Even if that were true(which it's not), that's not a good defense of Modi.
"Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain."
It’s not meant to be.
> in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain
You’re quoting Wikipedia [1]; see the “definition and scales” section. Personal gain in this context is contrasted with political gain. Using state power to openly reward boosters is not corruption, though it might be an abuse of power. Using state power to illegally use violence as a political tactic, similarly, is not corruption. It’s authoritarianism, possibly fascism.
It’s important for the word to have meaning, particularly in India, where overexpanding corruption to mean anything one doesn’t like could be particularly corrosive.
> Modi is corrupt. The guy does not have the interest of the country at heart, he just cares about the Ambanis and increasing the wealth of his political allies.
Deciding whether Modi is corrupt or not based on technical differences between political gains and personal gains seems purely motivated to keep his image "squeaky clean".