Examining Claims of India's Economic and Democratic Decline Under Modi

The article asserts that India's economic prosperity and democratic freedoms have significantly declined under Prime Minister Modi's tenure, based on a research study. Our analysis finds these claims are partially supported by various independent reports concerning democratic erosion, but the econom

2026-08-26

Original article: thewire.in

Executive Summary

The Wire article, "India Is Much Poorer and Far Less Free Under Modi Than It Would Have Been Without Him: Study," presents a critical assessment of India's trajectory under the Narendra Modi-led government since 2014. Citing a study by Kevin Grier and Robin Grier of Texas Tech University, the article posits that a counterfactual scenario, without Modi's leadership, would have resulted in a more prosperous and democratic India. Specifically, it claims a hypothetical per-capita income $1,000 higher by 2023 and significantly lower political corruption, alongside improved rankings in freedom of expression and other governance indicators. This analysis scrutinizes these claims against available evidence, focusing on both economic performance and democratic health.

What The Original Reports

The article, published by The Wire and summarized on Dailyhunt [Source: E5, E9], hinges on the findings of a study titled 'Promises, Promises: Governance and Growth in India under Modi and the BJP' by Kevin Grier and Robin Grier. The core assertions are:

1. If Modi and the BJP had lost the 2014 Lok Sabha election, India would be more prosperous and democratic today [Source: E5, E9]. 2. India's per-capita income would have been $1,000 higher in 2023 under a 'business as usual' approach than it actually was under Modi's rule [Source: E5, E9]. 3. Political corruption would have been "far lower" without Modi, and India would have fared "much better" on rankings for freedom of expression and seven other critical indicators [Source: E5, E9]. 4. India's performance dipped on ten critical governance indicators, including political corruption, democracy (polyarchy), liberal democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association, equality before the law, equal protection under the law, judicial constraints on the executive, and legislative constraints on the executive [Source: E5, E9]. 5. Freedom of religion marked the "steepest decline" among these indicators, and political corruption has "grown significantly" since 2014 [Source: E5, E9].

Fact-Check Against The Evidence

The claims made by The Wire article, derived from the Grier and Grier study, present a strongly negative view of India's performance since 2014. These claims warrant a granular examination against a broader pool of evidence.

Claim 1: India would have been more prosperous and democratic without Modi.

This is a hypothetical counterfactual and inherently difficult to verify directly. However, we can assess the trends in prosperity and democracy under Modi.

Democracy: Several independent organizations have indeed downgraded India's democratic status during Modi's tenure. Freedom House, in 2021, reclassified India from 'Free' to 'Partly Free' [Source: E1, E8]. The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project relegated India to 'electoral autocracy' status in the same year [Source: E1]. The Economist Intelligence Unit moved India into the 'flawed democracy' category [Source: E1]. These reports cite factors such as increased pressure on human rights organizations, intimidation of journalists and activists, and attacks against Muslims as reasons for the decline [Source: E8]. The article from the Journal of Democracy [Source: E1] corroborates these assessments, stating that India now resides in a "nether region between full democracy and full autocracy" and attributes this to the Modi government's actions, noting that "democratic institutions have remained formally in place while the norms and practices underpinning democracy have substantially deteriorated" [Source: E1]. Prosperity: The economic picture is more nuanced. While the Grier study claims a $1,000 lower per-capita income, other reports present a different view of India's economic growth. A BBC analysis from April 2024 [Source: E10] states that India's growth is outpacing other major economies, banks are strong, and government finances are stable. It notes India surpassed the UK as the fifth-largest economy and is projected to become the third largest by 2027 [Source: E10]. This source attributes some of this to "Modinomics," including a push for digital governance that saved 1.1% of GDP by March 2021 through reduced red tape and corruption, enabling social subsidies and infrastructure spending without high deficits [Source: E10]. However, this same BBC report also acknowledges that for a "vast swathe" of the population, it is "not boomtime just as yet" [Source: E10]. An earlier analysis from The Strategist in May 2020 critically reviewed Modi's economic decisions, highlighting the "disastrous demonetisation" in 2016 and the rushed implementation of GST, which negatively impacted small businesses and the poor [Source: E2]. It also criticized the government's handling of the COVID-19 lockdown, leading to significant job losses and impoverishment [Source: E2]. An Italian think tank, Asia Maior, noted in 2016 that while India's GDP grew by 7.3% in 2014/15, the reliability of these new methodological data was questioned, and economists suggested the positive economic turnaround began before Modi's government [Source: E3]. This source also pointed to a "deepening rural crisis" [Source: E3].

