India in 2026: Why Criticism Must Be Anchored in Evidence, Not Despair

As India steps into 2026, public debate needs a dose of New Year discipline. Scrutiny is essential in a democracy; sharp criticism is healthy. But argument without responsibility corrodes trust. A republic of over 1.4 billion people cannot be reformed by cynicism alone. Jobs, productivity, exports and inclusion are difficult objectives even in stable economies. In a diverse, federal democracy, progress comes through the unglamorous grind of design, implementation, correction and scale.

A New Year is also a moment to separate scepticism from pessimism — to ask not whether policies are perfect, but whether they are moving outcomes in the right direction.

Critique versus cynicism in a reforming democracy

Public policy, like philosophy, requires a temperament that engages with reality rather than standing aloof from it. In “Beyond Good and Evil”, Friedrich Nietzsche argued that the philosopher must create values rather than merely criticise from the sidelines. Governing a complex democracy demands the same ethic. Critique is welcome — indeed necessary — but it must be tethered to evidence and an understanding of constraints.

In recent years, a genre of commentary has emerged that markets doubt as sophistication. It caricatures reform as cosmetic, treats every imperfect transition as proof of permanent failure, and arrives at a familiar conclusion: that India is doomed by its own policymakers. This posture may flatter the critic, but it weakens trust in institutions, discourages entrepreneurship, and hands external actors a ready-made script to pressure India in negotiations.

Are India’s data systems really beyond repair?

A recurring claim in this discourse is that India’s datasets are uniquely unreliable. That assertion sits uneasily with the direction of travel. The Goods and Services Tax created a national invoice trail and compliance culture that simply did not exist a decade ago. Digital payments added another audit footprint. In November 2025, UPI recorded around 20 billion transactions worth over ₹26 lakh crore — large, verifiable systems that expand the scope for measurement, cross-checks and course correction.

No dataset is perfect, but the institutional capacity to measure economic activity has deepened. To dismiss this entirely is not methodological rigour; it is selective scepticism.

Welfare outcomes that challenge fatalism

Measured outcomes in welfare and inclusion further puncture the narrative of stagnation. NITI Aayog’s National Multidimensional Poverty Index shows that nearly 24 crore Indians moved out of multidimensional poverty between 2013–14 and 2022–23, with incidence falling from about 30% to roughly 11%.

Direct Benefit Transfer tightened delivery, with cumulative transfers crossing ₹45 lakh crore by 2025 and estimated savings of over ₹3.5 lakh crore from reduced leakages. Financial inclusion has become mass infrastructure, with more than 56 crore Jan Dhan accounts. These are not abstract claims; they are system-level changes visible in household outcomes.

Financial discipline and the quiet repair of banking

One of the strongest rebuttals to the claim that the Indian state cannot reform lies in the banking system. The gross non-performing asset ratio of scheduled commercial banks fell to about 2.1% in 2025, from over 11% in 2018. This turnaround did not occur through wishful thinking. It required recognition of bad loans, institutional reforms, and sustained regulatory pressure.

When critics argue that reform is impossible, this quiet but consequential repair is the first answer.

Manufacturing, exports and the logic of scale

The jibe that India cannot build at scale also ignores changes in manufacturing ecosystems. Under Production Linked Incentive programmes, realised investment has crossed ₹2 lakh crore across 14 sectors, generating over 12 lakh jobs. Electronics provides the clearest illustration: total production exceeded ₹11 lakh crore in 2024–25, mobile phone production touched ₹5.5 lakh crore, and mobile exports approached ₹2 lakh crore.

Trade leverage is built through performance and consistency, not performative despair. Total exports of goods and services reached an all-time high of over $825 billion in 2024–25. In an era of tariffs and protectionist reflexes, partners respond to demonstrated capability.

Infrastructure, logistics and the cumulative effect of reform

Competitiveness is not delivered by a single scheme or ministry. It emerges from the cumulative effect of infrastructure investment, logistics reform and administrative simplification. The gains are visible in industrial corridors, improved freight connectivity, better port linkages and integrated planning platforms that reduce the cost of time.

The point is not that bottlenecks have vanished. It is that the state has demonstrated the capacity to build systems, shorten processes and scale delivery — a prerequisite for long-term productivity growth.

Inclusion as the foundation of productivity

On agriculture and rural resilience, it is easy to list distortions and conclude that nothing can be fixed. Yet policy has increasingly shifted towards targeted support and asset creation. Jal Jeevan Mission has provided tap water connections to over 12.5 crore rural households, improving public health and reducing time burdens. Ayushman Bharat has issued more than 42 crore PM-JAY cards. Nearly three crore houses have been completed under PM Awas, and over 10 crore LPG connections under PM Ujjwala have brought cleaner cooking energy to households once trapped in smoke and drudgery.

These outcomes are not ideological trophies; they are the practical foundations on which aspiration and productivity rest.

Federalism, variation and competitive governance

The most sweeping pessimism is often reserved for states, as if a billion people must be governed through a single template. India’s federalism is noisy, but it is also adaptive. States such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have shown that improved law and order, faster clearances and sustained infrastructure delivery can attract investment and formal jobs.

The Centre has reinforced this competitive federalism by building national platforms that states can plug into and by making reform data transparent enough for citizens to judge performance.

Raising the standard of public argument in 2026

India’s story is unfinished and will always invite argument. The question is the quality of the argument we choose. When insinuation substitutes for analysis, institutions that enable reform are weakened. Nietzsche’s reminder remains relevant: serious thinkers create values that help societies live and improve.

India has chosen the harder path of execution. Its results — audited in numbers and felt in households — will outlast any brief for despair. In 2026, the country should demand criticism that improves policy, not commentary that undermines confidence for applause. That standard protects reform, investment and democratic choice at home.