How would have India been, had it been liberalized in 1950 instead of 1991?

Someone asked this very enlightening question. Here's an attempt at answering it.

While it is extremely tempting to imagine a radically developed and rich India now, had our government attempted liberalization right from the early 1950s, that assumption most likely is futile.

I think so because -

• The British had almost completely hollowed out India before leaving - we had practically no capital resources, no industrial base, and no roadmap for the future. We were a blank canvas.
• Economic liberalisation through a democratic political process would have most likely led to a huge centralisation of wealth and resources within a decade, and the almost total annihilation and usurpation of all things indigenous (and we had/have tonnes of them). China avoided that largely for a long time post-1979 as a one-party system could take on the most convoluted of problems head-on.
• India was still developing its concept of nationhood through the entire 1950s, 60s and 70s, and in that sense, we may have become a carbon copy of the American model, something unsuited to our ground realities.
• Our military and security apparatus were relatively nascent. We were not a nuclear power.

When Rajiv Gandhi brought the first wave of economic reforms post 1985, (reducing import duties on technology products like computers, opening up of telecom sector - remember STD PCOs?, etc.), that itself took some time to show results.