Do it yourself

 The Reserve Bank of India adopted its current monetary policy framework in August 2016, under the governorship of Dr. Raghuram Rajan. This marked a major shift in the monetary policy formulation process in India.

In the pre-independence era, the function of monetary policy was mainly to maintain the sterling parity, with the exchange rate being the nominal anchor of monetary policy. Liquidity was regulated through open market operations (OMOs), bank rate and cash reserve ratio (CRR). After independence, India adopted the planning model of development, loosely based on the USSR model. The role of RBI monetary policy in this model was mostly to regulate credit availability, employing OMOs, set bank rate and reserve requirement in congruence with the planning objectives and development needs of the country.

The monetary policy framework witnessed a major shift between from mid 1980s to late 1990s. In 1985, on the recommendation of the (Dr. Sukhamoy) Chakravarty Committee, a new monetary policy framework was implemented. This framework was primarily based on targeting with feedback models. This framework was termed “Monetary Targeting with Feedback” as it was flexible enough to accommodate changes in output growth. The RBI was mandated to control inflation within acceptable levels with desired output growth. Further, instead of following a fixed target for money supply growth, a range was followed which was subject to mid-year adjustments.

Developments like deregulation of interest rates, integration of the Indian economy with the global economy, liberalization of the exchange rate system, etc. in the mid 1990s, warranted a change in the monetary policy approach. The RBI began to deemphasize the role of monetary aggregates and implemented a multiple indicator approach (MIA) to monetary policy in 1998 encompassing all economic and financial variables that influence the major objectives outlined in the Preamble of the RBI Act. This was done in two phases—initially MIA and later augmented MIA (AMIA) which included forward looking variables and time series models.

The current monetary policy framework of the RBI was adopted in 2016. This framework was based on the recommendations of the (Dr. Urjit) Patel Committee report. The Committee recommended a monetary policy framework that was largely based on the US FOMC model – flexible inflation targeting by RBI and a six-member statutory Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) for setting the policy repo rate. The key tools of monetary policy implementation under this framework have been the repo rate as the primary policy rate, supported by liquidity management tools like open market operations, standing deposit facility, and marginal standing facility.

The Monetary Policy Framework Agreement (MPFA) was signed between the Government of India and the RBI in February 2015 to formally adopt the flexible inflation targeting (FIT) framework. This was followed up with the amendment to the RBI Act, 1934 in May 2016 to provide a statutory basis for the implementation of the FIT framework. The Central Government notified in the Official Gazette dated August 5, 2016, that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation target would be 4% with ± 2% tolerance band for the period from August 5, 2016 to March 31, 2021. The same tolerance band has however continued even after the March 2021 deadline.

The framework has, so far, helped anchor inflation expectations, reduce inflation volatility (from 7.5% pre-2016 to ~5% post-2016), and support growth, though challenges remain due to supply-side shocks (e.g., food and fuel prices) and external spillovers.

The RBI has now released a discussion paper listing proposals to suitably refine the extant monetary policy framework, to address emerging economic challenges, such as supply shocks, global uncertainties, and climate-related risks. The goal is to maintain price stability while supporting economic growth and financial stability in a dynamic global and domestic environment.

Proposed refinements

Inflation target and tolerance band: Retain the 4% CPI inflation target but review the ±2% tolerance band. RBI proposes (i) narrow the band (e.g., ±1.5%) for stricter inflation control; or (ii) maintain the current band but clarify its use to avoid misinterpretation as a range for persistent deviation; or (iii) Introduce asymmetric bands (e.g., tighter upper bound to prioritize high inflation control). RBI also suggests considering core inflation (excluding volatile food and fuel prices) as a secondary guide to better reflect demand-driven pressures. Public comments are invited by September 30, 2025, on key questions: Should the 4% target or ±2% band be revised?

Scope of inflation targeting: Continue using headline CPI as the primary metric due to its broad coverage and public relevance. Explore supplementary indicators (e.g., core inflation, inflation expectations, or sectoral indices) to address supply shocks like food price spikes, which are less responsive to monetary policy.

Monetary policy committee (MPC) processes: Enhance transparency through more detailed MPC minutes and forward guidance on policy intentions. Propose increasing the frequency of MPC meetings (e.g., monthly instead of bimonthly) to respond more swiftly to economic developments. Consider expanding external member expertise to include climate economics and global trade specialists.

Incorporating new challenges: RBI proposes to incorporate certain contemporary challenges in the process of setting monetary policy. These new challenges include - (i) Climate Risks: Integrate climate-related risks (e.g., weather-induced food price shocks) into the framework, potentially through adjusted forecasting models or stress-testing scenarios. (ii) Digitalization and Fintech: Account for the impact of digital currencies and fintech on money supply and monetary transmission. (iii) Global Spillovers: Strengthen coordination with global central banks to mitigate the impact of external shocks (e.g., U.S. Federal Reserve rate hikes, commodity price volatility).

