Indian Political CompassGovernment · 2014–2024
Modi Government
Could large-scale digital and physical infrastructure, formalisation of the economy, and expanded direct welfare transfer be built without the institutional damage some major reforms risked?
What India looked like on taking office
The Modi government took office after the UPA's final years of slowing growth, high inflation, and the 2G/coal-block controversies that had strained bureaucratic decision-making. India had a single-party parliamentary majority for the first time since 1984, removing the coalition-partner veto that had constrained both the Vajpayee and UPA governments on contentious reforms. Roughly 40% of Indian adults lacked a bank account; open defecation remained widespread despite decades of sanitation programmes; the Aadhaar identity infrastructure existed but lacked full statutory backing and was not yet the backbone of welfare delivery; India's ranking on the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business index was 142nd (2014). Indirect tax collection was fragmented across a patchwork of state VATs, central excise, and service tax, each with separate compliance regimes. [world_bank, rbi]
Governing philosophy
Combine large state-led infrastructure and digital-identity investment with formalisation of the economy, bringing informal transactions, businesses and welfare delivery into a documented, bank- and Aadhaar-linked system, alongside continued market-oriented reform (GST, bankruptcy code, FDI liberalisation) and an assertive approach to constitutional and national-security questions the party had long campaigned on (Article 370, Citizenship Amendment Act). The single-party majority allowed reforms attempted or blocked under coalition governments (GST negotiation began under UPA; a bankruptcy code had been recommended by expert committees for years) to be pushed through on a faster timeline. [pib]
Major policies and reforms
political decision · Introduced 2016-11-08
Demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes
Problem: Stated objectives were curbing 'black money' (undeclared income held in cash), counterfeit currency, and terror financing.
Who it targeted: Economy-wide, all cash holders, with disproportionate short-term impact on cash-dependent informal-sector workers and small businesses
Mechanism: Withdrew the legal-tender status of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes (86% of currency in circulation by value) with a few hours' notice, requiring the public to exchange or deposit old notes within a limited window, followed by new Rs 500 and Rs 2,000 notes.
Cost: RBI's costs of printing new currency and managing the exchange rose sharply that year; broader economic cost estimates (GDP foregone from disruption) vary widely by source and are disputed.
Original objective: Reduce black money in circulation, curb counterfeit notes, and push transactions toward the formal, traceable banking system.
Measured outcome: The RBI's own 2018 annual report stated that approximately 99.3% of the demonetised currency value was returned to the banking system, which critics cited as evidence that little genuinely 'black' (undeclared, un-bankable) cash was actually extinguished, since the stated goal was permanent removal of illegitimate cash from circulation. Digital and UPI transaction volumes did rise in the following years, though growth in digital payments continued a pre-existing trend and cannot be attributed to demonetisation alone. GDP growth slowed in the two quarters immediately following, a fact acknowledged even by supportive economists, though the size of the effect versus concurrent global factors is debated among economists. [rbi]
Problems / criticism: Widespread short-term cash shortages, reported job losses in cash-dependent informal sectors (estimates vary widely and are contested), and long queues at banks were extensively documented at the time. The Supreme Court in 2023 upheld the legality of the decision-making process in a 4:1 majority, but the dissenting judge found the process procedurally unlawful; the judgment addressed legality, not economic effectiveness, which remains separately debated among economists.
Still operating: N/A, a one-time action, not an ongoing programme.
VerdictNegativeConfidencemedium
Sources
- RBI — Monetary policy, banking regulation, and economic data
- SC Demonetisation Judgment (2023) — Constitution bench judgment (4:1) upholding the legality of the 2016 demonetisation process
structural reform · Introduced 2017-07-01
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
Problem: India's indirect tax system was fragmented across central excise, service tax, and state-level VATs with cascading taxation (tax on tax) and inconsistent rates across state borders, raising compliance costs and distorting interstate trade.
Who it targeted: All businesses and, indirectly, all consumers
Mechanism: Replaced most central and state indirect taxes with a unified, multi-rate GST administered jointly by the Centre and states through the GST Council, a constitutional body of Centre and state finance ministers that sets rates by consensus vote. Required a constitutional amendment (101st, 2016), whose groundwork had been negotiated over several years, including under the UPA.
Cost: States were guaranteed compensation for revenue shortfalls for five years (2017–2022), funded through a dedicated compensation cess; the Centre's compensation payments became a significant fiscal and Centre-state friction point, especially during the COVID-19 revenue collapse.
Original objective: Create 'one nation, one tax', reduce cascading taxation, improve ease of doing business, and expand the formal tax base.
