There is a fascinating debate between former Finance Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg and EAC member Sanjeev Sanyal over India’s latest GDP growth numbers.
And the disagreement is actually easier to understand than the political noise around it.
Garg’s argument is essentially this:
Look at the numbers that were originally reported for the previous year. The nominal GDP for that quarter was around ₹86 lakh crore.
That number was subsequently revised downward to around ₹80 lakh crore.
If you compare today’s GDP with the revised, lower starting point, the percentage growth naturally looks much higher.
Garg’s point is that if you use the earlier, unrevised starting point of ₹86 lakh crore, the increase looks dramatically smaller, around 2.6% rather than the much higher headline figure.
In simple terms:
If you lower the number you are starting from, the percentage increase from that starting point becomes larger.
That is Garg’s concern.
Sanyal’s argument is fundamentally different.
He says Garg is comparing numbers that belong to different statistical series.
India periodically changes the GDP base year because the structure of the economy changes. Old industries become less important. New industries become more important. Consumption patterns change. The economy itself changes.
So when the statistical authorities introduce a new GDP series, they do not simply change the base year and leave history untouched.
They recalculate the historical numbers using the new methodology.
Why?
Because otherwise we would be comparing two different sets of numbers.
Sanyal’s point is therefore:
You cannot take an old, unrevised GDP number from the previous series and compare it with a number calculated under the new series and then claim that the difference represents the actual growth rate.
It would be like measuring someone’s height today using one measuring scale and comparing it with yesterday’s height measured using a different scale.
The comparison becomes meaningless unless the measurements are brought onto the same basis.
And this is where the debate gets interesting.
Garg is essentially asking:
Did the revisions to the starting point materially increase the apparent growth rate?
Sanyal is essentially responding:
You cannot answer that by mixing the old series with the new series. The entire historical series has to be recalculated consistently.
So who is right?
The answer depends on what exactly we are questioning.
If the question is whether the 7.8% figure is mathematically valid under the government’s revised GDP methodology, Sanyal has a strong argument.
If the question is whether revisions to historical GDP estimates can materially change our perception of how fast the economy is actually growing, Garg is raising a legitimate question that deserves examination.
This is therefore not simply a debate between 2.6% and 7.8%.
It is a debate about which numbers should be compared, which methodology should be used, and how much confidence we should place in the resulting growth rate.
And perhaps the most important point is this:
GDP statistics are not just numbers. They are measurements.
The credibility of the measurement depends on whether the methodology is transparent, consistent and capable of capturing the economy as it actually exists.
That is why both Garg’s criticism and Sanyal’s defence deserve to be understood before we decide who is right.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
