Doubt they are of the size and diversity of India which makes things far from simple. Exaggeration aside, people are not chattel in India.

If you're referring to the four Asian tigers:

1. Two received substantial aid from the US post WW2.

2. More predictable terrain and abundant coastline (relative to size) make an export based model (selling goods to the West) more feasible.

3. Small population size and less linguistic variability makes central planning (when it comes to education and skills building) more effective on a shorter time scale.

Ultimately India's economic growth post WW2 was harmed most by

1. Remaining non-aligned post WW2 which pushed the US to side with Pakistan as their key ally in South Asia. It's understandable since Western powers were a scourge upon India for the 300 years prior but America was not colonial Britian, Netherlands, Portugal etc. (though that's easy to say in hindsight).
2. Adopting a dirigisme economic model which contrasts with laissez faire policies, leaning in favor of market intervention and prioritizing import substitution industrialization which is an isolationist policy that seeks to reduce global reliance (in what was an ever globalizing world). This was largely also a reflexive response to colonialism as "trade" with colonial powers decimated and deindustrialized the Indian economy which accounted for 25% of global GDP prior to the colonial era.