Soumya Kanti Ghosh, a prominent member of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council (EAC-PM) and the 16th Finance Commission, has vehemently dismissed claims suggesting India's recent GDP growth rate was merely 2.6%, rather than the government's reported 7.8%.
Ghosh labeled such assertions as a "sign of intellectual dishonesty." His remarks specifically addressed criticisms from figures like former finance secretary Subhash Garg, who had disputed the robustness of India's growth figures, pointing to a downward revision of current prices GDP from ₹86 lakh crore to ₹80 lakh crore as a means to inflate the first-quarter growth rate.
Methodology Under Scrutiny
In an opinion piece, Ghosh highlighted the flawed comparison methods used by critics. He stated that attributing a 2.6% nominal GDP growth by comparing a new series figure (₹88.3 lakh crore) with an old series figure (₹86.1 lakh crore) is fundamentally incorrect. "This is a sign of intellectual dishonesty," he wrote, stressing that comparisons must be made using a consistent base and method.
Ghosh clarified that for a proper comparison of current nominal GDP numbers against the unrevised base of the previous year's first quarter, one should compare ₹88.3 lakh crore with ₹80.4 lakh crore. This calculation, he noted, would yield a nominal growth rate of 9.7%, which translates to a real growth rate of 7.4% even under this alternative approach.
Revisions Are Standard Practice
The PM adviser further explained that the 2.6% figure is neither the official real growth rate nor a like-for-like comparison. He described it as "a hybrid comparison between a current-year level of the new-series with an old-series previous-year level." While it might create a "dramatic talking point," it fails to provide a meaningful and accurate reflection of the economic reality.
Ghosh also defended the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI)'s practice of revising previous GDP estimates annually. He cited the World Bank, which acknowledges that countries frequently revise national accounts to enhance accuracy and comparability, especially when new methodologies or reference years are introduced. He concluded that the reported Q1 FY27 growth number is credible due to its comprehensive composition and adherence to established statistical practices.