You're not going to agree so what's the point of arguing? Yes I believe in all those four things. You don't.
Yes but like I said I'm not arguing any of that. They have their struggles but from the top 100 that do make it the riches of BCCI come to play.
Like I said it's not a coincidence the team has done so much better since the boards increased finances/IPL success
Do you also not agree with the numbers which clearly show that even the top 100 Indian players, the ones in the first team, do not have any monetary advantage over the other countries' top cricketers? Barring the absolute best - Kohli, Dhoni and perhaps Rohit - the rest are on equal footing. BTW, IPL evens out the scales for those at the top. If Dhawan gets a good contract, so does Kane Williamson. If Bumrah gets a massive payday, so does Boult.
As for the talent, here's the catch. We definitely have more players with potential to be great, but our conversion rate is very poor due to a lack of infrastructure. England and co have far lesser pools with far better conversion rates. I'd argue that it kinda balances out. If availability of raw talent were everything, India and China should be winning everything due to sheer population. I'd rather have 100 cricketers coming through a refined and stable system than 1000 through a poor setup. In both cases, you'd end up with about 10 solid players, but in the latter 900 more will suffer from the drop out. The numbers are obviously debatable, so I won't pursue this line of argument. I do think you're woefully wrong about the money, though.
On another note, I admire the Pakistani team in this regard, to be honest. They come through even worse circumstances than Indians do, and still manage to produce fine gems. I remember when Mohammed Amir had broken through, before his spot-fixing scandal. He had the potential to be better than Akram; in Akram's own words he was cleverer than him at 18. It was a thrill to watch him rip through batting orders, the raw and unfiltered talent behind his success.