As India steps into 2026, public debate needs a measure of New Year discipline. Scrutiny—even sharp criticism—is indispensable in a democracy. But criticism without responsibility risks corroding the very institutions it claims to improve. A republic of over 1.4 billion people cannot be reformed by cynicism alone. Jobs, productivity, exports, and inclusion are inherently complex goals, achieved not through slogans or despair, but through the unglamorous grind of policy design, implementation, correction, and scale.
A new year is also an opportunity to distinguish scepticism from pessimism. Scepticism questions evidence and methods; pessimism presumes failure as destiny. Public policy requires the former, not the latter.
Why critique needs responsibility
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once argued that a thinker must create values, not merely critique from the sidelines. Public policy demands a similar temperament. Criticism is most valuable when it is tethered to evidence and mindful of the constraints of governing a vast, diverse democracy. When argument detaches itself from facts or feasibility, it becomes performance rather than analysis.
In recent years, a genre of commentary has gained prominence that treats doubt as sophistication. It caricatures reform, interprets every imperfect transition as proof of permanent failure, and offers a familiar consolation—that India is doomed by its own policymakers. This posture weakens trust in institutions, encourages fatalism among entrepreneurs and investors, and hands external actors a ready-made narrative to pressure India in negotiations.
Trust in data and institutions
One recurring charge is that India’s official data systems are uniquely unreliable. This claim sits uneasily with recent structural changes. The Goods and Services Tax created a national invoice trail and compliance culture that did not exist a decade ago. Digital payments have added another layer of auditability. In November 2025 alone, UPI recorded around 20 billion transactions worth over ₹26 lakh crore. These are large, verifiable systems that expand the scope for measurement, cross-checking, and course correction.
No dataset is perfect, but dismissing the entire statistical ecosystem ignores the direction of travel—from opacity to traceability, from fragmentation to integration.
Measured outcomes in welfare and inclusion
Empirical outcomes further challenge sweeping pessimism. According to the National Multidimensional Poverty Index, nearly 24 crore Indians moved out of multidimensional poverty between 2013–14 and 2022–23, with poverty incidence falling from about 30% to roughly 11%. Direct Benefit Transfer has tightened welfare delivery, with cumulative transfers exceeding ₹45 lakh crore by 2025 and estimated savings of over ₹3.5 lakh crore through reduced leakages.
Financial inclusion has become mass infrastructure. More than 56 crore Jan Dhan accounts now anchor households to the formal financial system. These are not abstract achievements; they reshape how the state reaches citizens and how citizens participate in the economy.
Reform capacity and financial discipline
The claim that the Indian state cannot reform is also contradicted by developments in financial discipline. The gross non-performing asset ratio of scheduled commercial banks fell to about 2.1% in 2025, down from over 11% in 2018. This turnaround did not occur by accident or rhetoric, but through regulatory action, recognition of stress, and institutional repair. When critics argue that reform is impossible, this quiet but consequential shift is the first counterpoint.
Building at scale: manufacturing and exports
Assertions that India cannot build at scale overlook changes in manufacturing ecosystems. Under the Production Linked Incentive programmes, realised investment has crossed ₹2 lakh crore across 14 sectors, generating over 12 lakh jobs. Electronics offers the clearest illustration: total production exceeded ₹11 lakh crore in 2024–25, mobile phone production crossed ₹5.5 lakh crore, and mobile exports approached ₹2 lakh crore.
Trade leverage is built through performance and consistency, not performative despair. India’s total exports of goods and services reached an all-time high of over $825 billion in 2024–25. In a global environment marked by tariffs and protectionism, partners respond to demonstrated capability. A country that produces, trades, and absorbs at scale negotiates from a position of strength.
Infrastructure, logistics, and competitiveness
Competitiveness does not emerge from a single scheme or ministry. It is the cumulative effect of infrastructure expansion, logistics reform, and administrative simplification. Industrial corridors, improved freight connectivity, better port linkages, and integrated planning platforms have reduced the cost of time and distance. Not every bottleneck has disappeared, but the state has demonstrated an ability to build systems, shorten processes, and scale delivery—an essential prerequisite for sustained growth.
Inclusion through basic services
In agriculture and rural resilience, it is easy to list distortions and conclude that nothing works. Yet policy direction has shifted toward targeted support and asset creation. The Jal Jeevan Mission has provided tap water connections to over 12.5 crore rural households, improving health outcomes and reducing time burdens. Inclusion is also visible in health, housing, and energy access. More than 42 crore Ayushman Bharat cards have been issued, nearly three crore houses completed under PM Awas, and over 10 crore LPG connections provided through PM Ujjwala Yojana. These outcomes form the practical foundation on which aspiration and productivity rest.
Federalism as an adaptive strength
The harshest 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. Several states—including Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan—have demonstrated that improvements in law and order, faster clearances, and sustained infrastructure delivery can attract investment and formal employment. The Centre has reinforced competitive federalism by building national platforms that states can plug into and by making reform data transparent enough for citizens to judge performance.
The standard India should demand in 2026
India’s story is unfinished and will always invite argument. The real question is the quality of that argument. When insinuation replaces analysis, criticism weakens the institutions that make reform possible. Serious thinking creates values that help societies improve. India has chosen the harder path of execution, and it is the results—audited in numbers and felt in households—that will ultimately outlast fashionable despair.
As 2026 begins, India should demand criticism that improves policy, not commentary that undermines confidence for applause. That standard protects reform, investment, and democratic choice at home.
