For the second year in a row, the Indian government has rejected the Global Hunger Index (GHI) rankings published by two international organisations: Concern Worldwide, an aid agency, and Welthun-Gerhilfe, a non-profit organization based in Ireland, respectively. and Germany. Their annual GHI report, which is peer reviewed, has been published for the past 17 years. India ranks 107th out of 122 countries, below Bangladesh (84th), Nepal (81), Pakistan (99) and Sri Lanka (64). Last year, India was at number 101 out of 116 countries. The anger of the government arises for two reasons. One is that three of the four metrics that make up the index use malnutrition data on children, i.e. wasting, stunting and premature mortality. Only one in four metrics is on undernutrition, not on malnutrition, and not even on hunger. So how can an index based primarily on children’s data be representative of the entire population? The second objection is regarding the sample size, which is 3,000. It is too low and not representative according to the government. Some in the government have blamed publishers for malicious intent, who they say are more inclined to malign India’s image than to publish objective figures. It is unfortunately becoming a regular ploy to discredit adverse reports either by blaming the messenger or by plotting. It certainly won’t help, and India is the only country that bothers with GHI scores.
You might also like
What will trigger UltraTech stock?
Why freight trains are switching to aluminum wagons
Graphically shows how Indians are splashing out during the festive season
That’s how you lose tax benefits on health policies
Instead of deciding on methodology or sample size, let us step back and examine the basic premise. Is there a problem of hunger in India? How do we answer this question, which is about the human plight. Can we ask people if they are hungry? This approach was actually done by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) about 30 years ago. Rather than relying solely on consumption surveys to estimate caloric intake and thus appetite, the surveys began to ask the question, “Do you get two meals a day?” In 1993-94 also, 94.5% of the respondents answered in the affirmative. By 2009 that number had risen to 99%. This one response was often used by camps opposed to so-called “poverty”. How can India’s poverty and deprivation be so high when almost the entire sample says they get two meals a day. This was the period when India’s headcount poverty rate was still as high as 25% or 30%, according to NSSO data. Certainly the calorie intake-based poverty ratio was underestimating the true extent of hunger and deprivation. Some economists said that India has a problem of malnutrition and not a problem of hunger. A debate broke out over other aspects of the methodology, including the recall period, over-sampling of the poorer sections, and the wide disparity between the total consumption expenditure estimated by the NSSO and national income accounts. Not surprisingly, in 2005 a tome edited by Nobel laureate Angus Deaton was published called Data and Dogma: The Great Indian Poverty Debate.
To a normal person, the distinction between hunger, malnutrition and undernutrition may seem very pedantic. The first is a sensation and is caused by inadequate caloric intake and is similar to malnutrition, whereas malnutrition is an inadequacy in the quality or quantity of food or in the balance of micronutrients. This is a typical case of the widespread phenomenon of undernutrition. This latter incident is a fact. India’s own National Family Health Survey (NFHS) has revealed that a third of Indian children are stunted (underweight) and 35% are stunted (short for age). According to NFHS data, in the state of Jharkhand this number was 48 per cent and 45 per cent in 2015-16. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in the 25 years from 1990 to 2015, the share of hungry people in the world declined by 11%, but in India the decline was only 8%, indicating the least Gets average performance. FAO’s projections in 2022 also indicate high prevalence of hunger and undernutrition based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) survey. It is the survey which the government does not consider to be representative due to the small sample size. But how can one deny the persistence of malnutrition if not hunger? ‘Hunger’ may be a feeling, and a malnourished person may not feel hungry. But it would just be hidden behind its semantics.
Let us ignore some of the larger facts. First, India has been running a free food distribution scheme for 33 months for 810 million people. Certainly, this is because of the felt need for food security. Second, while the consumption of wheat and rice has increased, the per capita availability of pulses has declined from 25 kg to 17 kg over the past 60 years. Consumption has also stalled. Third, the per capita consumption of milk is below the world average and eggs are being banned in the mid-day meal scheme in some states. These are important sources of protein and nutrients that should not be overlooked in the light of the high prevalence of anemia in children (67% according to NFHS), Fourth, the various food and nutrition programs run by governments at all levels, whether Be they cooked meals in subsidized amma canteens or in anganwadis or for pregnant or lactating mothers or in community kitchens, the persistence of hunger – if there is a need – are strict reminders. The five fundamental principles of India include Sarvodaya (welfare of all) and Antyodaya (welfare of the last man). The latter means that if even one person goes hungry, our work is incomplete, whether we agree with our GHI rank or not.
*Ajit Ranade is a Pune-based economist.
Elsewhere in Minto
In Rai, Vidya Mahambare and Praveen Kumar say: RBI needs revised strategy, Allison Schrager writes on harsh lessons monetary gap, long story looks Paytm’s profitability puzzle,
catch all business News, market news, today’s fresh news events and breaking news Updates on Live Mint. download mint news app To get daily market updates.