Claim 2: Per-capita income would have been $1,000 higher by 2023 without Modi.

Contradicted/Unverifiable: This specific numerical counterfactual is not independently verifiable by the provided evidence. While the BBC report [Source: E10] highlights overall economic growth and India's rising global economic rank, it does not offer a counterfactual analysis to support or refute the Grier study's specific income projection. The Asia Maior report from 2016 [Source: E3] questioned the reliability of new GDP methodology data, complicating direct comparisons across administrations.

Claim 3 & 4: Political corruption would have been far lower, and India would have fared much better on freedom of expression and seven other critical indicators, all of which dipped significantly.

Supported (for democratic indicators): The claims regarding the decline in democratic freedoms are widely corroborated. Freedom House's downgrade to "Partly Free" [Source: E1, E8] and V-Dem's classification as an "electoral autocracy" [Source: E1] directly support the idea of a significant worsening of democratic indicators. The Journal of Democracy article explicitly states that during Modi's tenure, democratic norms and practices have "substantially deteriorated" through "harassment of the opposition, intimidation of media, and centralization of executive power," equating government criticism with disloyalty [Source: E1]. The BBC report [Source: E8] echoes these findings, mentioning increased pressure on human rights organizations, intimidation of journalists and activists, and attacks against Muslims. The Grier study's specific mention of a "big fall in freedom of expression" [Source: E5, E9] aligns with Freedom House's concerns about threats to freedom of expression [Source: E8]. Contested/Unverifiable (for corruption): The claim that political corruption has grown significantly [Source: E5, E9] contradicts Modi's campaign promise to reduce it. The BBC report [Source: E10] highlights that digital governance initiatives under Modi have "cut red tape and corruption," saving a significant portion of GDP. This presents a direct contradiction regarding the trend of corruption. No other evidence directly verifies the Grier study's assertion of increased political corruption. The Asia Maior report [Source: E3] from 2016, a year after Modi took office, did not make strong claims about corruption trends but focused more on the economic sphere and the rise of intolerance.

Claim 5: Freedom of religion marked the steepest decline; political corruption grew significantly.

Supported (freedom of religion): The BBC report [Source: E8] notes that Freedom House cited "a spate of attacks, especially those against Muslims" as contributing to the decline in liberties, and that "several minority groups have complained of discrimination." The Journal of Democracy [Source: E1] mentions that the Modi government is diminishing the idea of legitimate opposition by equating criticism with disloyalty, which can be seen as contributing to an environment where religious freedoms are curtailed. The Asia Maior article, published in 2016, observed a "rise of intolerance against non-Hindus, who were victims of Fascist-like, sometimes deadly, aggressions by Hindu outfits" while the Prime Minister appeared "unconcerned" [Source: E3]. These observations align with the Grier study's finding of a steep decline in freedom of religion. Contested (political corruption): As noted above, the BBC report on India's economy [Source: E10] suggests that digital governance efforts have reduced red tape and corruption, directly contradicting the Grier study's claim of increased political corruption.

Bias And Methodology Critique

The article from The Wire is essentially a summary of a research paper by Grier and Grier. The Wire itself is an Indian news outlet often critical of the current government [Source: E7, E9]. The article clearly aligns with a critical stance, framing its headline to directly blame Modi for a perceived decline in prosperity and freedom. While it reports on a specific academic study, the selection and emphasis of its findings reflect this critical perspective. The article states that the findings might "sound like an everyday fact or lived reality to critics of the government" [Source: E5, E9], indicating a pre-existing bias among its readership or within the outlet itself.

The Grier and Grier study's methodology, as described by The Wire, relies on a "counter-factual" analysis, creating a hypothetical 'business as usual' scenario without Modi's leadership to compare actual outcomes [Source: E5, E9]. While counterfactuals are a recognized research tool, their validity heavily depends on the assumptions made in constructing the alternative scenario. The article does not provide sufficient detail on the methodology to critically evaluate these assumptions, particularly how the 'business as usual' baseline for economic growth and governance indicators was established and what external factors were controlled for. This makes it challenging to ascertain the robustness of the $1,000 per-capita income difference claim.

Furthermore, the article relies on a single study for its central economic and corruption claims. While it mentions other democratic watchdog groups like Freedom House, V-Dem, and EIU, these are primarily cited for democratic declines, not economic or corruption trends. The lack of broader corroboration from other economic analyses for the specific magnitude of economic decline (the $1,000 figure) or the direction of corruption (increase) limits the overall credibility of these particular claims, especially when contrasted with other sources, such as the BBC's report on economic growth and reduced corruption through digital initiatives [Source: E10].

