Skip to main content

Modi "trumps" economic reforms in favour of political exigency: "The Economist" on Cabinet expansion

Jayant Sinha
By Jag Jivan 
In a sharply-worded commentary, the influential British weekly, “The Economist” (June 9) has said that the latest Cabinet expansion by the Prime Minister is likely to affect his reforms agenda. The heading of the commentary, published under the Indian politics section, is significant: “Modi-fication: A swelling cabinet suggests that politics trumps reform”.
Particularly singling out the transfer of minister of state for finance Jayant Sinha, whom the weekly calls “an outspoken former investment banker”, “The Economist” regrets, he “will now be a junior minister for civil aviation”, with “two BJP stalwarts with little background in finance will share his old post.”
Sinha, a graduate with distinction from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IIT-D) and the Harvard Business School graduate, is known for his strong views on economic reforms. A member of parliament from Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, he served top consultants McKinsey for 12 years.
One who helped Modi frame national economic policy, including organizing and hosting an international business leaders' forum with Modi in February 2014, investors had cheered when Sinha, a former venture capitalist, when he was appointed in the finance ministry.
Articles written by Sinha, such as 'Strategies That Fit Emerging Markets' in the “Harvard Business Review” and 'It is time for India to rein in its robber barons' in the “Financial Times” are said to have been widely quoted in scholarly works and are used as reference material in business schools.
Among reasons being cited for his removal from the post is his father, Yashwant Sinha's strong and repeated criticism of the Modi government. Recently, Yashwant Sinha, a former finance minister attacked the government on key policies and strategy, like its dealing with the Nuclear Suppliers Group or NSG.
“Controversial ministers were moved to less visible posts, and technocrats replaced by figures with more populist appeal”, the weekly notes, adding, "With three years to go before a general election, Modi’s choice raises questions about how much he will get done.” It quotes an editorial in the daily “Mint” to say: “Jumbo cabinets are not exactly the optimal solution to governance challenges.”
The commentary says, “India’s can-do prime minister, swept to victory two years ago promising minimum government with maximum governance”, and after he came to power, his incoming team only boasted “45 ministers and ministers of state, compared with the unwieldy 77-person crew fielded by the previous government.”
However, the commentary observes, “On July 5, following his second reshuffle since taking office, Modi’s council of ministers ballooned to an even wobblier 78”, insisting, “Running such a sprawling, untidy republic does require a lot of people.”
The commentary says, “Only 27 of Mr Modi’s ministers will actually sit with him in cabinet meetings. The other 50 are junior ministers, tied to specific portfolios.”
Quoting unnamed “Government loyalists”, “The Economist” says, they believe “the extra hands will make it easier to carry out the prime minister’s ambitious reform agenda.” However, it adds, “Many among India’s noisy chattering classes fear the opposite is true.”
“The Economist” wonders whether the Cabinet reshuffle has anything to do with the elections, which loom next year in several crucial states, including the biggest state Uttar Pradesh with some 200m people, the prosperous Punjab and Modi’s home state of Gujarat.”
The weekly points to how last year Modi's “Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP)” was defeated in the polls in Bihar, “a state famed for convoluted politics based on group affiliations such as caste and religion.”
This, it suggests, may have made Amit Shah, “the party’s grizzled president and Modi’s closest henchman, determined to widen the BJP’s appeal well beyond its base among higher-caste Hindus.”
“The party has made special efforts to woo Dalits, or “untouchables”, who make up a crucial bloc of voters in Uttar Pradesh. Small wonder that among 19 newly minted ministers, ten are from what India officially classifies as 'backward' castes, and three are from Uttar Pradesh”, “The Economist” notes.

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

Penpa Tsering’s leadership and record under scrutiny amidst Tibetan exile elections

By Tseten Lhundup*  Within the Tibetan exile community, Penpa Tsering is often described as having risen through grassroots engagement. Born in 1967, he comes from an ordinary Tibetan family, pursued higher education at Delhi University in India, and went on to serve as Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile from 2008 to 2016. In 2021, he was elected Sikyong of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), becoming the second democratically elected political leader of the administration after Lobsang Sangay. 

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava   Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Territorial greed of Trump, Xi Jinping, and Putin could make 2026 toxic

By N.S. Venkataraman*  The year 2025 closed with bloody conflicts across nations and groups, while the United Nations continued to appear ineffective—reduced to a debate forum with little impact on global peace and harmony.