A lot of accommodation to context (NOT subjectivity) in ethical considerations in many of the Indian epics and religious texts, which a lot of western-oriented viewers who've grown up with more black-and-white mentalities regarding good and bad might view as corruption. Add to that a preference for oral retellings of such topics, and viewpoints start differing regarding the same topic even within the same country. However, deeper readings of the same might tell them that concepts of duty and truth are still paramount, which kind of negate the argument.
It's far easier, however, for critics to think that citizens tend to cherry-pick the arguments in such texts which somehow might justify bad actions, while ignoring the importance of personal duty, honor and search of truth. And thus, it's easier for said critics to blame things on the subjectivity of said religion instead of looking at the context, and call it a day. But there's more to the argument than that; you also need to consider the history of the land, major events, and economic and social patterns which have nothing to do with religion. You also need to consider that some individual states which have the religion as dominant are institutionally much stronger than other weaker states; also, the "extreme subjective morality" part is also prevalent in some other religions, and the countries they dominate are not necessarily corrupt.