Why is the director's name shown last in Title Sequence/Opening Credits rather than first?
I can't speak for Bollywood or Kollywood, but in America, the director's credit is last because of Directors Guild of America requirements.
Wikipedia defines it as:
The Wikipedia article on Opening Credits also lists the director's credit as the last credit stating:
Well, I can't answer your question (I don't know why the director is placed last in the title sequence) but one could ponder the question a little more.
The serial position effect states that we best remember items that are presented either first or last in a sequence. So, in the opening credits case, it shouldn't matter if you are presented first or last.
However, my own experience is that you don't really pay attention to the first part of the opening credits. This is when people still are fumbling for their seats in the dark or argues about who should have authority over the popcorn during the film. From that point of view, if I were the director, and I wanted to have the best exposure, I would choose to have my name shown at the end rather than the begining.
Contrary, in the end credits, the director is shown first. This would also seem like a good thing for the director given that people very seldom watch the credits to the very end.
As a sidenote, there are other fields where the sequential order in which people are mentioned is a source of heated debate. Take, for example, authors in scientific papers. Here's an excerpt from the article "Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications":