I would love to discuss this, but this thread is not right for that discussion. Just few pointers -
1. I agree 'word' secular was inserted into pre-emble n 42nd amendment and it was done by Congress and Indra Gandhi during emergency. That much is my factual error, the word secular was not present since beginning. However, Nehru (and Jinnha in case of Pakistan as well) were very much in favour of India for all Indian irrespective of religion. Secondly, the word secular in its truest sense mean complete separation of state and religion. Indian brand of secularism does not follow this definition to the letter t. It is rather allowing co-existence of different religion together without state favoring any religion. That said the defining feature of both India and Pakistan as envisioned by Jinnah was to become democracies with no state favoured religion. In case of Pakistan, Jinnah died much earlier and later leaders took a path of state religion. I doubt without Nehru's and congress's progressive ideas, India would have remained 'secular'.
2. Now coming to Socialist portion. Socialism, like secularsim, being a social science concept does not have a very cut and dry menifestion in reality. Rather there are definitions of socialism given by various economists over course of time and they define features. One of the defining feature is ownership of factor of production
and their operation for the benefit of people rather than maximization of profit. This led to an economy which was mixed. Meaning it had features of socialistic economy and it tolerated private property and private ownership of factors of production under tightly defined regulations. And yes, subsidies, labour rights, license raj, planned economy are all very important menifestations of Socialism. Congress, rather Nehru family was responsible for implementation of these features for quite sometime. And yes while it was Narasimha Rao and Manmohan singh who started the liberalization process due to economic emergency in early 90s, this was more of a aberrant behaviour to the point many in Congress simply refuse to even mention Narashimha Rao as one of the major leaders in Congress. Even Sonia Gandhi passed over him while narrating the achievements of Congress since ages. Liberalization by Congress in early 90s was more of a accident and less of a change in congress policy. Heck even Narasimha Rao's elevation to PM was an accident.
About BJP not closing any PSU, I will say you are comparing Apples and Pineapples. Scale is simply different. Let them have a reign of 10 years and then comment.
They have been an awful number of world beaters among Indians, especially Indians in USA. We are among the richest community in USA, we are among most educated community in USA, Nobel prize winners in sciences, NFL Players, olympic medalists etc etc etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Americans
Go through it and if possible get rid of your self hate.
Lastly, what is this obsession with 'world beating'. You beat the world today and tomorrow someone surpasses you. Most of the greatest things in the world are product of contributions of a number of above average folks. Humanity is not great because we have strongest muscles, keenest sense of smell, tallest height etc etc etc. We are greatest because we know the art of consciously building upon our collective wisdom over ages. The guy who did the first heat transplant didn't do it because he was the most intelligent person of his time, but because he built upon the work of others before him.