Dr Shailendra Joshi
Advisor of Telangana govt and former
chief secretary of Telangana
The announcement of Global Rankings in various sectors of the economy from time to time is a keenly watched and contested topic.The rankings, based on different indices, cover diverse areas such as global climate, democracy, human freedom, corruption perception etc. Although some of the rankings, such as the Human Development Index, Global Food Security Index and the Ease of Doing Business Index, are widely covered in media in India and elsewhere, some other areas, being highly technical in nature, like the Global Talent Competitiveness and the Global Crypto Adoption Index etc., do not get that much traction.
It is a harsh reality that in most of these rankings India stands at somewhere between 40 and 110 in the comity of nations. After release of such reports, any improvement in the rankings in comparison to previous ones is tom-tommed and every fall is painstakingly explained by the concerned Ministry/ nodal agency in India.
Noticeably, such rankings fail to capture the true development status in the country. While India has covered a lot, much more ground is yet to be covered in terms of development in several social sectors. Besides, most of the indices designed by experts have inherent western bias.
The World Hunger Report 2022 has caused consternation in the country that, despite so many measures, India’s Global Hunger Index(GHI) score is at 29.1 on a scale of zero (no hunger) to hundred (everyone hungry). As per the report, India ranks 107th (previously 101st) out of the total 121 countries evaluated.
In India, the media, intelligentsia and various organizations have reacted either as lamenters or defenders of the report. The Union Ministry of Women and Child Development has characterized the index “as an erroneous measure of hunger suffering from serious methodological issues”. The Ministry sees in it “a consistent effort to dent India’s image as a nation that does not fulfil the food security and nutritional requirements of its population. Misinformation campaign seems to be the hallmark of the annually released Global Hunger Index”.
To add insult to the injury, the ranking of India (107) on GHI 2022 is behind Pakistan (99), Bangladesh(84),Nepal (81), Myanmar (71)and Sri Lanka (64). Thus, the South Asian region is said to have been saddled with the world’s highest hunger level, highest child stunting rate and by far the highest child wasting rate in the world. What are these indicators? The report released by Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe, non-governmental organizations of Ireland and Germany respectively, is based on GHI score computed using four broad indicators– undernourishment (measure of the proportion of the population facing chronic deficiency of dietary energy intake), child stunting (low height for age), child wasting (low weight for height) and child mortality (death of a child under the age of 5).
The synthesis is based on the approach referring hunger to an undesirable sensation caused by insufficient consumption of calories daily to lead a normal and healthy life in accordance with age, sex, stature and physical activity. Undernutrition is the result of inadequate intake of food which could be in terms of either quantity or quality, poor utilization of nutrients.
Similarly, malnutrition had been defined as the abnormal physical condition caused by unbalanced or excessive intake of macro /micronutrients. Broadly, undernutrition had been considered as a type of malnutrition.Thus, hunger and undernutrition had been connected in a convoluted manner to measure inadequate access to food.
The argument of authors of this report in justification of their approach is that child stunting and mortality offers perspective about the child’s vulnerability to nutritional deficiencies, access to food, and quality of nutrition. Since children below 5 are at a developmental age, there is a greater and urgent requirement for the nutrition; and lastly child mortality indicates the serious consequences of hunger.The criticism against the GHI is that all child- centric metrics are used to calculate Global Hunger.
The critics of this methodology argue that child mortality is a health indicator and is not caused by hunger alone.No doubt, children are the most vulnerable section of population, but calling it GHI is a misnomer.
Considering socio-cultural practices, the calorific intake for different socio-economic and gender groups is different. As a case in point, periodic or regular fasting on various occasions by a significant number of people in India is not due to lack of food, though it satisfies the definition of hunger. Of course, lack of availability of food is the true pointer of hunger. If parameters for the calculation of GHI were percentage of vulnerable families covered under the Public Distribution System, percentage of pregnant and lactating women and children covered under anganwadi and mid-day meal schemes etc. (which address food security in India); the results would have been different. There is an underlying message in the recurrence of such incidents of India getting lower ranks: we need to create an alternative framework. Our own think tanks on different subjects as well as domain experts should be able to provide a counter narrative. Robust database should underpin their efforts. NITI Aaygog and other concerned agencies should take pre-emptive action by putting across India’s viewpoints.
