The World Inequality Lab’s 2024 India study, “Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922–2023,” shows that India’s current inequality actually exceeds the inequality of the British colonial period. Let that sink in. The “Billionaire Raj,” as some have called it, is more unequal than the British Raj. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few Indian billionaires is now more extreme than when the British Empire was extracting resources from the subcontinent.
At least during colonial rule, Indians could blame foreign rulers for their poverty. Whom do they blame now?
“A society is known not by how the rich live, but by how the poor live.”
— Iqbal Latif, 1996
This one photo is India today: the top 10% hold 65% of wealth, the bottom 50% share 15% of income. A $4T economy built on blue tarpaulin roofs. High-rises for the top 10%, blue-sheet slums for the bottom 50%. India now ranks among the most unequal countries in the world—and this picture is the evidence.
Look at the photograph of Mumbai that recently went viral on social media. In a single frame, you can see the entire story of modern India: gleaming high-rise towers reaching toward the sky, a six-lane expressway cutting through the cityscape, and sprawling beneath it all, a sea of corrugated metal roofs and tarpaulin sheets stretching as far as the eye can see.
This is not a metaphor. This is not artistic commentary. This is the literal, physical manifestation of what happens when about 65% of a nation’s wealth concentrates in the hands of 10% of its people.
The Modi government loves to talk about the country’s $4 trillion GDP. Fourth largest economy in the world. Fastest growing major economy. An emerging superpower ready to take its place on the global stage. The headlines write themselves, and they’re not wrong about the number. India’s GDP genuinely has grown to roughly $4.2 trillion in 2025.
But here’s what those headlines don’t tell you: when you do the mathematics of extreme inequality, that $4.2 trillion tells you almost nothing about how 90% of Indians actually live.
Let’s do that math together. If the top 10% of Indians control roughly 65% of the nation’s wealth—and the World Inequality Lab data confirms they do—that means approximately 150 million people are effectively orbiting most of the assets, income streams, and capital gains in the system.
If we crudely apply a similar 65/35 split to the flow of yearly income (GDP), purely as a back-of-the-envelope illustration of scale, we get something like this:
• About $2.73 trillion of annual economic output accruing to the top 10%
• Around $1.47 trillion left for the remaining 1.35 billion people
Divide that $1.47 trillion among 1.35 billion people and you get roughly $1,089 per person per year. Not $1,089 per month. Per year. That’s about $3 per day.
No one is claiming the income distribution maps mechanically 1:1 onto wealth shares; the point is simpler and more devastating: in a $4.2 trillion economy, the bottom 90% are effectively living at a subsistence edge.
To put that in perspective, Sub-Saharan Africa’s average GDP per capita sits around $1,600. India’s bottom 90% are living at roughly two-thirds that level. This is not an inclusive growth story. This is a development model that has failed its people while enriching a thin elite on top.
Economists have many complex ways of measuring societies, but there is one test that cuts through all the propaganda and self-congratulation:
A society is known not by how the rich live, but by how the poor live.
By that measure, India doesn’t just fail—it collapses entirely.
Consider this single, devastating statistic: 813.5 million Indians currently depend on government food subsidies to eat. That number deserves to be written out in full: eight hundred and thirteen million five hundred thousand people.
In an economy that celebrates being worth $4.2 trillion, 57% of the population cannot afford to buy food at market prices. The government distributes 5 kilograms of free rice or wheat per person per month through what it calls the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana—the Prime Minister’s Welfare Food Scheme. The government presents this as an achievement, a sign of its commitment to the poor.
But think about what this actually means.
This is not an achievement. This is an admission.
The government is openly acknowledging that in their $4.2 trillion economy, more than half of citizens are so poor that without free grain from the state, they would go hungry. This is not a temporary safety net. This is not a one-off crisis response. This has become the permanent condition of the majority of Indians.
They work—many of them work multiple jobs, twelve-hour days, six or seven days a week—and they still cannot afford to feed their families without government charity. A $4.2 trillion economy that must directly subsidize food for 813.5 million people is not a success story; it is a ration economy with a PR department.
Now look at that photograph again. Those slums you see are not filled with the unemployed. They are filled with people who have jobs. They are the drivers, the construction workers, the security guards, the domestic workers, the delivery personnel who keep the city running.
