India’s latest gross domestic product (GDP) figures have drawn widespread scrutiny since the data was released on Monday. Official statistics said April-June growth was 7.8%, which was hailed as a “Herculean feat” by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but former finance secretary Subhash Garg claimed it was only 2.6%.
In reality, 7.8% is not the final figure and 2.6% isn’t the correct one. Scepticism over the numbers stems from two factors: the overestimation of GDP under the previous series and high growth figures failing to translate into widespread prosperity.
First estimate is not the last word
Let’s start with the official print. Quarterly estimates, released about two months after the end of a quarter, are often based on limited data. As more data becomes available, this number is retrospectively revised over the next two years.
Consequently, any given number is influenced by three factors: revisions to the quarter itself, revisions to the base quarter from a year prior, and the relative revision between those two periods. While this is routine, a fourth element is shaping the figures this time: methodological changes.
For instance, when Q1FY26 growth was first reported in August 2025, it stood at 7.8%. It was revised downward to 6.8% in June 2026, and then bumped up to 6.9% in August 2026. Similar adjustments have been applied to all previous quarters under the new 2022-23 series.
In this context, the 7.8% figure isn’t final and it will undergo revisions. The statistics ministry’s press statement carries this disclaimer: “Improved data coverage and revisions to input data made by source agencies would have a bearing on subsequent revisions of the estimates.” A better way to assess India’s growth performance is to look at a longer timeline that strips away short-term volatility and counterbalances upward and downward revisions.
Good on paper, but not enough
Broadly, however, the figures suggest the Indian economy remained resilient despite the . Even with sharp downward revisions (the largest in the latest update being 1.4 percentage points) growth is likely to remain at a decent level of around 6.5%.
But even if 7.8% growth were to be considered final, it is insufficient to meaningfully improve people’s everyday lives. Comparable FY26 data shows that while overall GDP expanded by 7.7%, GDP per capita grew roughly a percentage point lower at 6.8%. Because India’s population continues to expand, economic gains are being spread across a larger number of people.
More importantly, India is currently in the first decade of its demographic dividend window, which began around 2019, yet its growth rate lags behind many other countries’ record. Between 2019 and 2025 (factoring in the pandemic), India registered a 5.4% GDP growth rate in local currency. By comparison, during the first decade of their respective demographic dividend windows, China averaged 9.3% growth, South Korea 9.4%, and Vietnam 6.3%. Meanwhile, peers such as Thailand and Brazil, which recorded just 4.7% and 4.1% respectively, remain stuck in the middle-income trap.
Considering the pandemic’s impact, India must expand at a far rapid pace to offset losses and raise living standards. Consequently, while 7.8% growth looks impressive on paper, it breeds scepticism among citizens whose daily lives show little improvement, fueling doubts about GDP methodologies and sparking allegations of data manipulation.
Correcting the overestimates
Scepticism surrounding GDP estimates started about a decade ago, with the launch of the 2011-12 series. Numerous experts questioned the framework, arguing that organized-sector data was heavily extrapolated to project figures for other sectors. When the series was updated in February 2026 to a 2022-23 base year, incorporating broader data and a more robust methodology, the economy’s measured size contracted by 2.9%-3%, correcting the overestimation under the prior series.
These corrections have since been applied to quarterly figures, along with methodological changes incorporating the producer price index (PPI) to measure inflation, aligning the process more closely with international standards. As a result, GDP at current prices (nominal terms) has adjusted downward, indicating that India’s economy is actually smaller than previously estimated. Doubts regarding data quality under the previous series were therefore well-founded, even leading the International Monetary Fund to assign a ‘C’ rating to India’s quality last year.
However, Garg’s claim of 2.6% growth fails to add up. He took the nominal GDP of ₹86 trillion for Q1FY26 from the old series and compared it against ₹88 trillion for Q1FY27 under the new series to calculate year-on-year growth. Comparing figures across two entirely different statistical series to derive a growth rate is fundamentally flawed.
The updated GDP calculations introduce several methodological changes, considered more robust for generating accurate estimates of economic activity. This new series addresses concerns raised by experts and the IMF. As the updated framework stabilizes over time, the hope is that future revisions will be less severe.