India, Jan. 9 -- To many Indians, Singapore represents the ideal of what successful development looks like. At the time of Singapore's independence in 1965, its per capita GDP was roughly four times that of India. Today, that ratio is more than 30 to one. Differences of scale matter, but scale alone cannot explain the extent of divergence. Singapore's experience offers lessons that run deeper than size or circumstance - lessons that are especially relevant as India articulates its ambition of becoming Viksit Bharat by 2047. The most common explanation for Singapore's success focuses on what is visible: Vibrant capitalism, gleaming skyscrapers, and world-class infrastructure. In many ways, India's recent development push - particularly its emphasis on roads, ports, and physical capital, and tax-free enclaves like GIFT city in Gujarat - has sought to emulate this model. But Singaporeans themselves are quick to point out that these were not uniquely their inventions. They were ideas borrowed from elsewhere but executed with consistency. The truly distinctive innovation lay beneath the concrete and glass in the deliberate construction and relentless focus on social cohesion. At the time of independence, Singapore was a deeply fragile multi-ethnic society. In the last colonial census before self-government, ethnic Chinese made up roughly three-quarters of the population, while Malays accounted for about 14% and Indians for under 10%. This imbalance mattered not only politically, but also economically. Colonial labour and education patterns had already produced significant differences in income and opportunity, with the Chinese community, on average, better represented in commerce, skilled work, and capital ownership. That imbalance could easily have turned into a permanent advantage. A majoritarian State, pursuing development through demographic arithmetic alone, would not have been unusual in the post-colonial world. Instead, Singapore's first President, Lee Kuan Yew, treated ethnic inequality as an existential threat. Social cohesion was not framed as a moral aspiration but as a condition for survival. The core principles were clear: Prevent ethnic segregation, anchor social mobility, and ensure that every community had a visible stake in the success of the State. Housing became one of the most powerful tools for this project. Strict rules enforced ethnic heterogeneity within neighbourhoods, deliberately limiting the formation of enclaves of any single ethnicity. Public housing was designed not merely to shelter citizens, but to bring them, both physically and psychologically, into a shared civic space. Over time, this reduced the likelihood that economic success or failure would align too neatly with race or ethnicity. Over the subsequent decades, Singapore invested heavily in policies to prevent early disparities from becoming destiny. Universal education widened access to skilled employment; sustained investments in public health improved baseline outcomes; social policies focused on levelling the starting line rather than guaranteeing equal outcomes. These interventions did not erase income differences overnight, nor were they expected to. But they fundamentally altered trajectories. The results are visible today. Absolute incomes have risen sharply across all three major ethnic groups, and Singapore no longer resembles the stratified society it inherited in 1965. Income differences have not vanished entirely - recent census data show that median household income from work remains lower on average for Malay households than for Chinese and Indian households, even as all groups have benefited from sustained growth. Notably, Indian households today often perform on par with, or above, the Chinese average on some income measures, reflecting substantial upward mobility since independence. This mixed outcome is instructive. Singapore did not attempt to eliminate inequality by decree, nor did it assume markets alone would resolve inherited disadvantages. It also deliberately kept the government small relative to the economy and reserved spending on health and education to remove inequity, rather than trying to remove inequality through cash transfers and subsidies. Instead, it focused relentlessly on preventing inequality from aligning permanently with identity, while ensuring that economic mobility remained visible and credible across communities. That credibility mattered. When people could plausibly believe that effort and education offered a path forward, trust in institutions deepened and incentives for rent-seeking diminished. This likely explains low corruption in Singapore in contrast to the rest of Asia more than any other single reason. If Singapore offers lessons for other countries pursuing long-term development, they lie less in copying specific policies than in setting the right priorities. Four stand out. First, treating social cohesion as economic infrastructure - not as sentiment, but as something to be deliberately designed and protected. Second, using housing as a tool of integration, not merely shelter: Mixed neighbourhoods, proximity to jobs, schools, and transport, and a visible stake for all groups in shared urban spaces. Third, building a credible escalator of mobility through education and skills, so that effort and talent are seen to translate into opportunity. And fourth, sustained investment in public health, ensuring that basic health outcomes do not track identity or income too closely. Together, these are not symbolic gestures but structural commitments. They create the trust that allows markets to function, institutions to endure, and growth to compound over decades. Singapore's experience is not a template to be copied wholesale, particularly in a country as large and diverse as India. Its circumstances were particular, its methods sometimes severe, and its scale unique. But it does offer a reminder that development is not built on infrastructure and growth alone. If Viksit Bharat is to be more than a slogan, economic ambition must be matched by social architecture. As Lee Kuan Yew once said, "We were determined to build a nation where no one would feel that he had to look after only his own group." That focus, more than any single economic policy, shaped the Singapore that we admire and envy today....