They built those high-rises with their own hands. They clean them. They service them. They deliver food to them. And at the end of their twelve-hour shifts, they go back to their sheet-metal shanties because even though they work in a $4.2 trillion economy, they earn so little that 57% of them need free food to survive.
Then there’s the story that broke earlier this year, though it barely made headlines outside India. Over 36,000 fake degrees have been sold by a single university in India in the past few years. Not a few hundred. Not a few thousand. Over 36,000.
Medical degrees, engineering degrees, PhDs—certificates from institutions that don’t even exist, sold to desperate people for anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 rupees. Some of these degree holders are working in hospitals. Some are working in companies. Some secured government jobs with their fraudulent credentials.
The government calls this criminal fraud. But that misses the point entirely. Yes, there are criminal networks involved, and yes, some people bought these degrees with malicious intent. But the vast majority? They were desperate.
And they were desperate because India’s education system has completely collapsed for everyone outside the elite. Even people with real degrees can’t find work. Even engineers can’t find jobs. Universities outside the handful of elite Indian Institutes of Technology are churning out certificates that employers treat as worthless. Merit is dead. Connections are everything.
The degree has become a mere formality, a box to check. When the system treats credentials as meaningless, why spend years getting a real one when you can buy a fake one for a fraction of the cost and time?
This is what systemic collapse looks like. It’s not dramatic. It’s not a revolution or a coup. It’s 36,000 desperate young people concluding that the legitimate path is broken, so they might as well take a shortcut. It’s a verification system so corrupted and underfunded that fake degrees go undetected. It’s a job market so captured by nepotism that what matters is not what you know but who your father knows.
When 36,000 people buy fake degrees, that’s not a crime wave. That’s a society giving up on its own promises.
What makes this particularly damning is the comparison with China. It’s a comparison many Indians hate because it’s so unflattering, but it’s unavoidable because both countries started from similar places.
In 1990, India’s GDP per capita was actually higher than China’s—about $366 versus $318. India was ahead. Both were poor, both were developing, both had massive populations and similar challenges.
Thirty-five years later, China’s GDP per capita is around $13,000+. India’s is around $2,800–$2,900. But even those numbers obscure the real gap, because they’re averages, and averages lie when inequality is extreme.
When you adjust for inequality and look at how the bottom 90% actually live in each country, the comparison becomes devastating. China’s poorest 90% live on perhaps $7,000–$8,000 per capita. India’s poorest 90% live on roughly $1,000–$1,100. China’s poor—and China has plenty of poor people—are six to seven times better off than India’s poor.
The infant mortality rate in China is around 4–5 deaths per 1,000 live births. In India, it is in the high twenties. Life expectancy in China is about 78 years. In India, it’s around 70. Child malnutrition in China affects less than 5% of children. In India, about 35% of children are stunted from malnutrition.
The question is why. Why did China lift hundreds of millions out of poverty while India did not?
The answer is not complicated.
China chose manufacturing. India chose services.
That sounds abstract, but it has concrete, brutal implications. Manufacturing employs masses of people. You can take someone from a rural village, give them basic training, and put them to work in a factory. The conditions are often harsh, but it is work that hundreds of millions of people can do, and it pays better than subsistence farming.
China built factory after factory, and those factories absorbed wave after wave of rural migrants. The wages weren’t high by Western standards, but they were high enough to eat, to send money home, to save a little, to educate children, to escape poverty.
India chose services—information technology, finance, business process outsourcing. These are high-value industries. They generate impressive GDP numbers. But they employ a tiny fraction of the population because they require English fluency, university degrees, and often connections.
The people who work in IT in Bangalore and Hyderabad earn good salaries. Some of them earn very good salaries. But there aren’t enough of those jobs to matter for a nation of 1.4 billion. The services sector employs perhaps 30% of the workforce, mostly in low-end retail and hospitality, with a thin layer of well-paid professionals at the top. Meanwhile, about 45% of Indians still work in agriculture, which generates only around 18% of GDP.
This is the recipe for mass poverty: nearly half the population stuck in low-productivity farming, while the high-value sectors employ only the elite.
