Thanks a lot for the pointers. Many here have already pointed that I am buying too much into the "free market" propaganda; may be I was indeed brainwashed into buying that, but I am trying to open my eyes and learn. AFAICT, there seems to be strong correlation between wealth/prosperity of a nation and the openness of its economy. Are there any counter examples to this?
Coming to back to the original topic, is it fair to say there is no strong correlation between development of science and freedom of thought? Well, it may be true if the state does not repress the ideas being produced under science; I can now see why that might have been the case under USSR, and even in China. Scientific thought being largely apolitical may not have to be repressed by authoritarian regimes.
Any holes in this logic? Sorry for being naive!
I agree about the relation between prosperity and openness of the economy. But the relation to science, especially theoretical work requiring little more than pencil and paper, is less clear. Trivial example: lucrative opportunities in finance might have lured away some of the old USSR's math talent, to the detriment of Soviet mathematics.
The best and worst thing about authoritarian / totalitarian / one-party systems may be their focus. Few people making all the important decisions lead to few things being pursued vigorously. If they happen to be good things, great; you get an Academy of Science or a national space program with plenty of resources and social support. If they happen to be bad things, you get national disasters like Lysenkoism [1], "Deutsche Physik" [2] and the shuttering of Chinese schools and universities during the Cultural Revolution [3].
India is not really open; sure it's a "democracy", but it's really a de-facto feudal state, often with very little private property rights, and a bureaucracy that would put the Vogons to shame. It's not clear if contemporary India is better than contemporary China in any social/economic aspect (other than possibly allowing a free-movement of its people).
Indeed considering that India's literacy rate is bettered by regimes like Myanmar and DPRK, one wonders why India is being played up, when in reality the only real comparison at this point is with other lower-middle income nations in Africa. This is not to say there is prosperity in cities which are essentially brought up to serve English-speaking nations, but to replicate this across the country[1] will likely lead to a further fall in education levels (this obsession[2] gets back to my "feudal" point). Unlike manufacturing in China, India can't ever extend the service economy (other than e-retail) to its own market.
While some may romanticize Modi's plebeian origins [3], it must be inferred from his policies that he remains yet a handmaiden of the feudal powers that put him into power. I have been to (native?) universities in India, and level of ignorance/acceptance of the current situation baffles me to no end. It should be noted that, considering the stiflement of economics in India, a job in the state apparatus is seen often as the entire point of life outside the IT realm.
Don't fall for all the propaganda being spewed from India for self-flattery, and from America for its "Asian pivot". The reality is much more nuanced and murkier.
India's backwardness is the result of decades of socialist policies. Restrictive license permit raj, inefficient and wasteful public delivery system, inflexible labor laws are some of the reasons that have kept India hobbled up.
