He is more or less correct about what is of greater importance to me (India's internal socioeconomics and sociopolitics).
There has been glaring under-investment into primary education + primary health + primary infra (causing large part of the uneven development, huge north-south divide on social development, which naturally affects economic development).
For all the massive costs the CCP imposed on the Chinese people (especially during the Mao era which is long story), the one thing they did of lasting consequence is heavy regimented approach to getting the basics as correct as possible.....i.e a more complete version of what even say South India managed to do.
Foreign policy, India adopts as far as possible friend to all, enemy to none....everything else is transactional on what you got that India needs...and vice versa (transactionalism basically). This gets easier to do with distance of course as neighbours all (inevitably) have issues and intersections with Indian context and thus security apparatus and consequence. That is similar to China in end too for its neighbours and most large countries (Europe itself can be studied from say 1750 - 1950 as to far greater intensity of conflict that has occured relative to what ought to).
So Rory taking a "India lost out by not abandoning Russia for the West" is kind of silly IMO. There are simply things the west will never provide reliably like Russia (and the USSR) provably has and continues to do (India simply looks at the cost and benefit with others, its no longer restricted like it was in cold war). UKR-RUS perceived impact on the western psyche and security calculus in Europe pressingly (that ought to convince India in the "principled" way)....well other countries (incl western ones) have hedged and soft/hard allied against India in various ways deemed unprincipled by India....past the unprincipled colonisation consequences inflicted by the UK to begin with. The precedent simply does not exist to conveniently assert in one direction.
In any case, Indian foreign policy will only really matter when India invests and builds up more robust cohesion socioeconomically like China has largely accomplished....i.e the large ongoing intersection China has with Indian economic investment itself (of note) past the geopolitical tension. Just like India continued the US one even with US state dept antipathy and distrust in cold war 2nd half (when India was more pro-Soviet esp from the Nixon midpoint).
Just like no one really cared a huge deal about Chinese foreign policy overture to Albania in the sino-soviet split era of the cold war. China simply was too weak as a material force. The sand being shifted was too small basically.
So in the end India will have to make do, learn from its region that is most developed, and copy paste as quick as it can to its more undeveloped region that has the bulk population "dividend" for this century.
Basically stuff like this has to replicate 100 times consistently over and over again in North Indian interior:
