[asdajksah2123]

The observations in this article are useful, but the analysis is not as much.

1. It's silly to talk about "India"'s culture. The cultural differences between Bangalore and New Delhi are as great or greater than any 2 nations in Europe. 2. India's formal institutions are terrible. The author seems to confuse the construction of infrastructure with the establishment of institutions. The formal institutions are the same or maybe even worse than they were pre-Modi, with the only caveat being that India has taken huge leaps digitally (India is at least 1-2 decades ahead of where the US is in terms of digital identity, digital commerce, etc) which might give the impression that the formal institutions have improved, when in reality the formal institutions are as poor as they were, but some of their terribleness is now constrained by technology. 3. The indian "informal institutions" or "culture" are largely a response to the poor formal institutions. The author asks why the "West" is able to follow traffic speed limits whereas India is not, ignoring the fact that in the US, for example, with the reduction in enforcement during and following the pandemic, speeding in the US has shot through the roof. Jumping red lights has also increased dramatically. The reason Indians don't follow traffic rules is the same as everyone else. A lack of enforcement.

Now, it's possible that after severe enforcement for an extended period of time the formal institutional value will modify culture enough that even if the enforcement is rolled back traffic speeds would continue to be followed, but India has never experienced that.