India is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. In many ways, India is perceived as a spiritual nation with rich traditions and a way of life quite different from Western countries. History shows that ancient Indian civilization had effective systems for planning and management, allowing them to create highly advanced architecture. The use of large-scale construction plans, and cartographic material was known to India with some regularity since the Vedic Period (first millennium BCE). To produce such intricate architecture would require efficient management--there would have to be a leader who organized that project, a financier, and laborers working in teams.

In the modern world, unlike first-world countries, India is not exporting manufactured goods, especially high-end electronic and technological products to global markets. The big question: why has India, not progressed in the application of science and technology, which in turn can translate into sustained development across the sub-continent? Countries that were late adopters of science and technology, have done especially well with technology and productivity-induced development. The adoption-gap still exists in India. Why? By and large, India has done well for the largest democracy, but she can do better with improved work-culture, enhanced productivity across all sectors, and with professionalism in administration, executives, and workers. Given the substantial population of young people, this will be a noble goal, and a desirable one in the post-digital world. When India solves its development dilemma and chooses productivity over bureaucracy, all of her citizens will thrive.