Monetary policy transmission: Address lags and inefficiencies in policy transmission (e.g., slow pass-through of rate changes to lending rates) by improving banking sector competition and liquidity management. The RBI proposed exploring alternative tools, such as forward guidance or yield curve control, to enhance transmission in volatile markets.

Growth and financial stability: Balance inflation control with growth objectives, especially in the context of India’s post-pandemic recovery and structural reforms. Strengthen coordination between monetary and fiscal policies to avoid conflicting signals (e.g., high fiscal deficits undermining inflation control).

Rationale for Review

Changing economic landscape: Rising supply-side shocks (e.g., food and energy prices, climate disruptions) and global uncertainties (e.g., geopolitical tensions, monetary tightening in advanced economies) require a more adaptive framework.

Inflation dynamics: Persistent food inflation and volatile global commodity prices challenge the FIT framework’s effectiveness.

Stakeholder feedback: Public and expert consultations highlight the need for greater clarity on the tolerance band and flexibility in addressing non-monetary inflation drivers.

Expected Impact

Price Stability: A refined framework could better anchor inflation expectations, reducing volatility.

Economic Growth: Enhanced flexibility may support growth without compromising inflation control.

Resilience: Addressing climate and global risks could make the framework more robust to shocks.

Challenges: Narrowing the tolerance band or increasing meeting frequency may strain RBI resources and require careful calibration to avoid over-tightening.

 Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell delivered his final keynote address at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium on August 22, 2025, hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. The speech focused on the U.S. economic outlook and the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy framework review, addressing the Fed’s dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment.

In July 2025, India’s consumer price inflation (CPI) hit an eight year low of 1.55% (yoy). Several factors contributed to the fall in inflation, including, a favorable base effect, lower fuel inflation, and decline in beverages and food prices. Since the inflation is much below the RBI tolerance range of 4% to 6%, it has excited the market participants about another rate cut at the RBI’s October 2025 Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting. The prospect of lower Goods and Services Tax (GST) rates from November 2025, which could keep inflation subdued further, has added fuel to the speculations.

However, notwithstanding what RBI does at its next meeting, we need to answer a fundamental question - Is this low inflation—or even disinflation—a desirable thing for a growing economy like India?

Positive side of low inflation

Boost to Consumer Spending: Lower prices for essentials like vegetables and pulses mean more disposable income, which could spur consumption in a country where private spending drives nearly 60% of GDP.

Room for RBI Rate Cuts: Low inflation gives the RBI wiggle room to cut rates further, potentially by 25 basis points in October, reducing borrowing costs for businesses and homebuyers. Cheaper loans could ignite investment and housing demand, key pillars of India’s growth story.

GST relief on the horizon: Hopes of lower GST rates from November 2025 could be a game-changer. A reduction in GST, especially on essentials (which make up ~46% of the CPI basket), could keep inflation in check, further boosting purchasing power. This could amplify the RBI’s efforts to stimulate growth without stoking price pressures.

For a growing economy like India, projected to grow at 6.5-7% in FY26, low inflation creates a stable environment for businesses to plan investments and for consumers to spend confidently. No wonder markets are abuzz with optimism.

Why low inflation might be a problem

Low inflation, or worse, disinflation (a slowing rate of inflation), isn’t always a sign of economic health. For a dynamic economy like India, aiming to scale manufacturing and infrastructure, persistently low inflation could spell trouble.

Dampening capex enthusiasm: Low inflation often signals weak demand or excess supply. If prices stay too low, businesses may hesitate to invest in new factories, machinery, or tech upgrades—key drivers of capacity addition (capex). Why expand when profit margins are squeezed, and demand looks shaky? India’s GDP growth is already lacking triggers for acceleration, and a prolonged low-inflation environment could further sap corporate confidence.

Savings take a hit: Low inflation often leads to lower interest rates, as seen with the RBI’s recent cuts. While this is great for borrowers, it’s a blow to savers. Fixed deposits and small savings schemes, mainstay of Indian households’ savings, yield less in a low-rate regime. With real returns (adjusted for inflation) shrinking, households might cut back on savings, which fund bank lending and, ultimately, investment. India’s gross domestic savings rate, already down to 30.2% of GDP in FY24, could face further pressure.

Deflationary risks: If inflation dips too low—say, into disinflation or outright deflation—consumers might delay purchases, expecting prices to fall further. This could trigger a demand slump, hitting sectors like consumer durables and retail hard. Japan’s “lost decades” serve as a cautionary tale of how deflation can choke growth.

RBI’s warning bell: The RBI’s latest monetary policy review projects inflation rising to 4.6% in Q1 FY26, driven by potential food price spikes and global pressures like US tariff hikes (impacting 10.3% of the CPI basket). If businesses and consumers bank on low inflation now, only to face a sudden uptick, it could disrupt planning and erode confidence.

The GST wildcard

The anticipated GST rate cut from November 2025 could tilt the scales. Lower GST on essentials could keep inflation below the RBI’s projections, supporting consumer spending and giving the RBI more room to ease rates.

