IMF Grades India’s GDP ‘C’: A Cloud Over the Growth Story

Behind India’s high-growth narrative lies a troubling statistical weakness the IMF has flagged year after year — and the cost of denial may be higher than New Delhi admits.

By P. SESH KUMAR

New Delhi, November 8, 2025 — The International Monetary Fund’s latest Article IV assessment once again places a quiet but consequential asterisk on India’s celebrated growth story. Even as it applauds the country’s macroeconomic resilience, digital public infrastructure and reform momentum, the IMF has graded India’s national accounts a mere “C” under its Data Adequacy Assessment framework.

In the Fund’s language, this means India’s GDP and GVA data exist and are timely — but suffer from serious methodological weaknesses that hamper effective surveillance.

This paradox lies at the heart of India’s current economic narrative. On one side is the image of a booming economy: among the fastest-growing large nations, a favourite of global investors, and a digital pioneer. On the other is a dry but damning technical verdict tucked away in IMF documentation — that the very numbers sustaining this narrative are statistically fragile.

India is not a data-opacity offender. It subscribes to the IMF’s Special Data Dissemination Standard, releases a vast volume of macroeconomic information on time and maintains a relatively transparent statistical ecosystem. The “C” grade is not about delay or secrecy. It is about the structural integrity of how the numbers are constructed — the plumbing behind the dashboard rather than the dashboard itself.

What Exactly Is the IMF Flagging?

The IMF’s critique has been remarkably consistent across years.

First is India’s continued use of the 2011–12 base year for GDP and related price indices. In fast-changing economies, best practice is to rebase every five to ten years. India’s base year now predates the explosion of the digital economy, UPI, platform services, renewables, GST, demonetisation and the pandemic. A statistical frame frozen in that earlier world inevitably struggles to reflect the economic structure of today’s India.

Second is the weakness in price deflators, which convert nominal GDP into real growth. Most modern systems rely on a comprehensive Producer Price Index (PPI).

India still lacks a fully operational, economy-wide PPI and instead uses wholesale price indices as proxies, often applying single deflation rather than separate deflators for output and intermediate consumption. This method can distort real growth when input and output prices diverge — precisely during global commodity shocks and sectoral shifts.

Third are persistent discrepancies between production-side and expenditure-side GDP estimates. While such gaps exist everywhere, India’s are large enough for the IMF to question the reliability of underlying benchmarks — especially household consumption, private investment and the vast informal sector. When these two faces of GDP fail to reconcile, policy-makers lose confidence in their most basic diagnostic instrument.

The Fund also flags outdated CPI weights, limited seasonal adjustment of high-frequency data, patchy general government fiscal consolidation, weak capital formation breakdowns, and delayed updates in key surveys and censuses. None of these weaknesses are new. What is striking is their repetition without resolution.

A Long-Running Domestic Debate

These concerns echo an older domestic controversy. The 2015 revision to a 2011–12 base year using corporate filings from the MCA-21 database triggered intense debate about whether GDP growth had been overstated. Former Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian publicly argued that early growth under the revised series may have been overstated by several percentage points. Official statisticians pushed back sharply.

Subsequent episodes — including the resignation of National Statistical Commission members in 2019 and the non-publication of a consumption survey reportedly showing a fall in per capita spending — deepened suspicion that inconvenient data could be buried. The IMF’s “C”, therefore, is not a sudden external ambush. It is the international reflection of doubts long simmering at home.

Why Does the ‘C’ Persist?

The IMF notes that India’s data weaknesses have remained “broadly unchanged” across successive consultations, even as the government speaks of a comprehensive overhaul with a tentative 2026 horizon.

The reasons are political as much as technical. Rebasing GDP produces retrospective revisions, potentially lowering growth for sensitive political periods. In a polity where GDP growth has become a partisan trophy, statistical reform becomes politically risky.

Institutionally, India’s statistical system has not been empowered at the scale demanded by a trillion-dollar-plus economy. Survey organisations work with limited manpower, modest budgets and slowly modernising technology. Investment has flowed into visible digital platforms rather than the quieter, less glamorous work of rebuilding sampling frames, enterprise surveys and integrated accounts.

There is also a severe coordination problem. Modern accounts depend on seamless integration of GST data, corporate filings, banking records and state government accounts. Each institution guards its data and fears political and privacy risks. The result is fragmented use of advanced administrative data within an outdated statistical architecture.

Why India Shrugs It Off

Markets have not punished India for the IMF’s “C”. Investors use their own triangulation — tax collections, corporate earnings, credit growth, trade data and even satellite night-lights. Rating agencies remain focused on debt dynamics and political stability. With no immediate financial penalty, bureaucracy treats the grade as a technical irritation.

This complacency is dangerous. Bad data leads to bad policy. Faulty deflators can mislead monetary policy. Weak consumption and investment measurement can distort fiscal priorities. Poor informal sector coverage can understate the damage from shocks like demonetisation or pandemic lockdowns, delaying welfare and credit relief.

For a nation aspiring to be a developed economy by 2047, persistent doubts over statistical credibility are also reputationally corrosive. Countries seeking rule-making influence in global finance and trade cannot afford a permanent “serious shortcomings” tag in something as basic as GDP measurement. The real risk becomes visible during crises, when weak data magnify scepticism and force harsher external judgments.

What Must Change

The path from “C” to credibility is not mysterious.

India must begin with a new GDP base year, anchored in fresh enterprise and household surveys, updated input–output tables and explicit incorporation of the digital economy, renewables, platform work and modern finance. Rebasing is not just cosmetic — it is an opportunity to rebuild benchmarks and correct modelling shortcuts.

Parallelly, India must finally operationalise a full-fledged Producer Price Index, aligned with the latest System of National Accounts. Without a robust PPI, real GDP will continue to rest on statistical proxies unsuitable for a modern economy.

The informal sector and expenditure side need much stronger measurement through frequent, well-funded surveys and disciplined integration of administrative data such as GST and digital transactions. Supply–use tables that reconcile production and expenditure must be institutionalised and published transparently, instead of burying discrepancies in residual items.

All of this requires restoring the independence and prestige of the statistical system. The National Statistical Office and any reconstituted Statistical Commission require statutory backing, protected tenures, secure budgets and insulation from political pressure. Publication of surveys and revisions must be professional acts, not political decisions.

A Strategic Opportunity

There is also an opportunity hidden in discomfort. India, with its massive informal economy and deep digital penetration, is uniquely placed to pioneer new hybrid methods of economic measurement blending surveys, administrative data and modern analytics. Instead of defensively rejecting IMF criticism, India could lead the global conversation on measuring twenty-first-century economies where gig work and digital platforms blur classical categories.

That would require humility, openness and genuine collaboration with international statistical bodies. But it would convert today’s weakness into tomorrow’s influence.

No Insult to National Pride

The IMF’s “C” grade is neither an insult to national pride nor a trivial bureaucratic label. It is a sober warning that the statistical instruments guiding a complex, multi-trillion-dollar economy are no longer fit for purpose. India now faces a clear choice.

One path is to treat the issue as a technical footnote while celebrating growth projections and digital success stories. The other is to confront the critique directly, invest political capital in rebuilding national accounts, modernise price statistics, strengthen surveys and restore statistical independence.

A decade from now, few will remember the letter attached to India’s data in 2025. They will, however, remember whether India chose to fix its measurement foundations — or continued flying half-blind on an outdated dashboard while proclaiming its arrival as a developed democracy.

(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)

India’s Economy Faces a Jobs Crisis as Degrees Turn into Despair

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author