Measured outcome: Monthly GST collections grew substantially over the government's term, crossing Rs 1.8 lakh crore in several months by 2023–24 from an initial base near Rs 90,000 crore monthly in 2017–18, reflecting both formalisation and inflation/growth. India's Ease of Doing Business ranking improved to 63rd by 2019 (the last year the World Bank published the index), citing GST among contributing reforms. [ministry_finance, gst_council, world_bank]
Problems / criticism: The multiple-rate structure (a compromise to protect state revenues and avoid regressive effects on essential goods) fell short of the 'one tax' simplicity originally promised; small businesses reported high initial compliance costs and technology-portal difficulties; the Centre's delayed compensation payments to states during 2020–21 caused a significant political and fiscal dispute over interpretation of the compensation guarantee.
Still operating: Yes, the GST Council continues to revise rates and structure; the compensation-cess mechanism was extended past its original 2022 end date to repay pandemic-era borrowing.
VerdictMixedConfidencehigh
Sources
- GST Council — Constitutional body of Centre and state finance ministers governing GST rates and rules
- MoF — Union budgets, economic surveys, and fiscal data
- World Bank — Cross-country economic and development indicators, including India GDP growth and trade data
structural reform · Introduced 2016-05-28
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Problem: India lacked a unified, time-bound insolvency resolution process; corporate defaults could take years to resolve across fragmented laws (SICA, DRT, company law provisions), leaving capital locked in non-performing assets and discouraging lending.
Who it targeted: Creditors (particularly banks holding non-performing assets), defaulting companies, and prospective new owners of distressed assets
Mechanism: Created a single, time-bound (originally 180–270 days) insolvency resolution process overseen by the National Company Law Tribunal, with a new regulator (IBBI) and professional resolution mechanism, shifting control of a defaulting company from its existing promoters to creditors during resolution.
Cost: Institutional set-up cost for NCLT benches and IBBI; not a large direct fiscal outlay.
Original objective: Resolve corporate insolvency within a fixed timeframe and improve recovery rates for creditors, addressing India's banking-sector non-performing asset crisis.
Measured outcome: IBBI data show recovery rates for financial creditors in resolved cases have generally exceeded the recovery rates under prior mechanisms (DRT, Lok Adalat, SARFAESI), though average resolution timelines have consistently exceeded the statutory limits, often running well past a year. High-profile resolutions (e.g., Essar Steel, Bhushan Steel) demonstrated the mechanism could return significant value to creditors. [ibbi]
Problems / criticism: Case pendency and delays at NCLT benches, due to limited tribunal capacity relative to caseload, have been a persistent and widely documented shortfall against the Code's original time-bound design; the Code has been amended several times (2018, 2019, 2020) to address gaps exposed in practice, including a temporary suspension of new insolvency filings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Still operating: Yes.
VerdictPositiveConfidencemedium
institution building · Introduced 2014-2016 (Jan Dhan launched 2014; DBT expansion accelerated after the 2016 Aadhaar Act)
Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile (JAM) trinity and Direct Benefit Transfer expansion
Problem: Welfare subsidies (LPG, food, fertiliser, and scheme payments) were prone to leakage, duplication, and ghost beneficiaries when disbursed through physical delivery or unlinked bank accounts.
Who it targeted: Welfare-scheme beneficiaries, particularly the previously unbanked poor
Mechanism: Linked the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana's zero-balance bank accounts with Aadhaar identity numbers and mobile numbers, giving Aadhaar statutory backing via the 2016 Aadhaar Act, and used the combination to pay subsidies and scheme benefits directly into beneficiaries' bank accounts rather than through intermediaries. (Full Jan Dhan scheme detail: see the Jan Dhan Yojana scheme page.)
Cost: Bank-account opening and maintenance subsidy costs for zero-balance accounts; DBT itself redirects existing subsidy spending rather than adding new outlay.
Original objective: Eliminate leakage and duplicate/fake beneficiaries in subsidy and welfare delivery by routing payments through a bank-Aadhaar-linked, verifiable channel.
Measured outcome: Over 500 million Jan Dhan accounts were opened by the government's own count; the government has cited cumulative DBT savings estimates running into several lakh crore rupees from eliminating duplicate/fake beneficiaries across schemes including LPG subsidies (post the PAHAL scheme) and MGNREGA payments. Independent economists have contested the precise magnitude of these savings estimates, noting some of the claimed savings reflect beneficiaries who exited schemes for reasons unrelated to DBT (such as rising incomes), while agreeing the mechanism did reduce certain categories of leakage. [uidai, ministry_finance]
Problems / criticism: A significant share of Jan Dhan accounts remained inactive or minimally used in the scheme's early years, per RBI and Finance Ministry data; Aadhaar-linked authentication failures at the point of service (biometric mismatches, especially for elderly or manual labourers) have been documented in field studies as excluding some genuine beneficiaries from receiving entitlements, a criticism distinct from the leakage-reduction claims made for the same system.