For instance, a 1% reduction in GST on food items could shave 0.1-0.2% off headline inflation, based on historical studies. This would be a boon for growth, especially in rural areas where food dominates household budgets.

But there’s a catch. Lower GST could reduce government revenue, limiting fiscal space for infrastructure spending—a key driver of India’s capex cycle. Plus, if global commodity prices or US tariffs spike, imported inflation could offset GST’s deflationary impact, forcing the RBI to rethink rate cuts.

Conclusion

Low inflation could be an opportunity as well as a challenge for India. In the short-term, it’s a tailwind—cheaper goods, lower borrowing costs, and potential GST relief could juice up consumption and growth. But sustained low inflation risks stifling capex and savings, which India can’t afford. The RBI’s cautious outlook for FY26, coupled with external risks, suggests it will tread carefully, likely opting for a modest 25-basis-point cut in October rather than aggressive easing.

Investors should watch the October MPC meeting closely and track GST reform updates. Sectors like consumer goods and banking could benefit from lower rates and higher spending, but keep an eye on capex-heavy industries like infrastructure and manufacturing for signs of slowdown. For now, enjoy the calm—but don’t bet the farm on it lasting.

​ 

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Reserve Bank of India concluded its three-day meeting on Wednesday. The committee voted unanimously to keep the policy repo rate unchanged at 5.50 per cent. The MPC also decided to continue with the neutral monetary policy stance.

 India’s external debt hit US$736.3bn by March 2025, a 10% jump from last year, with a significant portion (over 41%) of the debt maturing soon. As the US threatens 500% tariffs on countries buying Russian oil, including India, investors need to evaluate: Can India afford a confrontation with the US, China and other major trade partners, and could it withstand a covert economic embargo? Here’s my take, may be naïve and ill informed, but nonetheless relevant.

India’s External Debt

According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) latest release, India’s external debt stood at US$736.3bn at the end of March 2025, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 19.1%. Key highlights of the data are:

Long-Term Debt: US$601.9bn, up US$60.6bn from last year, with commercial borrowings and non-resident deposits driving growth. About 77% (US$568bn) of this debt is owed by non-government entities. The non-government debt is almost equally divided between financial institutions (US$271.3bn) and non-financial corporations (US$261.7bn).

Short-Term Debt: US$134.5bn, representing 18.3% of total debt and 20.1% of foreign exchange reserves.

Components: About one half of external liabilities (US$251bn) is loans and debt securities, 22% currency and deposits and 18% trade credit. The rest 10% includes IMF SDRs and intercompany lending by MNCs.

Maturity: 41.2% of the external debt (about US$305bn), is due to mature within the next 12 months.

Debt Sustainability: Foreign exchange reserves cover 92.8% of total debt, down from 97.4% a year ago, signaling a slight decline in buffer capacity.

Refinancing challenge

With over 40% of long-term debt maturing soon, India faces a refinancing challenge, particularly if global financial conditions tighten or trade disruptions escalate. India’s reliance on Russian oil, which accounts for 35-40% of its crude imports (2.08 million barrels per day in June 2025), has put it in the crosshairs of a proposed US Senate bill. The “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025,” backed by Senator Lindsey Graham and reportedly supported by President Trump, proposes a 500% tariff on countries importing Russian energy to pressure Moscow over Ukraine. India, alongside China, buys 70% of Russia’s oil exports, making it a prime target.

Economic Impact: A 500% tariff on Indian exports to the US, India’s largest export market, could affect US$66bn (87% of India’s US exports), as per Citi Research estimates. This could disrupt key sectors like pharmaceuticals, IT, and textiles, potentially triggering inflation and job losses.

Oil Dependency: India imports 88% of its crude oil, with Russia offering competitive discounts. Switching to costlier suppliers like the US or Middle East could raise import costs significantly, straining India’s trade balance.

Can India Afford a Confrontation?

India’s economic fundamentals offer some resilience but also expose vulnerabilities.

Forex Reserves: At US$703bn (as of recent data), India’s reserves cover 92.8% of external debt, providing a cushion to manage maturing obligations. However, refinancing US$270.9bn in long-term debt within a year could pressure reserves, especially if US tariffs disrupt export revenues.

Trade Dynamics: The US accounts for a US$45.6bn trade deficit with India. A trade war could prompt reciprocal tariffs, but India’s 12% trade-weighted average tariff (vs. the US’s 2.2%) limits its leverage. Negotiations for a trade deal to cut tariffs on US$23bn of US imports are underway, signaling India’s preference for diplomacy over confrontation; notwithstanding some recent comments of senior ministers that suggest otherwise.

Oil Alternatives: India has diversified its oil imports, with the US supplying 6.3% (439,000 bpd in June 2025) and West Asia 35-40%. While switching from Russian oil is feasible, it would increase costs, potentially impacting fuel prices and inflation.

Can India Sustain Virtual Economic Sanctions?

Virtual economic sanctions, such as the proposed 500% tariffs, or Chinese embargo on export of critical components, chemicals, human resources etc., would act as a severe trade barrier.India’s ability to sustain them depends on several factors.

