India today is, even today, not much different from what it probably was under Ashoka or the Gupta dynasty's time, except that the geographical area covered is rather different. The present geographical area is definitely much smaller than what the British cobbled together. The concept of a "Mother India", representing the British India as it was just before 14-08-1947, also does not seem to be an ancient idea, though it has been the practice to call one's native land or even earth itself as a whole, as mother or "jananī" in sanskrit. That perhaps was what induced patriots like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee to coin vande mātaram and Mother India etc.
While the princely states have disappeared in terms of their geography, their rulers, ruling systems, diverse administrative set-ups in those many "native" states etc., we now have many "states" of large and small sizes; proving the 'reorganization of states' as a very faulty and perhaps foolish decision made by inexperienced leaders at the nascent stage of the federal union that is the Indian republic, we see the unmistakable trend for sub-division of the existing states into smaller and smaller units. This is, in one sense, orderly disintegration - what else? This tendency for subdivision on various grounds, also reveals another facet of what the OP calls "Modern India" created after Independence, of which he is reportedly, " very proud of" — that is, the people here are still divided by many parameters like their ancestral history and their tribal glory (e.g., Jharkhand), economic disparities (e.g., demand for a separate Telengana) when, even the existing states are based on linguistic considerations.
Thus language, history of communities, economic conditions and even caste (I think Uttarakhand is based on caste consideration - 20% of its population is Brahmins!!) have been acting as centrifugal forces in the artificially 'cobbled together' Mother India by the great British with their colonial rule and this is open for every one to see.
It was just the same way that the scriptural bhāratavarṣa in the bharataḥkhaṇḍa existed. And, as Gandhiji observed in his wisdom "India lives in her villages" - not in the metros or cities.
Nothing to say so far.
We do have a number of members in this forum who have emigrated from this country, have adopted their new homeland as 'their country' and have become lawful citizens of those countries. But it can be said that, without exception, all of them have followed this "gatānugatikā nyāya" only if it was conducive to their material well being and not otherwise; there are no tabras who have migrated, accepted foreign citizenship but are sleeping in shop pavements covered by packing cases and asking for a few cents to fill their belly, etc.
How do you know 
Such members very often have a fallacious notion that if post-1947 India, their motherland, of which they are proud, is given some minimal "make-up", then this country can also "look" very much like their newly adopted country (of which they may or may not be as much proud, as they are of India). I am reminded of a TV advertisement which came some time ago. One mother not so good-looking, takes her child to the nursery but the child refuses to go and tells, "mummy, you are not beautiful like xyz's mom; why don't you also become beautiful like her? We are shown a specimen of an Indian woman dressed in western style, with all the make-up and other devices which go with it, leading the xyz to school, triumphantly!!
In the very same manner, our PIO benefactors desire that we adopt whatever "make up" they suggest, alter ourselves superficially and parade before them so that they can feel "at home".
This is where the division begins. Failure to recognize the genuine concern and desire of PIOs to make things better because of personal bias. Belittling of PIOs suggestions using sarcasm and irrelevant examples and completely rejecting any suggestions without even considering the merits.
Since some of us (it has become a necessity to make this "us vs them", mainly because of the condescending tone of our PIO gurus) are not convinced, and since 'they' are unable to convince us so far, that their 'upadesams', solutions to "our" problems etc., are workable in India, or will produce any solution to "our" problems, it becomes necessary to differ and to record such differences.
Aren't you doing the same thing to the PIOs that you are accusing them of. You could simply say their suggestions as being unviable, and state the reasons. Why the innuendo and sarcasm?
But, the above OP brings to light a new facet of some of our PIO benefactors, viz., that they can also be "touch-me-nots" who will not brook any dissent to whatever they say, on any topic. I am only thankful that as yet they cannot initiate a WMD allegation on us and do an Iraq on us
in their over-eagerness to bring their post-1947 Mother India, to the level they want, much the same way that the child in that TV ad wanted its mother to do.
This is because they have experienced life in both places by part of the society unlike you, who has visited or gets information from other people. They become "touch me nots" because the criticism/innuendo/accusation comes from an armchair critic who has no first hand knowledge of establishing a home and living in a westen society.
PS:
I would like to humbly remind the thread starter about one old story possibly from the Panchatantra; a fisherwoman does not get sleep when lying down in the bed room of a flower-seller surrounded by the smell of flowers. At last she brings a basket of dried fish, which she had been carrying, into the bedroom. Once she gets the usual surroundings she was able to sleep.
Such is human nature. Some people will prefer their very native dirt, grime and poverty to the heavenly comforts elsewhere. It need not be that such people failed socially or economically when they tried to leave India, or they regret not leaving India because of circumstances, or that some are upset that their children left them and settled in other countries. One will have to repent conclusions drawn in haste and hate.
Here again you make a generalization that people left India for heavenly comfort and leave native dirt, grime and poverty or that they consider the people who decided to stay behind as failures.