China also did something India never did: serious land reform. In the 1950s, China redistributed agricultural land from landlords to peasants. It was brutal. People were killed. Families were destroyed. But it broke the power of the landed elite and gave hundreds of millions of peasants a stake in the economy.
India’s land reforms were half-hearted, incomplete, and easily subverted by powerful landowners. To this day, land ownership in India remains highly concentrated. The elite who owned the land in 1947 largely still own it, or their descendants do. And they’ve used that land not primarily for productive agriculture but for real estate speculation, parking wealth in luxury apartments that sit empty while people sleep on the streets outside.
Perhaps most telling is the education gap. China’s literacy rate is about 97%. India’s is around 74%. China invested heavily in basic education, vocational training, and mass engineering programs. India invested in a handful of elite institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology, which became world-renowned, while letting the rest of the education system rot.
The result is a tiny elite with world-class education and hundreds of millions with barely functional schools. China’s system was never about producing Nobel Prize winners—it was about giving the masses useful skills. India’s system produces a few brilliant IIT graduates who often leave for Silicon Valley, while the vast majority graduate with degrees that employers don’t respect.
The natural response from defenders of the Indian government is that the comparison with China is unfair because China is authoritarian while India is democratic. India has freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, free elections. And that’s true—on paper.
But what good is freedom to people who are starving? What does freedom of speech mean to someone who’s illiterate? What does democracy mean when elections are funded by billionaires and the media is owned by those same billionaires?
The Indian poor have the freedom to starve, to watch their children die of preventable diseases, to buy fake degrees from desperation. Is that really freedom?
This brings us to the heart of the matter: India’s democracy has been captured by its billionaire class.
The numbers are staggering. There are over 200 billionaires in India with a combined wealth approaching $1 trillion. In a $4.2 trillion economy, that means roughly 200 people control around one-fifth to one-quarter of total annual output in wealth terms. Just two men—Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani—at their peaks have been worth close to $200 billion combined.
Adani’s story is particularly revealing. In March 2014, just before Narendra Modi became Prime Minister, Adani was worth about $4.5 billion. By late 2022, he was briefly worth over $150 billion. That’s more than a thirty-fold increase in eight years.
How does someone multiply their wealth thirty times in eight years? Through spectacularly successful business innovation? Through creating products that change the world? Not exactly.
Adani made his fortune largely by winning government contracts and gaining control of strategic assets. In 2018, the Indian government allowed him to bid on six airports despite having zero prior experience operating airports. He won them all. Kerala’s finance minister called it “an act of brazen cronyism.”
That’s how wealth grows in India—not by building better products but by having the right connections to government. The pattern repeats across sectors. Ports, roads, power generation, coal mining—Adani has inserted himself into every strategic infrastructure sector, consistently backed by regulatory and policy support.
In November 2024, U.S. prosecutors indicted Adani-linked entities and associates, alleging more than $250 million in bribes to Indian government officials to secure energy contracts, along with fraud and misleading American investors. His net worth dropped by billions of dollars in a matter of days.
In India, there was no comparable domestic reckoning. No serious investigation was launched. No meaningful questions were asked at the top.
A man whose network is alleged in U.S. court documents to have paid a quarter of a billion dollars in bribes faced, at home, mostly silence. That tells you everything about how the system works. The judiciary, the investigative agencies, the regulatory bodies—they all ultimately answer to the politicians, and the politicians answer to the people who fund their campaigns.
Ambani’s empire is different in structure but similar in implication. He controls India’s largest private company, Reliance Industries, with interests spanning oil and gas, petrochemicals, telecommunications, retail, and media. He owns Network18, which operates multiple news channels. Adani owns NDTV, one of India’s oldest and previously most independent broadcasters. Between them, two billionaires control a substantial portion of India’s media landscape.
As one journalist put it, “Given the close ties between legacy media and top businesses in India, there is no major desire to go after crony capitalism in the country.” The very media that should be investigating these arrangements is owned by the people who benefit from them.
The photograph of Mumbai captures all of this in a single frame. The high-rises were built by construction workers who now live in the slums below. They are bought by the beneficiaries of India’s rigged system. They are serviced by drivers and maids and security guards who need government ration cards to feed their families.
