The case of India's falling indices

If the government is concerned about how India is perceived overseas, it should stop contesting global indices and revert to the time-tested ways of our democracy

Amid proclamations of India’s rise as a global power, a harsh reality check arrived recently, sparking much debate. The Global Hunger Index (GHI), which ranks countries on the prevalence and extent of malnutrition and hunger, put India at a lowly 101st spot out of 116 countries for 2021 (in 2020, it was at 94 among 107 countries) – below all of South Asia except war-torn Afghanistan.

The release of the GHI spurred several analysts and commentators to elaborate on India’s miserable performance on global indices of all kinds, measuring everything from freedom and democracy to corruption and income inequality. Aakar Patel, the former chief of Amnesty India, pointed out that of the 58 global indices that he had researched, India had fallen on a whopping 54 over the last few years. Among the four that India improved on was the ‘Ease of Doing Business’ index published by the World Bank. But that index has since been withdrawn by the World Bank after independent studies revealed various irregularities and manipulated data.

Discreditable response

To be sure, measuring parameters such as hunger and corruption is not altogether straightforward, and there is certainly much room for ambiguity on each of these indices. Comparing a country’s ranking from one year to the next is not entirely simple, either: the number of countries on the index can vary from year to year, depending on data available, and methodologies change frequently. Yet, the Modi government and its supporters have so far failed to engage meaningfully with these nuances – choosing instead to cast aspersions on flimsy grounds and seeking to discredit the indices with emotive rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

Take the Global Hunger Index, for instance. In the aftermath of its release, the government rubbished the GHI’s methodology, alleging that it was based on a “four-question opinion poll” conducted by Gallup. But as Dipa Sinha, a researcher at Ambedkar University Delhi, pointed out, the GHI did not rely on that poll at all: It relied, instead, on data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, measuring the percentage of undernourished in the population. On that metric alone, India has regressed more recently: From 2004 to 2017, the percentage of undernourished fell from 22% to under 14%. In 2019, before the pandemic, that figure had climbed up over 15%.

The government was found guilty of similar denial in its assessment of the power of the Indian passport, too. Speaking to party workers in Goa, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had claimed, “Modi has increased the value of Indian passports and this was possible because the BJP has won with a majority in the general elections.” Yet, on the Henley Passport Index, which measures travel freedom, India has trended downward over time. In its latest rankings, the index ranked India an abysmal 90th out of 116 countries – tied with Burkina Faso and Tajikistan, and far below the likes of Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone.

Issues regarding democracy and freedom have been particularly thorny. Over the last couple of years, India has been downgraded on these counts by several indices run by various organisations, including The Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, and Sweden’s V-Dem Institute. Their case has been made based on several factors, including India’s unrestrained use of internet shutdowns to muzzle protests and its expanded use of the sedition law. Yet, instead of engaging with these concerns, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar inexplicably framed the problem as a clash of civilisations, claiming that “self-appointed custodians” are incensed that India won’t “play the game they want to be played.”

Shortly afterwards, reports suggested that the Ministry of External Affairs was keen to start a counter-attacking index of its own on democracy and freedom. Ordinarily, that would have been an excellent idea – helping India’s foreign policy to become more proactive and influential on political situations in other countries, and building awareness on world affairs back home in India. But given Jaishankar’s open ideological attack, the index’s global credibility is likely to suffer from the get-go – perceived as no more than an attempt by New Delhi to vent its frustration.

Most of the indices and reports that Jaishankar was alluding to were not supervised by governments in the West; many of them have been critical of problems in America’s own democracy in recent years.

Very real problems

Contrary to India’s recent foreign policy statements, for well over a decade, much of the Western world has sought to play up India as a credible democratic alternative to China in the developing world. With ideological competition heating up between China and the West, that strategic interest has only intensified over the last couple of years. India’s huge population also makes its success vital for the future of the global economy.

But the problem for India – and the world – is that India is suffering from some very real problems, highlighted by each of these indices. Unconvincing statements of denial by the government only serve to dilute India’s soft power and credibility. A more productive approach would be to engage in the debate, address concerns, and work towards fixing India’s challenges.

Much of this is also compounded by a growing culture of opaqueness on data. In the face of crises through the last couple of years, the Indian government has publicly admitted – on several occasions – that it lacks data on critical issues, from the deaths of migrant workers during the pandemic to job losses in cities.

Lack of data often obscures real problems from policymakers. Lack of transparency on them leads to speculation on the outside.

If the Modi government is truly concerned about how India is perceived overseas, it should stop trying to contest global indices and revert to the time-tested ways of Indian democracy: of robust data collection, transparent and open debate, and respect for individual freedom. The world does not want to see India fail. To the contrary, it is anxious to see India succeed.

(The writer is a foreign affairs columnist and the author of Flying Blind: India’s Quest for Global Leadership (Penguin))