Global Hunger Index
While poring over some newspaper reports, I read about the recently released "Global Hunger Index- 2006". The Hunger Index ranks countries on a scale of 0-100, 0 being the best possible score. The score itself is an equally weighted factor score ({Factor 1 + Factor 2 + Factor 3}/3), based on three different factors:
Factor 1: the proportion of undernourished as a percentage of the population (reflecting the share of the population with insufficient dietary energy intake);
Factor 2: the prevalence of underweight in children under the age of five (indicating the proportion of children suffering from weight loss and/or reduced growth); and
Factor 3: the under-five mortality rate (partially reflecting the fatal synergy between inadequate dietary intake and unhealthy environments).
Much has been said about the fact that India ranks a lowly 94th in this list of 117 countries. Much has already also been said about the fact that the authors of the report state that GHI > 20 is "alarming". India's GHI is 25.03. Half-way between alarming and extremely alarming!!!
In spite of these "alarming" factors, there has been more than a healthy spattering of congratulatory smiles all around, stating that India has actually started alleviating the hunger of her citizens better. The reason for this smugness: "Didn't the GHI fall from 33.73 in 1990 to 25.03 today? And, aren't we on target to reduce our GHI to 16 by 2015?" (If I didn't mention earlier, each country pledged to reduce its GHI Index by half by 2015). But, does this drop really make everything rosy? Take a closer look at the math, shall we please, and analyze the numbers a little more before we indulge in some good ol' fashioned backslapping?
The report states that nearly 20% of today's Indian population is under-nourished as opposed to 25% in 1990. That does look nice, does it not? Time to talk numbers again: India's population in 1990 was about 850 million. Currently, it is 1.13 billion. This means that 215 million people suffered from malnutrition in 1990; while the corresponding number for 2007 is 225 million. So, we put 10 million more hungry people on the map and we have the audacity to say that we are well on our way to eradicate hunger. And no..no, that's not the end of it all.
According to the report, between 1988-92, more than 60% of Indian children under the age 5 were underweight. Not only did we let that generation of children go underfed and hungry- we replaced them with a whole new generation of under-fed children (46.6% from the years 2000-2005). The exact numbers are not known but, if the Indian population can be treated as a homogeneous group, and under-5 children make up about 10% of the population we are talking about 51 million underfed children in 1988-92 versus 51 million (hey, that number again) in 2000-2005. Ouch! So much for maintaining excellent production standards.
Doesn't the period 1990-2005 coincide with India's opening of her shores to global companies to improve the quality of life of her citizens? Was it not the period when India embraced capitalism and shed her poverty? Was it also not the period when there were one, two, three and then many, many more Indian billionaires? Why, then, are these benefits not "trickling" (as my die-hard capitalistic friends love to say- "relax yaar, the benefits will trickle down slowly". It's trickling down way too slowly mate; way too slowly) down to her rural poor? Why are there more clinics to treat obesity than to treat starvation? The only time the poor are remembered seems to be at the time of elections. Free electricity, low-interest loans, definite employment for a fixed number of days per year- the sops are many. For the parched, hungry poor man- these stop-gap measures seem like "Mannah from Heaven". For the politicians, another nail to slam into the coffin of these suffering people. Why don't we think of our hungry brethren more time than we now do?
Maybe it ain't glamorous to be hungry and starving; especially not, if you ain't doing it for a other reason than hunger itself. A half-day fast by a few thousand, stupid fans to support the absolutely useless Indian cricket team generates more interest and sympathy than the suicides of thousands of poor Indian farmers.
But, how can Indians be expected to be sympathetic and appalled by Government indifference, manipulations and cruelty- on one hand, and vote back the Gujarat Government for a third successive time, on the other? If the people are not willing to lead change, may be a change in leadership is warranted. Will the leaders of India that Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda and Subash Chandra Bose dreamt of please stand up?
Factor 1: the proportion of undernourished as a percentage of the population (reflecting the share of the population with insufficient dietary energy intake);
Factor 2: the prevalence of underweight in children under the age of five (indicating the proportion of children suffering from weight loss and/or reduced growth); and
Factor 3: the under-five mortality rate (partially reflecting the fatal synergy between inadequate dietary intake and unhealthy environments).
Much has been said about the fact that India ranks a lowly 94th in this list of 117 countries. Much has already also been said about the fact that the authors of the report state that GHI > 20 is "alarming". India's GHI is 25.03. Half-way between alarming and extremely alarming!!!In spite of these "alarming" factors, there has been more than a healthy spattering of congratulatory smiles all around, stating that India has actually started alleviating the hunger of her citizens better. The reason for this smugness: "Didn't the GHI fall from 33.73 in 1990 to 25.03 today? And, aren't we on target to reduce our GHI to 16 by 2015?" (If I didn't mention earlier, each country pledged to reduce its GHI Index by half by 2015). But, does this drop really make everything rosy? Take a closer look at the math, shall we please, and analyze the numbers a little more before we indulge in some good ol' fashioned backslapping?
The report states that nearly 20% of today's Indian population is under-nourished as opposed to 25% in 1990. That does look nice, does it not? Time to talk numbers again: India's population in 1990 was about 850 million. Currently, it is 1.13 billion. This means that 215 million people suffered from malnutrition in 1990; while the corresponding number for 2007 is 225 million. So, we put 10 million more hungry people on the map and we have the audacity to say that we are well on our way to eradicate hunger. And no..no, that's not the end of it all.
According to the report, between 1988-92, more than 60% of Indian children under the age 5 were underweight. Not only did we let that generation of children go underfed and hungry- we replaced them with a whole new generation of under-fed children (46.6% from the years 2000-2005). The exact numbers are not known but, if the Indian population can be treated as a homogeneous group, and under-5 children make up about 10% of the population we are talking about 51 million underfed children in 1988-92 versus 51 million (hey, that number again) in 2000-2005. Ouch! So much for maintaining excellent production standards.
Doesn't the period 1990-2005 coincide with India's opening of her shores to global companies to improve the quality of life of her citizens? Was it not the period when India embraced capitalism and shed her poverty? Was it also not the period when there were one, two, three and then many, many more Indian billionaires? Why, then, are these benefits not "trickling" (as my die-hard capitalistic friends love to say- "relax yaar, the benefits will trickle down slowly". It's trickling down way too slowly mate; way too slowly) down to her rural poor? Why are there more clinics to treat obesity than to treat starvation? The only time the poor are remembered seems to be at the time of elections. Free electricity, low-interest loans, definite employment for a fixed number of days per year- the sops are many. For the parched, hungry poor man- these stop-gap measures seem like "Mannah from Heaven". For the politicians, another nail to slam into the coffin of these suffering people. Why don't we think of our hungry brethren more time than we now do?
Maybe it ain't glamorous to be hungry and starving; especially not, if you ain't doing it for a other reason than hunger itself. A half-day fast by a few thousand, stupid fans to support the absolutely useless Indian cricket team generates more interest and sympathy than the suicides of thousands of poor Indian farmers.
But, how can Indians be expected to be sympathetic and appalled by Government indifference, manipulations and cruelty- on one hand, and vote back the Gujarat Government for a third successive time, on the other? If the people are not willing to lead change, may be a change in leadership is warranted. Will the leaders of India that Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda and Subash Chandra Bose dreamt of please stand up?
Labels: Development, GHI, Hunger, India, Poverty
posted by Hitchcock at 12:25 AM
10 comments