What The Coverage Misses

The article's focus on the Grier and Grier study's negative assessment of Modi's tenure, particularly through a counterfactual lens, inadvertently overshadows or simplifies complex developments. It largely misses:

1. Nuance in Economic Performance: While the Grier study indicates a decline in per-capita GDP, other reports highlight significant economic growth and India's rising global economic stature. The BBC, for instance, details India's economic growth outpacing other major economies, its rise to the fifth-largest economy, and projections for further ascent [Source: E10]. It also points to the success of digital governance in cutting red tape and corruption and enabling social welfare spending [Source: E10]. The article's singular focus on the $1,000 per-capita income deficit, without acknowledging the broader economic context of robust growth rates (even if unevenly distributed), provides an incomplete picture of India's economic trajectory. 2. External and Global Factors: The article primarily attributes changes to Modi's government. However, global events and regional dynamics also significantly impact a nation's economy and governance. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted economies worldwide, and its handling by governments, including India's, had significant consequences for populations and economic indicators [Source: E2, E8]. The article from Asia Maior noted the Indian economy was "severely affected by a deepening rural crisis" some causes of which were "beyond the reach of Modi's government" [Source: E3]. The shifting global order and the US-India strategic partnership, as discussed in the Worldviews on the United States [Source: E4], represent external factors that influence India's position and policy choices, which are not considered in the article's narrow attribution of all outcomes to Modi's internal policies. 3. Specific Policy Achievements (and their downsides): Beyond broad indicators, the article does not delve into specific policies that may have had mixed outcomes. For example, demonetization and GST implementation, while criticized for their immediate negative impacts on the poor and small businesses [Source: E2], were also intended as reforms to formalize the economy and increase tax revenue. The digital revolution, noted by the BBC [Source: E10], clearly has positive impacts despite potential downsides. A more comprehensive analysis would explore these specific policy interventions and their multi-faceted effects, rather than just their aggregate impact. 4. The 'Why' Behind Democratic Declines: While the article and corroborating sources confirm a decline in democratic indicators, the analysis could further explore the underlying mechanisms and legislative actions contributing to these trends, beyond general statements about intimidation and harassment [Source: E1, E8]. For example, specific laws or amendments (like the Citizenship Amendment Act mentioned in the BBC report [Source: E8]) and their direct impact on civil liberties and freedom of religion could be discussed in greater detail.

Assessment For India

For India, the claims presented in The Wire article, particularly regarding the erosion of democratic institutions and civil liberties, are a significant concern. The consensus among multiple international democracy watchdogs (Freedom House, V-Dem, EIU, Journal of Democracy) on India's downgrade to a 'hybrid regime' or 'partly free' status [Source: E1, E8] suggests that criticisms of the Modi government's impact on democratic norms are not isolated. This trend impacts India's global standing and its ability to project itself as a stable, pluralistic democracy. The reported decline in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and concerns about judicial and legislative constraints on the executive are particularly salient for India's internal social cohesion and external image.

However, the article's economic claims should be interpreted with caution. While some sources highlight negative impacts on specific demographics (e.g., the poor during COVID-19 lockdowns [Source: E2]), and questions about data reliability [Source: E3], other robust analyses point to India's significant economic growth, infrastructural development, and increasing global economic influence under Modi [Source: E10]. The assertion of a $1,000 lower per-capita income lacks broad corroboration and should be treated as a specific finding from one study, rather than a universally accepted economic reality. The contradictory findings on corruption, with one source claiming an increase [Source: E5, E9] and another citing a decrease through digital initiatives [Source: E10], highlight the complexity and contested nature of this particular indicator.

From a strategic perspective, persistent critiques of India's democratic health could complicate its partnerships, particularly with Western nations that often emphasize shared values. While the US has pursued a strategic partnership with India, viewing global disorder as an opportunity for India to play a leading role [Source: E4], consistent negative assessments of its democratic standing could, over time, create friction or influence the nature of these alliances. For CounterWire, it is crucial to present a balanced view: acknowledging the documented concerns about democratic backsliding while also recognizing India's undeniable economic momentum and strategic aspirations. Future analysis should continue to monitor both the evolution of India's democratic institutions and the equitable distribution of its economic gains, as these factors will critically shape its long-term power and influence.