Energy Security: India’s strategic reserves (9-10 days of imports) and diversified suppliers (US, Nigeria, Middle East) provide short-term flexibility. However, replacing Russia’s 40% share at higher costs could strain refiners and consumers.

Economic Resilience: The RBI’s Financial Stability Report (July 2025) highlights strong banking sector metrics, with declining non-performing assets and robust capital buffers. This suggests India’s financial system could absorb some shocks, but prolonged trade disruptions could erode confidence.

Need for caution

India’s debt remains manageable for now, but over 41% debt maturity in 12 months calls for vigilance. Investors in Indian bonds or banking stocks should monitor refinancing risks.

A US tariff war could hit export-driven sectors like IT and pharmaceuticals hardest. India’s diplomatic efforts to secure a trade deal or tariff waiver will be critical. A successful negotiation could stabilize markets, while failure could spark volatility.

Conclusion

India’s US$736.3bn external debt and looming maturities pose challenges, but its reserves and diversified oil sources provide a buffer. A full-blown confrontation with the US seems unlikely, given India’s diplomatic push and economic stakes. However, sustaining virtual sanctions would strain India’s trade balance and energy costs, making de-escalation the smarter play.

The 41% of external debt (US$305bn) maturing within 12 months is significant, requiring substantial refinancing or reserve drawdowns. India’s US$703bn forex reserves provide coverage, but a US tariff war could reduce export revenues, complicating debt servicing.

Sustained 500% tariffs would disrupt exports, weaken the rupee, and increase debt servicing costs. The RBI’s strong banking sector provides some stability, but prolonged sanctions could erode investor confidence and slow growth.

India’s neutral geopolitical stance and trade deal negotiations (aiming to cut tariffs on US$23bn of US imports) indicate a strategy to avoid sanctions. A waiver or partial exemption is possible, given India’s strategic importance to the US.

Read with US$703bn may be just enough

The Reserve Bank of India holds US$702.78bn in foreign exchange reserves. In the popular macroeconomic analysis, especially in the context of the equity market. this piece of data is often used as one of the points of comfort by analysts.

This data could be viewed from multiple standpoints. For example –

Is it adequate to pay for the necessary imports in the near term, assuming the worst-case scenario of no exports could be made and no remittances are received. Currently, India’s monthly imports are appx US$67bn. However, a material part of these imports is crude oil and bullion. A part of the crude oil and bullion is re-exported after refining/processing. I am unable to figure out the precise net import number for domestic usage, but it would be safe to assume that about three fourth of US$67bn, i.e., US$50bn is for domestic usage. Allowing another 20% for “avoidable in emergencies” category of imports, we have appx US$40bn/month import bill payment obligations. By this benchmark we have sufficient reserves to pay for appx 18months of imports. This is a very comfortable situation from conventional yardsticks.

However, we need to consider interest payment and debt repayment obligations also to assess the adequacy of the foreign exchange reserves.

As per the latest RBI release (see here), India’s total external liabilities stood at US$736.3bn as on 31^st March 2025. 41.2% or appx US$305bn of this debt is due for repayment within the next 12 months. Assuming an average interest rate of 5%, another ~US$35bn would be needed for interest repayments. This implies about half of our foreign exchange reserves are needed for debt servicing in the next 12 month. This matrix raises some questions on the adequacy of our US$703bn reserves.

It also highlights the importance of remittances (appx US$135bn in FY25), foreign portfolio investment (FPI) flows (appx US$13.6bn in CY2024, including equities and bonds), and net foreign direct investment (US$3.5bn in FY25). An adverse movement in any of these flow matrices could materially affect the external stability. This brings in the factors like geopolitical stability, internal political & law and order situation, relative valuations of Indian equities and bonds, market stability and integrity, domestic investment climate, foreign investment policy framework etc. into the picture. Any policy mistake, strife in foreign relations, civic unrest, overvaluation, fraud, scam etc. could adversely impact the external stability.

The news headlines like - “China restricting export of critical components and chemicals to India, withdrawing expert manpower from India” that can adversely affect exports or increase the cost of imports for Indian manufacturers; the US considering to impose tax on the outward remittances”, ‘the US considering 500% duties on countries importing oil from Russia”, etc., - makes one cautious about the external stability of the country.

The experts need to analyze the latest RBI data on India’s external liabilities. In particular, it needs to be assessed whether India can withstand a trade war with the US; a covert geopolitical confrontation with China; frequent cases of market manipulation; policies and procedures that make India a less attractive destination for foreign investments; worsening law & order situation on parochial issue like language, religion, regionalism, etc.

…more on this tomorrow 

After several years of corporate & bank balance sheet repair and fiscal correction, the contours of India's next economic growth cycle are beginning to emerge. With the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) maintaining a growth-supportive stance; union government showing strong commitment to fiscal consolidation, easing financing pressures for the private sector; and global markets showing signs of stabilization as geopolitical confrontations ease and trade disputes settled; the stage is set for a potential economic upswing.

