Three major races

British Empire left behind some semblance of a civil service and ruling class, since the Raj made use of the locals extensively in administrating India.

kek, not at all.

The upper class elite adopted mostly socialist and protectionist policies that inhibited the country's economy up until the 1980s. Funnily enough the right-wing populist party that caters to retarded hicks were the ones to liberalise the economy and allow it to grow to the heights it's reached today.

>le British civilized the Indians meme

kys my man, pick up a history book.

>post-colonial countries in asia and africa are struggling.
I dont know any asian country struggling as much as african countries
Also India wasnt tribal like africa, and the nation was almost united completely while fighting for independence for so long.

Not what he said. The Indians have of course been civilised for thousands of years, however the British were the ones who put in place the non-partisan civil bureaucracy needed to run such a vast country, previous attempts to unify had always run on the basis of supremecism of a single religion or tribe over the others.

>when you realize that rajiv gandhi was a right wing bhakt
this board is full of retards.

Sheeeeit! Brazil have more than 200 million people.

>three major races
Na.. If you leave extreme north-east and Northwest people on average looks same.
>hundreds of identifiable ethnicities
You can't guess ethnicities just by looking.
>6 major religions each numbering in tens of millions
2 major major religions dharmic and Islam rest were converted.
>22 official languages and hundreds of dialects
75% people can read and understands hindi. Hindi is like modern sanskrit and minor languages shares similarities like telugu and Kansas, hindi and urdu, assami and bengali, Tamil and Malayalam etc and there is English.
>huge societal and economic disparities
Ok
>1.3 billion population
That means means people are interrelated.
>pic related
India is like a pomegranate. It has layers to separate people. India has natural boundaries like ocean in South, himalyas in North and indus in South West. That means humans who migrated into India are numerically more than people enterd after at any point of time. Proto indo European is myth.

I am rooting for them to succeed, honestly.

Almost none of these nations have serious calls for independece. Indian nationalism is a thing and is not based on language or ethnicity, all those people consider themselves Indian despite speaking a different language.

A multiethnic state is only a problem if ethnic groups develop their own nationalisms.

India is tribal in some regards (Millions of indians are still traditional nomads.) but they have a history of compromising people in a good way it seems.

>le ebil socialism meme
I'm pretty sure Nehru caused a substantial increase in things like literacy and education. Also, Kerala is probably the most historically socialist part of India, and they lead the country in many social and economic indicators.

But he's right.
The main reason India is developing at all is due to them having decent economist thought which took the country to a more capitalist model.

there are millions of indians doing any given thing under the sun.

Imperialism united them. The middle east wouldn't be a shithole today if the Ottoman empire was left untouched. Africa wouldn't have been wracked by decades of guerrilla warfare and when it decolonized it would end up with a state more like India's.

Imperialism and colonialism are only scolded so heavily today because we have grown naive with our peaceful democracies and police ready to leap into action and save us at the press of 3 buttons. Between a patchwork of warlords and 1 imperialist overlord, the latter is the lesser evil. Unless you're naive or think being good means making Kierkegaardian leaps of faith of course, but that's another debate, back in the real world your dreams will crumble and you will accomplish nothing.

It is incredibly naive to think the warlord will be more compassionate because he is a native, in reality his ethnicity just makes good propaganda and makes it easier for him to be a kleptocratic fuckwad and send the nation's surplus to a swiss bank account. At least the imperialist ensured stability and encouraged investment from the motherland in his dominion.

The British left behind a civil society and infrastructure that was far more intact and natively populated. Made the transition easier. It should be noted that the indian subcontinent had thousands of years worth of civilizations, kingdoms and empires whereas in places like Africa, much of that was made from scratch in the 19th and 20th centuries.

A soft argument would be that their culture and religions had a sort of deference to upper caste elite that lend itself well to stability.

Plus right on the get go they had a national enemy to unite their hatred, pakistan.

