This argument falls apart when it comes to explaining the $1.4Trn market which is just IT/tech services, the providers of most of which are offshore even when the tech developed is American. By your logic the massive IT Services/Consulting industry that is driving India's economy is actually bad for the country and that it should go back to being a cluster of low-tech poor third-world villages.
Please do explain how any of that follows from what I said. It's perfectly fine to export a limited resource like labor as long as you're trading for something of equal value.
Besides, you think India is doing great? China - now boasting an economy more than twice that of India's - absolutely lapped them despite India having a head-start in the 1950s. So if I was to respond to your bad-faith argument, that response would be that India should've adopted the Chinese model, not go back to "being a cluster of low-tech poor third-world villages". But all this is only weakly related to the point I was making with many other factors at play, so I don't even want to put that forward as a rebuke. We're completely off the rails here.
Do you not know that the Chinese model came at a massive cost of human rights abuses, and that it was only possible in a well-endowed and homogeneous society like China?
India has more ethnic, cultural and societal diversity within itself than the entirety of Europe, full with as much sectionalism and conflicts as one can imagine. It has only managed to remain a single nation with a lot, a LOT of compromises. Study deeper into the dynamics and you'll find the notion of "why don't they just emulate China?" to be as ridiculous as it gets.
P.S. I'm sorry for that unnecessary last sentence in my previous comment that (understandably) gave you the image that I'm being bad-faith or abrasive.