The expressway connecting these towers of wealth was built with public money, runs through public land, but exists primarily to benefit private luxury. It literally bypasses the poor—you can drive from one elite neighborhood to another without ever seeing the slums you’re passing over.
This is not an accident. This is not “the market” in some abstract neutral sense. This is design.
When about 65% of wealth goes to 10% of the population, that doesn’t happen naturally. That happens through policy choices. It happens through a tax system that goes easy on the rich. It happens through a legal system that protects property rights for the wealthy while treating the poor as disposable. It happens through an education system that has elite islands of excellence while letting the masses flounder. It happens through media capture that ensures the beneficiaries of the system never face sustained scrutiny.
The tragic thing is that India had choices. China made different choices and got different results.
China is not perfect—it is authoritarian, it suppresses dissent, it restricts freedom. But its bottom 90% are six to seven times better off than India’s bottom 90%. They don’t need ration cards to eat. Their children are not stunted at the same scale from malnutrition. They have basic healthcare. They have functional schools.
The choice was not between perfect equality and India’s current state. The choice was between broadly shared prosperity and narrowly concentrated wealth. China tilted toward the former. India tilted decisively toward the latter.
What makes this particularly destructive is that it cannot continue indefinitely. An economy cannot grow sustainably when 90% of the population has no purchasing power. GDP growth requires consumers, and India’s consumers—outside the top decile—are tapped out.
They’re living on ration cards. The market is effectively limited to the top 10%, and even that market has limits. Eventually, growth will stall.
The much-vaunted “demographic dividend”—India’s young population—is being completely wasted. Instead of the world’s largest pool of productive workers, India is creating the world’s largest pool of desperate, underemployed youth buying fake degrees and watching their future disappear. That is not a demographic dividend. That is a powder keg.
There is also the small matter of social cohesion. When two completely different worlds exist side by side with no connection between them, when the elite have more in common with their counterparts in London and New York than with their own countrymen, when the rich literally live above the poor and travel on highways that bypass them, what exactly holds the society together?
Shared national identity? Increasingly, there isn’t one in any meaningful socioeconomic sense. The rich and poor in India live in different countries that happen to occupy the same geographic space. Their children attend different schools, receive different healthcare, have different opportunities, and face different futures.
When elite Indian parents talk about their children’s education, they’re discussing which foreign university to target. When poor Indian parents talk about their children’s education, they’re wondering whether to buy a fake degree or not bother at all.
This level of inequality also destroys any pretense of meritocracy. When success is determined by birth, when the children of the elite are guaranteed comfortable lives regardless of talent or effort while the children of the poor have essentially zero chance of upward mobility, merit becomes irrelevant.
The smartest kid in a slum has worse life prospects than the dullest child of a billionaire. Everyone knows this. The façade has collapsed. That’s why 36,000 people bought fake degrees—because they understand that credentials are just a façade anyway, that what really matters is connections and inherited wealth.
When society gives up on merit, it gives up on one of the core justifications for inequality in the first place.
There are solutions, of course. They’re not complicated and they’re not untested.
• Progressive taxation on wealth and income to fund public education and healthcare
• Serious antitrust enforcement to break up monopolies and oligopolies
• Campaign finance reform to reduce the grip of money on politics
• Media ownership restrictions to ensure diversity of viewpoints
• Real land reform to break up concentrated holdings
• A serious manufacturing push to create jobs for the masses rather than services for the elite
• Strengthened labor unions to give workers bargaining power
These policies have worked, in various forms, in many other countries. They are not radical.
But under India’s current power structure, they will not happen voluntarily. The system is designed by the people who benefit from it. The billionaires fund the political parties. They own the media that covers politics. They lobby for the regulations that govern their industries. They literally write the rules of the game.
Why would they support policies that reduce their wealth and power?
The poor, meanwhile, have no effective voice. Their unions have been broken. Their media has been captured. Their political parties take their votes and deliver very little. They have formal democratic rights but almost no bargaining power. Any serious reform in India will require either sustained democratic pressure from below, state-level experiments that prove alternative models, or external shocks that change the balance of power.
