Now you see, I actually disagree with you on this.
India's success in cricket comes from them taking a much more progressive and much less conservative approach to cricket.
Lalit Modi was an absolute revolutionary: it was his embrace of modern westernized club sport which saw the IPL become an incubator in which young (and not so young) Indian cricketers were immersed with elite western players. It may only be T20, but the whole Shahid Afridi/Umar Akmal model of "Don't train, live off a couple of good performances a year" was totally terminated in India.
The same applies to India's approach to coaching.
Dav Whatmore is cricket's equivalent of Neil Warnock: a journeyman coach.
Geoff Lawson is cricket's equivalent of Paolo Di Canio: a famous ex-player with no coaching credentials.
Mickey Arthur is cricket's equivalent of Steve McClaren: a technically strong coach who gets sacked with alarming regularity.
Inzamam-ul-Haq has no western equivalent: a man with absolutely no credentials for the chief selector's job who was employed because he seemed pious. The equivalent of making a TV evangelist into your national selector.
Meanwhile India consistently employs elite overseas coaches who are on a far higher level, from Gary Kirsten to John Wright.
I agree that both India and Pakistan are conservative societies. But one of them has aggressively reformed its domestic game and coaching set up, while the other lives in the past.
India's first overseas Coach was J Wright, then Greg Chappel, D Fletcher, G Kirsten - these Coaches became famous (or infamous) with India, not before. Also, Dav was Indian Junior Coach for 4-5 years.
What L Modi did is pure business, which has given BCCI financial muscle, not sure how much IPL is helping Indian cricket on field. They are channeling IPL money to domestic cricket, which I am sure was the model even 100 years back, when ENG used to play professional cricket and the money pumped by the game was reinvested to County cricket. And, more or less every board now is doing the same - making money from such franchise leagues. But, every team actually is more conventional regarding the importance of Franchise League in their cricket at top level - IND didn't pick Pant or few other IPL stars, same for BD - only it's PCB that has "modernized" and has made PSL the Bible of PAK cricket.
Dav Whatmore is a better coach than most modern lap top coaches - he was the mastermind in development of two emerging nations. Not to mention SRL, today all 5 senior BD players were hand picked by him almost from school cricket. And, he had 5 years with SRL, 5 with BD and 5 at NCA Bangalore - which doesn't suggest to be a frequent a journeyman. Lawson was doing fantastic PAK team before being sacked, while Arthur had one of the most impressive resumes around. I should mention that PCB appointed the most sought after Coach 16 years back.
Inzamam was never appointed for his religious connections. Apart from looking pious, he had a small resume of playing for PAK for 17 years as one of the greats of the game, leading the side for 4 years and being the coach of AFG team for a hefty wage. He could be a failure as CS, but suggesting him to be equivalent of a Tv evangelist as CS, is probably the most hilarious comment I had ever read in PP.
PAK's domestic games are messed for different reason and conservatism has absolutely nothing in that. BD is also a Muslim dominant country and equally conservative - it didn't stop BCB to adopt Aussie model into their system, neither appointing foreigners (from western countries) as coach. Regarding reforms & coaching staffs - there is a Govt. appointed official running BCCI for 3 years now, and their head coach is Ravi Shastri, FGS.
"Don't train" culture isn't conservatism, it's lack of professionalism and loose standard set by PCB - otherwise even in 80s with Zia Ul Haq's Islamic Pakistan, Imran, Akran, Waquar were the hardest worker in the game.