The spotlight is now on three competing themes — corporate consolidation, private capex, and household consumption — each pulling investor attention in different directions.

Corporate begin to re-leverage

After many years of deleveraging, corporate debt in India appears to have bottomed out and is now beginning to rise. This shift in trajectory marks a significant departure from the post-2016 era, where Indian companies focused on strengthening balance sheets following a wave of over-leveraged investments. According to recent analyses, corporate borrowing is rising as businesses seek to capitalize on emerging opportunities.

This shift is supported by a monetary environment that remains broadly pro-growth. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has maintained a balancing act between containing inflation and supporting economic momentum. Rates have been cut aggressively and RBI is pushing for a quick transmission.

Fiscal consolidation by the union government is also helping to ease crowding-out pressures in the credit markets. With the Centre projecting a glide path toward more sustainable fiscal deficits, room is being created for the private sector to tap into financial resources more freely.

RBI’s Growth-Supportive Stance and Fiscal Consolidation

The Reserve Bank of India has definitely turned growth supportive in the past one year, after maintaining a delicate balance between inflation growth. The rates have been cut aggressively and liquidity conditions have been made favorable. Targeted interventions to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and infrastructure projects, have bolstered private sector confidence.

Simultaneously, the Indian government’s commitment to fiscal consolidation has eased pressure on private financing. By reducing the fiscal deficit—projected to decline to 4.4% of GDP in FY26 from 5.6% in FY24—the government is crowding in private investment. Lower government borrowing means more capital is available for private enterprises, reducing competition for funds and potentially lowering borrowing costs. This synergy between monetary and fiscal policy is creating a fertile ground for private capex to flourish.

Global context changing quickly

Globally, financial markets have been navigating turbulent waters for the past some time. Monetary policies remained tight in major economies like the United States and the European Union. Geopolitical concerns were elevated as multiple war fronts were opened. The political regime changes in the US early this year, also triggered an intense trade war.

However, recent developments suggest a quick shift. There are conspicuous signs of geopolitical stability, particularly with noteworthy steps toward peace in conflict zones. The US administration is showing significant flexibility in negotiating trade deals, raising hopes for an early and durable end to tariff related conflicts. Inflationary pressures are also easing, especially with stable energy prices. These all factors combined raise hopes for a global monetary easing cycle. The US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have hinted at potential rate cuts in 2025, which could lower global borrowing costs and improve capital flows to emerging markets like India.

For India, this presents an opportunity to attract foreign portfolio investments (FPIs) to boost market sentiments, as well as foreign direct investment (FDI) for long-term projects, especially in manufacturing and green energy. The government’s Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes and “Make in India” initiatives are well-positioned to capitalize on this opportunity, but execution will be key.

Investors’ dilemma

Amidst corporate optimism, supportive policy environment, positively turning global context, investors and traders are facing a dilemma – whether to stay bullish on the capex theme or turn focus towards the consumption theme that has been lagging behind for the past couple of years.

In my view, investors need to examine two things—

1.    What is driving this resurgence in corporate debt?” Is it being used to fund acquisitions of operating or stressed assets, or is it fueling fresh capacity creation?”

2.    Whether easing inflation, lower interest rates, good monsoon, and improved employment prospects due to capex translating to on-ground activity, will accelerate private consumption growth, or households will focus on repairing their balance sheets and increase savings?

What is driving this resurgence in corporate debt – Consolidation or capacity addition?

The distinction is crucial. While the former drives job creation, productivity, and long-term growth, the latter may only temporarily improve capital utilization rates and return metrics. Acquiring distressed assets or merging with competitors may lead to short-term efficiency gains but could delay the broader economic benefits of new capacity creation. Whereas, investments in fresh capacities could signal a long-term commitment to growth, aligning with India’s aspirations to become a global manufacturing hub.

While mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity has been robust in the past few years, particularly in sectors like infrastructure and manufacturing, greenfield investments have seen limited areas like renewable energy (driven mostly by government incentives) and steel.

Equity markets are evidently betting on a capital investment Supercycle. Stocks of capital goods makers, construction contractors, and building material firms have seen sharp re-rating over the past year. Order books are swelling, and forward guidance from several listed players suggests growing optimism.

Consumption paradox

While the equity markets are bullish on capex-driven sectors, investor enthusiasm for household consumption remains subdued. This is puzzling, given the macroeconomic tailwinds that should theoretically support private consumption. Easing inflation, which dropped to 4.7% in mid-2025, coupled with the prospect of lower interest rates and improving employment prospects due to rising capex, should create a virtuous cycle of demand. Yet, private consumption, which accounts for nearly 60% of India’s GDP, has been lackluster over the past two years.

Several factors may explain this paradox. First, uneven income distribution means that the benefits of economic growth are not reaching all segments of the population equally. Rural consumption, in particular, has been hampered by volatile agricultural incomes and inadequate infrastructure. Second, high inflation in essential goods like food and fuel, despite overall moderation, continues to erode purchasing power for lower- and middle-income households. Third, policy support in the form of subsidies and cash transfers is being gradually unwound as fiscal discipline returns. Finally, the stress in the household balance sheet, especially in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic may have also hampered consumption growth.

