India reported a 7.8% year‑on‑year expansion in gross domestic product (GDP) for the April‑June quarter, a rate that outpaced most major economies. The figure, however, has quickly become the subject of intense debate after a former senior government official alleged that the growth reading was artificially enhanced by revising down the prior year’s data.
Allegations of Data Manipulation
Subhash Chandra Garg, who served as finance secretary from 2017 to 2019, told CNBC that the GDP in current prices for the April‑June quarter of 2025 was reduced by 6 trillion rupees – roughly $63.5 billion – to 80 trillion rupees in the latest release. He said that the reduction means the current quarter’s reported GDP of 88.27 trillion rupees looks more favorable when compared year over year.
India’s chief economic advisor, V Anantha Nageshwaran, responded in a local media interview, describing the claim as “cherry‑picking” data. Nageshwaran explained that the latest figures were compiled using the financial year ending March 2023 as a new base, and that a methodological change led to revisions of last year’s quarterly numbers. He added that some quarters may be adjusted upward while others may be adjusted downward as part of the statistical revision, urging observers to focus on consistency rather than isolated numbers.
The finance ministry did not provide a direct comment to CNBC’s request for clarification. Instead, it shared a link to Nageshwaran’s remarks in the local media outlet.
Garg pressed the issue further, arguing that a change in methodology alone does not explain “what went out of the production to bring down the value of last year’s GDP by six trillion rupees.” He characterized the unexplained reduction as a “missing GDP” that the government has yet to address.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political opponents seized on the controversy. The Indian National Congress party claimed that over the last four years, GDP figures have been “revised down by 43 lakh crore” – about $455 billion. The party’s post suggested that the revisions represent large “corrections” that imply an excess of goods and services was previously added to GDP and has now been removed.
Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, defending the official numbers, affirmed that “India’s 7.8% growth is a reality,” countering the skepticism expressed by opposition figures and some analysts.
Expert and Institutional Responses
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) had previously raised concerns about the accuracy of India’s economic data, assigning the country a “C grade” – its second‑lowest ranking – in a report released last year. The IMF highlighted issues such as an outdated base year, reliance on wholesale price indices, and the use of a single deflation factor for calculating inflation. To address these concerns, India adopted a new statistical framework in February, updating the base year and revising the methodology for calculating key aggregates.
Reema Bhattacharya, head of Asia research at Verisk Maplecroft, told CNBC that India’s GDP data still leans heavily on formal‑sector corporate information, while a substantial portion of the informal economy must be estimated. She noted that this estimation gap often fuels skepticism, as headline numbers may not fully reflect on‑the‑ground realities.
Economists offered mixed assessments of Garg’s argument. Several experts said the claim is technically unsound because it compares figures derived from two different base years. Nonetheless, Anil Sood, a professor and co‑founder of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Complex Choices in Mumbai, warned that “estimation errors” in earlier data remain a concern. Sood observed that after the new series was released in February, all previous GDP and gross value added (GVA) numbers were revised downward, indicating that the estimated size of the Indian economy was smaller than earlier projections.
Standard Chartered Bank’s Anubhuti Sahay, head of India economic research, said the first‑quarter numbers look better primarily because of the improved methodology, but she downplayed the role of base‑year revisions. “It is not that the GDP number is only froth,” Sahay remarked, adding that while the growth percentage can be debated, the absolute number should not be dismissed outright. She pointed to India’s key high‑frequency indicators, which she said are “holding up undoubtedly,” even as she cautioned that growth is uneven and challenges such as quality‑job creation and the impact of El Niño on the rural economy persist.
Global brokerages continue to project a modest slowdown. Morgan Stanley and Citi forecast economic growth of 7.3% for the twelve months ending March 2027, slightly below the 7.8% reported for the June quarter.
Jaydeep Mukherjee, a professor of economics at Great Lakes Institute of Management in Chennai, described the composition of the June‑quarter activity as “unusually driven by a sharp rise in investments and stronger exports,” while household consumption improved only at a “relatively mild pace.” He warned that such a pattern may be “not sustainable” amid ongoing geopolitical risks.
Overall, the debate underscores the tension between impressive headline growth and the underlying data‑quality issues that have long been flagged by international institutions and domestic analysts. As India moves forward with its revised statistical framework, the balance between methodological rigor and political narratives will likely shape perceptions of the country’s economic performance in the months ahead.
Be First to Comment