The IMF’s ‘C’ grade for India’s national accounts should ring louder bells than it has. A ‘C’ is the second-lowest mark on the Fund’s data scale and means that methodological weaknesses “somewhat hamper surveillance” of the economy. This is not about one number such as GDP alone. National accounts underpin estimates of growth, investment, consumption and exports—the metrics governments rely on to set interest rates, subsidies, taxes and welfare. When the data itself is in doubt, policy becomes guesswork dressed up as precision.

The IMF’s worries are not new. India still uses 2011–12 as the base year for GDP, CPI and IIP, even though the structure of the economy has shifted in a decade of digitisation, formalisation and services-led growth. The Fund flags the continued use of wholesale prices as deflators in the absence of a full producer-price index, and the “sizeable discrepancies” between GDP measured from the production and expenditure sides—signs that parts of the economy, notably the informal sector, are not being captured well enough. To its credit, the government is not asleep at the wheel.

The statistics ministry plans an overhaul, with a new GDP series based on 2022–23 and an updated CPI based on 2024 due in early 2026. The proposed use of GST and other data sources should improve coverage of both the formal and informal economy. But the timetable is troubling. A $4trn economy chasing growth cannot afford to change the “ruler” so slowly, or to sit in the same ‘C’ bucket as China on data adequacy. India’s statistical system has strong institutions and capable professionals. What it lacks is urgency, independence and resourcing commensurate with its ambitions.

The IMF’s grading should be treated not as an affront but as a nudge to fix outdated methods, invest in better price and labour statistics, and put data quality at the centre of economic governance.