Still operating: Yes, DBT now covers several hundred central schemes.
VerdictPositiveConfidencemedium
scheme · Introduced 2014-10-02
Swachh Bharat Mission
Problem: India had among the highest rates of open defecation in the world despite decades of prior sanitation programmes, linked in public-health research to child malnutrition and disease burden.
Who it targeted: Households, particularly rural, without access to household toilets
Mechanism: Provided financial incentives (around Rs 12,000 per household) for household toilet construction, combined with a nationwide behaviour-change communication campaign and village/district 'open-defecation-free' (ODF) certification process. (Full scheme detail: see the Swachh Bharat Mission scheme page.)
Cost: Cumulative central outlay of several tens of thousands of crore rupees across the mission's phases.
Original objective: Eliminate open defecation nationwide by October 2019, the 150th anniversary of Gandhi's birth.
Measured outcome: The government declared rural India 'open-defecation-free' in October 2019, based on toilet-construction and ODF-certification data; independent surveys (including National Statistical Office and academic field surveys) found that a meaningful share of constructed toilets were not consistently used, and open defecation persisted in some certified 'ODF' areas at lower but non-zero rates, an important qualifier the government's own headline claim does not fully capture.
Problems / criticism: Toilet-usage rates lagged toilet-construction rates in several independent studies, particularly where water supply or sewage/pit-emptying infrastructure was inadequate; certification of ODF status by local authorities was, in some documented cases, found to precede actual behaviour change rather than follow it.
Still operating: Yes, continued as Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0 (2020) with a focus on sustaining ODF status and solid/liquid waste management.
VerdictMixedConfidencemedium
political decision · Introduced 2019-08-05
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act and abrogation of Article 370's special provisions
Problem: Article 370 of the Constitution granted Jammu and Kashmir a special constitutional status, including restrictions on property ownership and legislative applicability for non-residents, which the government and its supporters argued impeded the region's economic integration and development; opponents viewed the same provisions as a guarantee of the region's autonomy and a term of its 1947 accession.
Who it targeted: Residents of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir
Mechanism: A presidential order and parliamentary resolution effectively nullified Article 370's special provisions, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act split the state into two Union Territories (Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh), extending central laws directly to the region and removing the requirement for separate state legislative concurrence.
Cost: Significant security deployment and a prolonged communications shutdown (internet and mobile services) in the immediate aftermath; direct fiscal cost not separately published.
Original objective: Fully integrate Jammu and Kashmir into India's constitutional and legal framework and, per the government's stated case, accelerate investment and development by removing property and residency restrictions.
Measured outcome: The Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution bench unanimously upheld the abrogation's legal validity in December 2023, while also directing that statehood (currently still a Union Territory) be restored 'at the earliest'. Government data cite increased tourist arrivals and investment proposals in the years following; independent assessments of durable economic outcomes for residents are still limited, and human-rights organisations and some local political parties have documented continued restrictions on political activity and press freedom in the region during and after the transition, which the government disputes. [mha, sc_370_judgment]
Problems / criticism: The months-long communications shutdown and detention of regional political leaders following the decision drew criticism from domestic and international human-rights bodies; statehood, which the government told the Supreme Court would be restored, had not been restored as of the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment.
Still operating: Yes, as constitutional and administrative fact, Jammu and Kashmir remains a Union Territory as of the end of this government's term.
VerdictMixedConfidencemedium
Sources
- MHA — Nodal ministry for internal security and constitutional matters, including the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019
- SC Article 370 Judgment (2023) — Constitution bench judgment upholding the 2019 abrogation of Article 370's special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir
structural reform · Introduced 2020-09 (enacted); 2021-11 (repealed)
Farm laws, 2020 (repealed 2021)
Problem: Farmers were largely required to sell produce through government-regulated Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis, which the government argued limited price discovery and farmers' market access, while critics of deregulation argued mandis and the Minimum Support Price (MSP) procurement system protected farmers from unregulated private buyers.
Who it targeted: Farmers and agricultural traders nationwide
Mechanism: Three laws allowed farmers to sell produce outside APMC mandis without certain state taxes, permitted contract farming agreements, and eased stock-holding limits on food commodities for traders.