> The middle east wouldn't be a shithole today if the Ottoman empire was left untouched
Ottoman empire crumbled from its own policies not because of others meddling in its affairs. Like other empires it had run its course, in fact it did quite well lasting 500 years

I don't agree with your statement that Africa would end up like India because they share nothing in common apart from having a shitload of people.

I agree with the rest of your post though

Decentralization of power

English + British Raj

>Funnily enough the right-wing populist party

BJP is not Congress. And it was Congress in power during the reform era 1984-1992.

>2 major major religions dharmic and Islam rest were converted.
Dharma isn't a religion. It's a name for a grouping of religions, folk practices, superstitions and philosophies. If you brought Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism under the title of a single religion it would be less diverse than Dharma.

>Proto indo European is myth.
Tell that to the linguistic and religious debt India has to them.

>all those people consider themselves Indian
Kashmiris?

Never say "all" when you are clearly ignorant on the situation.

>I didn't said dharma is religiin. I said dharmic religions. All of them share common core point that is control your senses and don't fall for desires.
India and Iran linguistically related just like any neighboring lands. But white skin obsessed Europeans applied logic some x is y and some y is Z so x is related to Z. PIE is a house of cards carefully build by racist linguists

>>I didn't said dharma is religiin. I said dharmic religions.
>2 major major religions dharmic and Islam
You clearly said that Dharmic was a religion right here. If you were doing what you said you were doing you would have said something like there is only Islam and the Dharmic religions, which you did not. You literally said there are only two major religions.

>All of them share common core point that is control your senses and don't fall for desires.
No they don't. It is impossible to find a thread that unite all the various belief systems. You can find common elements among many but not all. It's hard to find anything that unites monotheists, atheists, pagans, pantheists, non-systematic local folk practices, under a single term

>India and Iran linguistically related just like any neighboring lands.
Yea because England and Spain are neighboring lands to India. There is no a single person in academia who doubts the existence of the IE people. The linguistic proof is incontrovertible. It's not just Iran and India. It's almost all of Europe, swaths of places current and former of the middle east and northern India. They didn't just become syntactically and vocabularily related by osmosis.

If you want to see difference in thickness of hair everything is diverse.
We are attached to common points in our religious not differences. The only religion which differ among our native religions is Islam.

>The only religion which differ among our native religions is Islam.
>Islam
>Native to India

>If you want to see difference in thickness of hair everything is diverse.
What a bullshit answer. You could use this is make everything that ever existed ever similar if you wanted. You could literally have two people who fall under a Dharmic religion who believe completely opposite things, and do not share a single religious idea in common. Considering the enormous diversity of belief in practices in Dharmic religions for you to say that they are similar is the same as saying that Greco-Roman paganism is similar to Christianity, that the Christian imperialists were pretty similar to the totemists of conquered peoples, and the kicker being that Islam is similar to many of the Dharmic religions. The only reason Islam is considered seperate from them is that the idea of some sort of shared family of traditions arose as a juxtaposition of a foreign invading power, it has nothing to do with the quality of the religion itself.

All of this is besides the point anyway. You clearly said that India only has two religions. You tried to pretend that you didn't but as I quoted you before as saying that is literally what you said.

Constitution of India grouped all dharmic religions under Hinduism. I don't you are any more intelligent than our constitution writers who knows 4 languages apart from their own.

Hinduism isn't a religion, at least clearly not in the sense of what we are talking about. It is a name that denotes a vague set of religions, folk practices and beliefs that are native to, or are very ancient in India. The word Hinduism is similar to a parent term like Abrahamic. We can call Christians, Muslims and Jews all Abrahamic but that does not mean they are all of the same religion.

You are literally saying you are happy for atheism to be counted as part of a religion with Shaivism. Do you know how stupid that is?

If Harry Potter is written in India some 1000 years back we could have worship his Idol now. You are seeing the branches and I'm mentioning roots. Shivism and visnavism are different aspects of God .. All sects in Hinduism accepts vedas, avatars and karma and all dharmic religions accepts karma and reincarnation. Grouping abrahmic religions not correct because they hate each want to finish off either. But it's correct to group dharmic religions because they accept each other.

Infrastructure