One of the key contributions of NITI Aayog has been the development of a range of performance indices — covering innovation, water management, fiscal health, poverty and others — that facilitate cross-state comparisons. These tools have spurred healthy competition among states and helped shape policies, direct investments, and target development assistance. They’ve also supported greater transparency and accountability in governance.
Villagers discuss air pollution in their village in Hasaka countryside, Syria, July 20, 2025. REUTERS/Orhan Qereman (REUTERS)
On the global stage, several international indices — including the Human Development Index (HDI), Social Progress Index (SPI), Global Nutrition Report, World Governance Indicators (WGI), and Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) — serve a similar purpose. When grounded in objective, measurable data, such indices offer valuable insights. However, when they rely on subjective assessments or perceptions, they risk becoming biased or agenda-driven, and countries in the Global South are often at the receiving end.
Over the past decade, India has witnessed a decline in several international rankings, particularly in perception-based indices related to democracy, press freedom, and civil liberties. In early 2021 the government formed a committee of secretaries to monitor and review the measures taken across ministries at improving India’s performance on key global benchmarks. In November 2022, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM) released a report examining the reasons behind India's low rankings in three opinion-based indices: Freedom in the World, the EIU Democracy Index, and the Varieties of Democracy project.
By April 2025, media reports indicated that the government was reviewing the methodologies of 28 global indices — including those assessing democracy and hunger — over concerns about flawed assessments. Particular attention was being paid to sample sizes and modelling techniques used for cross-country comparisons.
A recurring issue in these indices is their reliance on the opinions of a small group of unnamed experts. For example, the Democracy Index has ranked India at 104, while other countries with questionable recent democratic records have fared significantly better — raising questions about the consistency and contextual understanding of these rankings. Similarly, India was once ranked below Afghanistan in the Press Freedom Index — a finding that many critics viewed as absurd, given the ground realities in both nations.
Example of another questionable parameter used by some indices is the extent of direct popular voting. Since India does not have referendums or plebiscites — a feature more common in smaller nations- it receives a low score. Applying such metrics uniformly across vastly different political systems can lead to misleading conclusions, especially when countries like Belarus or Afghanistan appear more democratic on certain isolated parameters than India or the US.
In a related development, a Reuters article recently questioned the credibility of India’s official unemployment data, citing a perception-based survey of around 50 anonymous economists. The government’s pushback focused on the lack of methodological transparency and the potential for bias in interpreting complex economic data through limited, subjective input.
While it's tempting to dismiss these rankings as niche academic exercises, their real-world implications are significant. Perception-based indices feed into broader tools like the World Governance Indicators (WGI), which, in turn, influence sovereign credit ratings. Moreover, with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics gaining traction in global finance and Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems increasingly trained on these datasets, uncritical adoption of flawed indices could entrench systemic biases.
Looking ahead, it is vital for the government to actively engage with institutions that compile global indices and demand the updation of their processes and contextualisation of the parameters. For example, India could encourage the World Bank to demand greater transparency and accountability from think tanks contributing to the WGI. Constructive dialogue — rather than outright dismissal — is key to ensuring fairer evaluations.
At the same time, public and private institutions in India — including think tanks and academic bodies — must play a more proactive role. They should develop their own metrics, deepen regional research collaborations, and present alternative frameworks grounded in local realities.
A recent milestone in this direction was the October 2024 launch of sovereign credit ratings by CareEdge Global, the first Indian agency to assess global economies. This initiative is a welcome step toward enhancing transparency and offering diverse perspectives in global assessments.
Ultimately, shaping global narratives requires more than critique — it calls for credible alternatives. Both the government and civil society must invest in building India's intellectual and analytical capacity to ensure that our story is told with accuracy, fairness, and nuance.
The article is authored by Priyal Bhardwaj, founder, Sangini Saheli and general secretary, women’s wing, BJP, New Delhi.
E-Paper