Cost: No direct new expenditure; primarily deregulatory, though it altered state governments' mandi-tax revenue.
Original objective: Expand farmers' market options beyond regulated mandis and attract private investment into agricultural marketing and storage infrastructure.
Measured outcome: The laws were never substantially implemented before repeal: sustained farmer protests, concentrated in Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh, over roughly a year (2020–2021) centred on fears that deregulation would eventually weaken the MSP procurement system, cited procedural concerns about the laws' passage, and drew international attention. The government repealed all three laws in November 2021 without them having been evaluated in operation. [prs]
Problems / criticism: The episode is a rare instance in this dataset of a major reform being fully reversed under sustained public pressure rather than being adjusted or continued; the government did not conduct or publish an assessment of the laws' economic effects prior to repeal, since implementation was suspended by court order for most of the protest period and then reversed.
Still operating: No, repealed in full.
VerdictNegativeConfidencehigh
Sources
- PRS — Independent analysis of parliamentary legislation
scheme · Introduced 2020-2021 (rolled out sector-by-sector across 14 sectors)
Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes
Problem: India's share of global manufacturing, particularly in electronics and advanced manufacturing, lagged competitors such as Vietnam and China, and domestic firms faced a coordination problem in reaching competitive production scale.
Who it targeted: Manufacturing firms (domestic and foreign) in 14 designated sectors including electronics, pharmaceuticals, telecom equipment, automobiles, and specialty steel
Mechanism: Pays cash incentives to qualifying firms proportional to incremental production or sales above a baseline year, over a 5-year window per sector, conditional on meeting investment and output thresholds.
Cost: Combined outlay across all 14 sectors budgeted at approximately Rs 1.97 lakh crore over the schemes' lifetimes, disbursed as incentives are earned rather than upfront.
Original objective: Increase domestic manufacturing output and exports, attract global supply-chain investment (particularly in electronics), and reduce import dependence in strategic sectors.
Measured outcome: The electronics sector, particularly mobile-phone assembly, showed the clearest response: India's mobile-phone exports rose substantially through the scheme period, with major global manufacturers (including Apple's contract assemblers) expanding Indian production. Disbursement and output growth in several other sectors have lagged initial targets, per government's own periodic scheme reviews. [dpiit_pli]
Problems / criticism: Independent economists have raised the question of how much PLI-linked investment is genuinely additional versus investment that would have occurred anyway given global supply-chain diversification trends (the 'China plus one' shift) already underway; some sectors have seen slower firm uptake than budgeted, leading to lower-than-budgeted disbursement in early years.
Still operating: Yes, across most of the 14 sectors, with rollout still in progress for later-approved sectors.
VerdictMixedConfidencemedium
Sources
- DPIIT (PLI) — Nodal department administering Production Linked Incentive schemes across manufacturing sectors
Assessment by dimension
Not a single score. Each dimension is judged independently against the evidence available; where evidence is thin or the question is contested, that is stated rather than resolved into a false average.
Sources
- GST Council — Constitutional body of Centre and state finance ministers governing GST rates and rules
- IBBI — Regulator overseeing insolvency resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; publishes resolution and recovery statistics
Sources
- RBI — Monetary policy, banking regulation, and economic data
- SC Demonetisation Judgment (2023) — Constitution bench judgment (4:1) upholding the legality of the 2016 demonetisation process
Sources
- MHA — Nodal ministry for internal security and constitutional matters, including the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019
Sources
- PRS — Independent analysis of parliamentary legislation
Continuity with other governments
The single-party majority let this government both start and end more decisively than its coalition-era predecessors: GST was completed after a decade of interparty negotiation (proposed and partly designed under the Vajpayee and UPA governments) but implemented under Modi; Aadhaar and DBT were begun under UPA but scaled up dramatically here; the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code addressed a bad-loan problem that had built up gradually since the 2000s under both prior governments. The farm laws stand out as the sharpest reversal in this entire chronology to date, a major structural reform enacted and then fully repealed within about 14 months, a contrast with the pattern (seen in every other government's dossier here) of reforms surviving, being amended, or slowly extended rather than being undone outright.
Related
Continue exploring
Explore politicians, parties, and issues connected to the Modi Government.
Editorial status: review. Government self-reported figures establish what was announced, spent, or made eligible; outcome verdicts are cross-checked against independent sources (RBI, NSS/NSO, CAG, World Bank, peer-reviewed research) before being treated as reliable. Nothing here should be treated as authoritative until status reaches "fact_checked" or higher. Last reviewed: 2026-08-11.