When the British left India, there was officially a transfer of power to the congress party. The first prime minister was appointed by the party. The constitution, the police, the bureaucracy and the court system was inherited by the people.
Unlike the developed world or China or Vietnam, India did not go through a bloody revolution. What that meant is that systems that were explicitly meant to harass and exploit the people is what we have inherited.
India runs two parallel systems, the official system and the traditional system. In the past [up until recently] urbanites [directly or indirectly worked for the govt] who were also the elitists suffered the official system but also benefited from it. The rural masses [80+%] were out of the official system.
Today with greater urbanisation, more and more people not used to the official system and forced to deal with it in their own way. First generation urbanites out number the original city dwellers.
There is a need to have a small government, lower red tape, hopefully the new government which has an overwhelming majority can carry out the overhaul necessary to set things right.
In a way Trump and his trade war can be a good thing and push Indians to realise, that they can not continue being the "source of raw material, cheap labour and a huge captive market" - exactly how the colonist always wanted us to be.
It is very interesting, reminds me something I couldn't grasp now. Probably some theory about an inherent nature of Russia's failures or something like. But, you know, it is hard to think of such a matters when the main example is your own country, it is hard to keep objectivity. I'd be happy to read about India.
By the way, I believe, that a bloody revolution wouldn't help India to create a different society. Take a Russia as an example: there was revolution of 1917, which overthrown Tzar, but communists came and they built authoritarian state just like in old times. With a Stalin as a dictator instead of Tzar. Tzar was meant to have a God given rights to rule, Stalin had the same rights given him by a proletariat. Even the scale of a corruptions the same, and one of the theories explaining them goes as far as to X century to track the start of bribery as a way to pay wages to government representatives, then bribes were made illegal, but it lasts for a centuries without a much success. Tzar, communists, now "democrats" are all failed to change it.
In 1991 USSR had failed, and there were a failure of a society, but in a few years a new society emerged, then gathered strength and finally we have all the same, the only difference are flags and slogans. We see the return of a God, though for now no one claims yet that Putin is a God given ruler.
The kind state you could build in a society are constrained heavily by a culture of a society (not the painting and architecture, but the culture in almost biological meaning, something that goes from mother to a child, something that is almost as sticky as a genetics). At the same time the culture of a society have a great inertia, you couldn't change it in a few years of a bloody revolution and a civil war.
I am not prescribing a bloody revolution, a lot of ex-colonies have been through many such with no better outcome because colonization is deep seated.
Consider, for example, the police force. They are not customer (inasmuch as you can call the voter/taxpayer a customer) oriented force; they are a subjugation force. They carry sticks around, which they wield with gay abandon. Many of the forms of power in the current system are meant to keep the people down and subservient.
To continue this example: what we need are fewer state-level (where "state" is the region in question) police, and more local (city-level or district-level) police. We need more power on quality-of-life issues devolved to the local bodies, and less with the state or the feds.
The smaller the political unit, the more likely it is to be dominated by a clique of people. This can lead to corruption, but even in a non-corrupt setting it can lead to racist, casteist, or other kinds of discriminatory decisions about enforcement or resource allocation.
India does not have the ability to enforce - Lacks the resources to police and the diversity prevents uniformity.
Add to that draconian colonial/socialist era laws.
It is hard to enforce anything if you neither have the capacity nor need.
As an old civilisation India has an enormous capacity to self regulate. Compared to say the EU, India is way more diverse yet a single country and not by force.
A sane change would be to have bare-bone laws and swift justice on - property, business, greater personal freedom in education.
Complicated laws only favour the rich, powerful and definitely the corrupt. If the honest thrive, it would be increasingly expensive to be dishonest.