I agree with the sentiment - however, even after independence, India has been ruled by the same Anglophone/phile elite with nearly the same set of laws/policies/ interests. Even the Indian constitution comes in large part from the 1935 GoI Act passed in the British Parliament.
(Anglo-)India is of the Anglophones, by the Anglophones and for the Anglophones for all practical purposes.
That's why laws etc. are mandated to be written in this foreign language that's incomprehensible to the majority, and why there's a strict near-apartheid like barrier preventing higher education (and with it, higher employment) to non-Anglophones.
The only reason I imagine we don't hear about this systematic discrimination that prevent downstream material development like industrialization (as opposed to the ethereal one like caste) is perhaps because Western institutions have vested geopolitical interest in having such a large vassal, intellectually if not politically.
It’s written in English because it’s the language spoken by the educated.
My wife is from south India, and I’m a frequent visitor to India.
It’s evident that Hindi nationalism is to the benefit of the north, while southern culture is slowly being replaced.
Hong Kong also uses English.
I assume it does have advantages. The common law of the ex British colonies are all broadly compatible, so there's the possibility of having judges from other countries decide cases. Trade and maritime law is/ was basically British law. I would guess it also helps foreign investment if the law is in a language those investors understand.
Yes, these were probably better reasons in the past though.
> mandated to be written in this foreign language that'
I am sure people from the Northern belt would be happy if the laws were written in Tamil (my mother tongue).