The equity market’s lack of enthusiasm for consumption-driven sectors like FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods) and retail reflects these concerns. Investors appear to be betting on a capex-led recovery rather than a consumption-driven one, prioritizing sectors poised to benefit from infrastructure spending and industrial growth. However, sustained economic growth will require a revival in household consumption, as capex alone cannot drive inclusive prosperity.

What to do?

The question is what investors should do under the present circumstances? Should they continue to back the obvious beneficiaries of capex — engineering firms, infra developers, lenders to industry? Or should they begin building positions in consumption plays, in anticipation of a cyclical rebound?

In my view, both themes may ultimately play out — but on different timelines. Capex is here and now, led by policy push and balance sheet strength. Consumption is the laggard, but if the macro indicators hold, its turn could come with a lag of a few quarters.

 While the 7.4% GDP growth number for 4QFY25, and claims of continuing strong growth momentum in April 2025 are encouraging, the RBI assessment of FY26 growth and aggressive policy stance raise some doubts. A careful analysis of the GDP data released by the NSO also leaves some doubts about the consistency and sustainability of the 4QFY25 growth numbers.

Many economists have noted discrepancies and incongruencies in the data, as well as comparisons with other economic indicators and external analyses.

For example, I found the following noteworthy.

Discrepancy Between GDP and GVA Growth Rates

In Q4 FY25, GDP growth is 7.4%, while GVA growth is 6.8%. The divergence between GDP and GVA growth rates is notable, as GDP includes net taxes (taxes minus subsidies), which can distort the picture of underlying economic activity captured by GVA.

The gap suggests that tax revenues or subsidy adjustments may have inflated GDP growth relative to GVA. For instance, higher GST collections or reduced subsidies might have boosted GDP figures without reflecting proportional growth in actual economic output. This discrepancy raises questions about the sustainability of growth driven by fiscal adjustments rather than core sectoral performance.

As per Systematix research, “Recent robust GST collections have been interpreted as evidence of strong economic growth, supporting the 4QFY25 real GDP growth of 7.4%. However, this narrative contrasts with on-ground economic indicators suggesting a demand slowdown. Our analysis reveals that rising GST collections stem not from stronger economic growth but from increased indirect tax incidence in a slowing economy. This trend aligns with the government’s pro-cyclical fiscal tightening framework over recent years. We estimate an excess tax collection of INR 2.9 trillion over the past two years (2QFY24–1QFY26E), which has elevated the net indirect tax burden on Indian households to a historical peak. This has suppressed household spending power, exacerbating the lack of real income growth.”

Q2 FY25 Growth Slowdown vs. Q4 Recovery

2QFY25 reported a seven-quarter low GDP growth of 5.4%. 1QFY25 growth slowdown could be explained by the spending restrictions due to the imposition of the model code of conduct during the general elections (March-June 2025). Logically, 2QFY25 should have witnessed excessive government spending due to spillover effects from the previous quarter.

The rapid recovery from 5.4% in Q2 to 7.4% in Q4 appears inconsistent with the broader FY25 growth of 6.5%, suggesting uneven economic momentum. The low Q2 growth was attributed to reduced government spending and weak private investment, but the factors driving the Q4 rebound (e.g., manufacturing and construction) are not fully explained in the press release.

Sectoral Growth Inconsistencies

Agriculture (3.8% in FY25)

The agriculture sector’s growth improved significantly from 1.4% in FY24 to 3.8% in FY25, attributed to a good monsoon. However, this contrasts with reports of uneven monsoon distribution and challenges like low reservoir levels in some regions, which could have limited agricultural output in certain areas.

The uniform 3.8% growth figure may mask regional variations or overstate the sector’s recovery, especially since agricultural income growth (e.g., farm wages) has not kept pace, as noted in some external analyses.

Manufacturing (5.0% in FY25)

Manufacturing growth slowed sharply from 9.9% in FY24 to 5.0% in FY25, yet Q4 FY25 GDP growth (7.4%) suggests a manufacturing rebound. This is inconsistent with high-frequency indicators like the Index of Industrial Production (IIP), which showed subdued industrial activity in most parts of FY25.

The slowdown aligns with high input costs and weak export demand, but the Q4 recovery lacks detailed sectoral data to confirm whether manufacturing truly drove the uptick or if other factors (e.g., statistical adjustments) played a role.

Construction (9.4% in FY25)

Construction grew at 9.4%, down slightly from 10.4% in FY24, yet government capital expenditure reportedly slowed in FY25. This raises questions about the source of growth, as public infrastructure spending is a key driver of construction.

Private sector construction (e.g., real estate) may have contributed, but the press release does not disaggregate public vs. private contributions, creating ambiguity.

