
A post on X brought attention to a striking economic disparity between tamil Nadu and the rest of india, highlighting the state’s impressive growth in per capita income over the past decade. Accompanied by a visually compelling graph, the post reveals that tamil Nadu’s average annual growth rate in per capita income reached an impressive 83% from 2014-15 to 2024-25, compared to India’s national average of 57% over the same period.
Starting from a base of Rs. 1,07,117 in 2014-15, tamil Nadu’s per capita income soared to Rs. 1,96,309 by 2024-25, significantly outpacing India’s rise from Rs. 72,805 to Rs. 1,14,710. This data underscores tamil Nadu’s emergence as a leader in economic development, attributing much of this success to the governance of chief minister M.K. stalin and the state’s focus on development-oriented policies.
The tweet credits Stalin’s administration for doubling tamil Nadu’s per capita income in just four years, a claim that aligns with the graph’s depiction of a steep upward trajectory since 2020-21, when the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) took power. Rai contrasts this progress with what he perceives as national distractions, suggesting that while india as a whole has grappled with divisive issues—such as monitoring religious affiliations of food stalls—Tamil Nadu has prioritized economic advancement.
The state’s per capita income, now standing at Rs. 1,96,309, not only surpasses the national average of Rs. 1,14,710 but also reflects a growth rate nearly 26 percentage points higher than the national figure. This achievement is presented as a testament to the efficacy of the Dravidian model of governance, which emphasizes inclusive growth and welfare schemes tailored to uplift all sections of society.
Supporters laud Stalin’s leadership, viewing the 83% growth as evidence of a forward-thinking approach that has elevated tamil Nadu to one of India’s economic powerhouses, second only to maharashtra in some metrics. However, critics, including some respondents, point out that the 10-year data includes seven years under the previous AIADMK regime, questioning the attribution of success solely to Stalin’s four-year tenure.