So we return to the photograph. High-rises and slums. Wealth and poverty. Two Indias in one frame. In truth, two countries stacked vertically on the same plot of land.
And we return to the question that has no good answer:
What is the point of a $4.2 trillion economy when 813.5 million people need food rations to survive?
When 36,000 people buy fake degrees because the real system is broken?
When the bottom 90% live on roughly $1,089 a year?
When child malnutrition rates are comparable to, or worse than, many of the poorest countries on earth?
When inequality is now worse than under British colonial rule?
A society is known not by how the rich live, but by how the poor live.
India’s rich live as well as the rich anywhere in the world. They have luxury that would make European aristocrats jealous. Mukesh Ambani’s personal residence, Antilia, is a 27-story tower that reportedly cost around $2 billion to build. It has three helipads, nine elevators, a 50-seat theater, and requires a staff of about 600 people to maintain. One man’s house. Six hundred people to run it.
Meanwhile, India’s poor live worse than the poor in countries with similar or even lower GDP per capita. Bangladesh, with a similar income level, now beats India on key social indicators like child and maternal mortality. Vietnam, which only recently overtook India in per-capita income, does not need over half its population on food rations. Indonesia has comparable income levels and yet its slums are smaller, its inequality less severe, its social mobility greater.
The Indian government’s response to all this is propaganda. Statistics are massaged using consumption surveys that understate the rich and miss the poorest. Officials have even claimed India is among the “most equal” countries by cherry-picking metrics and time frames. They tout GDP growth while ignoring who captures that growth. They build monuments and rename cities while hospitals crumble and schools close.
They spend millions on publicity campaigns about “Digital India” and “Startup India” while 36,000 people buy fake degrees because real education has failed them. They promise “minimum government, maximum governance” while delivering maximum cronyism and minimum accountability.
But the photograph doesn’t lie.
The data doesn’t lie.
And the people living in those slums, working twelve hours a day and still needing free food to survive—they know the truth.
They know that India’s $4.2 trillion GDP means nothing to them. They know that the growth they hear about on television never reaches their homes. They know that the opportunities they’re promised don’t exist. They know that their children will likely live the same precarious existence they do unless something fundamental changes.
And they know something else too: it didn’t have to be this way. China showed that a different path was possible. Vietnam showed it. Even Bangladesh showed it. Countries with similar starting points made different choices and got better outcomes for theIqbal Latif.
India’s current state is not inevitable. It is not the result of immutable economic laws or cultural deficiencies. It is the result of choices made by people with power to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.
The high-rises and the slums in that photograph are not separate phenomena. They are two sides of the same coin. The wealth in the towers was built on the backs of the people in the slums. The luxury was extracted from their labor. The system that created the towers is the same system that created the slums. You cannot have one without the other, not under the current arrangement.
So when you hear that India has a $4.2 trillion economy, remember what that means. It means a small, hyper-privileged minority capture a disproportionate share of the gains while 1.35 billion people fight over the remainder. It means 813.5 million people cannot afford food without government charity. It means 36,000 young people were so desperate they bought fake degrees. It means 35% of children are malnourished. It means the “Billionaire Raj” is more unequal than the British Raj ever was.
And remember my litmus test:
A society is known not by how the rich live, but by how the poor live.
Look at that photograph. Look at those slums. That’s your answer. That’s India’s truth.
A $4.2 trillion economy where the majority lives on less than $3 a day.
An “emerging superpower” where 57% of people need free food to survive.
The world’s largest democracy where billionaires own the media, fund the parties, write the rules, and—according to foreign indictments—allegedly pay the bribes, while the poor have nothing but the freedom to starve.
The photograph tells the story. The data confirms it. And no amount of propaganda can change it.
India’s $4.2 trillion GDP is an illusion for 1.35 billion people.
That is the truth.
All statistics sourced from: World Inequality Lab (especially “Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922–2023”), World Inequality Database, Bernstein Wealth Management Report (August 2024), Government of India PMGKAY data, World Bank, WHO, UNESCO, Forbes rich lists, University Grants Commission and enforcement agency investigations into degree fraud, and publicly reported U.S. legal filings related to Indian corporate actors.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1C1gzvdqws/?mibextid=wwXIfr