Expenditure-Side Discrepancies

Private Final Consumption Expenditure (PFCE) grew at 7.2% in FY25 (up from 5.6% in FY24), indicating strong household spending. However, this contrasts with external reports of weak rural demand and urban consumption slowdowns, particularly in discretionary goods (e.g., automobiles, FMCG).

The robust PFCE growth may be driven by urban or high-income consumption, but the lack of granular data obscures whether this reflects broad-based demand or is skewed by specific segments.

Government Final Consumption Expenditure (GFCE) growth slowed to 2.3% in FY25 from 8.1% in FY24, reflecting fiscal consolidation. However, the strong Q4 GDP growth (7.4%) and high growth in public administration (7.8%) suggest continued government spending in certain areas, creating a potential mismatch.

The low GFCE growth may understate government contributions in Q4, or the sectoral growth in public administration may reflect non-expenditure factors (e.g., statistical adjustments).

Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) growth slowed to 7.1% in FY25 from 8.8% in FY24, indicating weaker investment. This aligns with reports of sluggish private investment but contrasts with the strong construction sector growth (9.4%), which typically relies on capital investment.

The disconnect suggests that construction growth may be driven by specific sub-sectors (e.g., real estate) rather than broad investment, but the press release lacks clarity on this.

Mismatch with High-Frequency Indicators

The GDP growth of 6.5% for FY25 and 7.4% for Q4 FY25 appears optimistic compared to high-frequency indicators like-

Index of Industrial Production (IIP): Showed weaker industrial growth, particularly in manufacturing, contradicting the Q4 rebound.

Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI): Indicated slower manufacturing and services activity in parts of FY25.

Core Sector Output: The eight core industries (e.g., coal, steel, cement) showed subdued growth in some quarters, inconsistent with the strong construction and manufacturing contributions in Q4.

These indicators suggest a more sluggish economy than the NSO’s GDP figures imply, raising concerns about potential overestimation or statistical discrepancies in the GDP calculations.

Comparison with External Forecasts

The NSO’s FY25 GDP growth estimate of 6.5% is lower than the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) revised forecast of 6.6% (down from 7.2%) but higher than some private forecasts (e.g., 6.0–6.3% by agencies like ICRA or SBI). The Q4 growth of 7.4% also exceeds many analysts’ expectations (e.g., 6.8% median estimate).

The higher-than-expected Q4 growth and the annual estimate suggest either a stronger-than-anticipated recovery or potential overestimation in the NSO’s provisional data. The reliance on provisional estimates, which are subject to revision, adds uncertainty.

Other disconnects

There are some other disconnects in the GDP data. For example, the nominal growth in 4QFY25 at 10.8%, much ahead of money supply growth of 9.6% is fully explained. A growing economy would usually need higher money supply due to higher transaction demand. This mismatch can probably be explained by the use of an erroneous deflator. Besides, external trade data, sharp contraction in subsidy payments etc. also raise some doubts.

Also read

The state of the Indian economy

The Indian economy – glass half full

The Indian economy – glass half empty

RBI makes a bold bet

The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) monetary policy statement on June 6, 2025 marked a significant shift in India’s monetary policy framework, reflecting a bold approach to stimulate economic growth while navigating global uncertainties and domestic inflation dynamics.

Policy rates cut by 50bps to support growth

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) reduced the policy repo rate by 50 bps to 5.50%, a larger-than-expected cut compared to market expectations of a 25bps reduction. This was the third consecutive rate cut in 2025, following reductions in February (6.5% to 6.25%) and April (6.25% to 6.00%). Consequently, the Standing Deposit Facility (SDF) rate was adjusted to 5.25%, and the Marginal Standing Facility (MSF) rate and Bank Rate to 5.75%.

This sharp cut in rates is aimed at accelerating the growth. Pertinent to note that FY25 real GDP grew by 6.5% yoy, and is expected to grow at a similar or lower rate in FY26. Considering the fragile global conditions, it is imperative to support the domestic economy maintaining a healthy growth momentum.

The rate cuts are expected to stimulate credit demand, private consumption and capex demand. At least four public sector banks (BoB, PNB, BOI, UCO) have reportedly cut their repo linked lending rates by a matching 50bps.

Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) requirement reduced by 100bps

The RBI decided to lower the CRR for scheduled commercial banks by 100 bps to 3.0% of Net Demand and Time Liabilities (NDTL). This cut will be implemented in four tranches of 25bps each, starting September 6, 2025, through November 29, 2025. This aims to enhance liquidity in the banking system.

This 100bps cut in the CRR would potentially release an additional Rs2.5 trillion liquidity in the banking system in the busy season. Notably, the RBI has taken several steps in the past few months to augment the banking system liquidity. Since January 2025, the RBI has infused Rs9.5 trillion in additional liquidity in the system; resulting in a system liquidity surplus of over Rs 1.5 trillion.

 

Policy stance changed to ‘neutral’ from ‘accommodative’

The MPC shifted its stance from “accommodative” to “neutral,” signaling a cautious approach to further rate cuts and a potential pause in the rate-cutting cycle.

