapid development in education, healthcare, etc. Stacked up against the Phillippines, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Japan... basically, most of the other nations in Asia, India's economic record is pretty poor.

A good deal of the blame can be placed upon the Indian economic system, dubbed the License Raj by its foes. India's mixed economy combined a sclerotic state structure with a web of restrictions on private industry. The rest, of course, is history.

Now, turning to a related tangent, the Partition. IMO it wasn't inevitable as late as the 1940s; Jinnah kept his description of Pakistan purposely vague until very late in the game, and I think a series of autonomous provinces might have been sufficient. (This was basically what Britain wanted for India in the 1930s). Keeping India and Pakistan united would have some beneficial effects; avoiding the worst of the Partition, possibly reducing tensions, letting both cut back on military spending. My guess is the savings are eaten up by graft and corruption, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, the sclerotic policies of India's government in such a confederation are interesting. IMO the Fabian socialism of Nehru was too strong to replace; but by the 1950s, there were people who had recognized that the policies weren't working, notably the Chief Minister of Bombay, Morarji Desai. (Indeed, Bombay managed to acquire a school of economists who recognized what a disaster socialism was turning out to be). In an India with greater autonomy for the provinces, I could see Bombay or Calcutta's elite backing greater openness, foreign investment, and special economic zones.

Thoughts?
Top