FY 26 growth forecast maintained at 6.5%, despite substantial monetary easing

The RBI maintained its real GDP growth forecast for FY26 at 6.5% yoy, the same as FY25. This highlights the challenges faced by the Indian economy presently, both from the global disturbances and domestic conditions.

The RBI sees CPI Inflation at 3.7% for FY26, down from previous forecast of 4% and below its tolerance band of 4 to 6%. This clearly reflects RBI’s optimism about price stability.

Despite substantial monetary easing, a favorable monsoon, stable fiscal balance, and strong government capital expenditure, the domestic growth is not expected to accelerate from the current pace.

The question thus arises, whether this boldness of the RBI is emanating from the confidence in the resilience of the economy and its commitment to stimulate economic growth; or it is a move to preempt a slide in the economic growth due to the anticipated global trade and geopolitics related developments.

I do not have any ready answer for this inquisition. However, I shall be closely monitoring some of the pointers from Governor Malhotra’s statement. For example:

1.    In his opening remark, the Governor highlighted the global challenges – “complex interconnections within the financial system, elevated debt levels and growing influence of frontier technologies are raising financial stability concerns. Amidst heightened volatility in capital flows and exchange rates, coupled with constrained policy space, central banks of emerging market economies have a tougher task to stabilize their economies against global spillovers”.

Though, the governor confidently stated, “In this global milieu, the Indian economy presents a picture of strength, stability, and opportunity”; the global spillovers need to be watched carefully.

2.    The governor exuded confidence that the actual inflation may undershoot the RBI target, and this is one of the core reasons for the bold policy move. He stated, “While food inflation outlook remains soft, core inflation is expected to remain benign with easing of international commodity prices in line with the anticipated global growth slowdown (emphasis supplied). The inflation outlook for the year is being revised downwards from the earlier forecast of 4.0 per cent to 3.7 per cent.

A quicker resolution of trade disputes and geopolitical conflicts might change this outlook, as the global growth might accelerate and commodity prices may rise. Also, an excessive monsoon may cause vegetable prices to rise faster than anticipated.

3.    The governor emphasized that “under the current circumstances, monetary policy is left with very limited space to support growth. Hence, the MPC also decided to change the stance from accommodative to neutral. From here onwards, the MPC will be carefully assessing the incoming data and the evolving outlook to chart out the future course of monetary policy in order to strike the right growth-inflation balance.”

Though many analysts are expecting more rate cuts later this year, the governor appears to be suggesting otherwise.

4.    The governor pointed out that “we are yet to see a perceptible transmission in the credit market segment, though we must keep in mind that it happens with some lag”.

We have witnessed that the banks have been reluctant to transmit the previous rate cuts to the borrowers. In the present case also, while the repo linked rates are getting adjusted, the action in case of MCLR based loans is limited. HDFC Bank for example has cut only by 10bps post the policy statement.

A failure to ensure full transmission may defeat the objective of RBI’s aggressive easing.

5.    The governor warned that “The stress witnessed earlier in retail segments like unsecured personal loans and credit card receivables portfolio has abated, while the stress in micro-finance segment is persisting”.

The stress in MFI is typical of elevated stress in the unorganized segment of the economy, especially rural and semi urban areas. This stress also has some relevance for private consumption.

6.    The governor also sought to end the growth vs inflation debate, stating that “there is no tussle between price stability and growth in the medium and long term. Price stability preserves purchasing power, imparts certainty to households and businesses in their savings and investment decisions and ensures congenial interest rate and financial conditions, all of which foster consumption, investment and overall activity. Moreover, it is crucial for equitable growth and shared prosperity because its absence is disproportionately burdensome on the poor”.

This is a new policy paradigm for the RBI, more aligned to the political narrative than the central banking. We will have to monitor how consistently the RBI follows this new tenet of monetary policy.

Conclusion

The 50bps rate cut demonstrates the RBI’s commitment to growth amid global headwinds. The CRR reduction is a significant liquidity booster for banks. This will augment credit availability for MSMEs and retail borrowers. The downward revision of the FY26 inflation forecast to 3.7% reflects confidence in price stability. Emphasis on recalibrating business models in high-risk segments (e.g., microfinance) and strengthening credit underwriting practices indicates proactive risk management.

The shift to a neutral stance suggests the RBI believes monetary policy has limited room to support growth further, as noted in the policy statement. This could constrain future responses if economic conditions deteriorate.

Further, the RBI has limited control over supply-side inflation, driven by commodity prices and fiscal policy. If supply constraints re-emerge, the RBI’s ability to maintain inflation within the 4% target could be tested, potentially forcing a policy reversal.

Besides, rapid rate cuts and liquidity injections could lead to overheating in certain sectors, such as real estate or consumer credit, if not monitored closely.

Deposit rates that have already been declining may decline further, impacting the savers, especially the pensioners, adversely. However, the pace of transmission of rate cuts lender is still not congruent with the policy objectives.

Also read

The state of the Indian economy

The Indian economy – glass half full

The Indian economy – glass half empty