SENSEX OR HUNGER INDEX

Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
What Is The Govt's Priority - Sensex Or Hunger Index?
BOTH the policy makers and dominant sections of the media have been ecstatic over the more than 45 per cent rise in sensex during the last year. It is being highlighted as one of the major national achievements in the background of 8 to 9 per cent GDP growth in economy. But in the midst of the so-called booming share market index can the country forget its Hunger Index? In a country where 836 million people have per capita daily consumption of Rs 20 or less (as per the Report of National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector), hunger remains one of the major problem and most important challenge facing the nation. Higher percentage of GDP and sensex touching 21,000 become irrelevant unless this important issue is addressed, notwithstanding the misplaced concern of the prime minister on so-called high subsidies on food and fertilizer.
GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) measures Global Hunger Index based on following three equally weighted indicators:
· The proportion of undernourished as a percentage of the population (reflecting the share of population with insufficient dietary energy intake);
· The prevalence of underweightedness in children under the age of five (indicating the proportion of children suffering from weight loss and/ or reduced growth);
· The under-five mortality rate (partially reflecting the fatal synergy between inadequate dietary intake and unhealthy environment).
Combining the proportion of undernourished in the population with two indicators relating to children under five ensures that both the food supply situation of the population as a whole and effects of inadequate nutrition on a physically very vulnerable group are captured. The Global Hunger Index goes beyond the dietary energy availability which is the focus of FAO's measure of under-nourishment and reflects the multidimensional manifestation of hunger.
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2007 prepared by IFPRI was calculated on the basis of data from 2000-2005 and released in its report titled The Challenge of Hunger 2007 in October 2007. The calculation was limited to 118 developing countries excluding western developed countries and a few eastern European countries. The GHI score varies between the best possible score of 0 (zero) and worst possible score of 100. Higher the score, greater the hunger and lower the score, the better the country's situation. GHI score above 10 are considered serious, above 20 alarming and above 30 are extremely alarming.
INDIA'S
POSITION
India ranks 94th in GHI scoring 25.03 coming under alarming category. Only 12 countries come under extremely alarming category. Among our neighbours Sri Lanka ranks 69th (GHI – 16.6), Pakistan 88th (GHI – 22.70), Nepal 90th (GHI – 24.30) and only Bangladesh below us on 103 (GHI – 28.10).
In the data underlying the calculation of GHI of India, the three major indicators show that proportion of undernourished in the population is 20 per cent, prevalence of underweight in children under five years is 46.6 per cent and under five mortality rate is 8.5 per cent.
The above phenomenon has been analysed in IFPRI report in the following words:
In South Asia the prevalence of underweight children is relatively high whereas in sub-saharan Africa child mortality and the proportion of people who can not meet their calorie requirements play a major role.… In India where the large majority of South Asia's population lives, economic growth in the agricultural sector has lagged considerably behind growth in other sectors over recent years. This has negative effect on progress in alleviating poverty and hunger in rural areas. Furthermore members of the lower castes and certain ethnic minorities continue to be discriminated against in society and are therefore disadvantaged with regard to educational opportunities and the labour market.
ICDS
It is a matter of national shame that we rank 94th mainly because of prevalence of undernourishment in children, who are supposed to be the future assets of the country, inspite of the fact that government of India started Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Schemes/project way back in 1975-76 with the specific objective to improve the nutritional and health status of children in age group of 0-6 years. This was so because the then planners had felt, and we quote There has, for some time, been an awareness of the importance of organising early childhood services for the future development of the child though resource constraints and basically sectoral approach to the needs of children had prevented the development of a co-ordinated strategy. It is now however realised that any deferment of action will be detrimental to the development of country's human resource which is a key factor in development (emphasis added). The organisation of early childhood services should therefore be regarded as an investment in the future economic and social progress of the country.
We have fared badly even after the above mentioned was spelt out in the government documents two and half decades back.
WHERE IS
THE REALISATION?
One of the major components of ICDS Scheme is providing supplementary nutrition to children below 6 years of age, in low income group through ICDS centres, commonly known as anganwadi centres. What is the factual position today? As per the written reply to a question in parliament on November 26, 2007, the government of India admits that only 60 million children out of 164 million children have received supplementary nutrition under ICDS Scheme as on June 30, 2007. This is because there are not sufficient numbers of anganwadi centres to extend total coverage of this service to the children. The realisation as envisaged by policy makers during the Fifth Five Year Plan for treating ICDS as an investment in the future economic and social progress of the country has been ignored by successive governments at the centre. The UPA government had committed to universalise ICDS Scheme to provide a functional anganwadi centre in every settlement to ensure full coverage for all children. Even the Supreme Court had to intervene and in its order in 2006 directed government of India to sanction and operationalise 14 lakh anganwadi centres by December 2008. Inspite of that, the lack of priority is clear from the aforesaid reply of the government in parliament wherein it states that As on June 30, 2007, out of 10,52,638 sanctioned centres in the country, only 8,63,472 are operational and of these, 7,97,155 centres were providing supplementary nutrition, which means that only 7.97 lakh centres are operational. Yet no target has been set and the government is totally silent on a time-frame action plan to universalise ICDS though the Supreme Court had fixed a target of 14 lakh anganwadi centres by December 2008. What prevents the government to stick to the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court? Why is the government, which shivers at the fall of sensex, so callous about India's position in global hunger scenario as depicted by GHI?
The fact is human development is not on the agenda of the government's agenda. The major motivating force to move forward the ICDS Scheme is the untiring work of the approximately 14 lakh anganwadi employees who are paid abysmally low honorarium viz. Rs 1000 per month for workers and Rs 500 for helpers. There have been continuous struggles by anganwadi workers, trade unions, Left parties to universalise the ICDS Scheme, to increase the honorarium to the workers and to improve their service conditions to ensure proper delivery of services in the anganwadi centres. The prime minister himself was apprised time and again of this issue which is closely linked with national development. Shockingly, being otherwise so loquacious on 10 per cent GDP growth and high sensex figures, he is eloquently silent on this issue.
The government's apathy is clear from the budgetary allocation for ICDS in 2007-2008 which was Rs 4761 crore. The minimum allocation should have been Rs. 12,000 crore to provide for expansion of ICDS and improving the conditions of anganwadi employees. Is it too much for a government which extends tax concessions to the extent of more than Rs 1.7 lakh crore to SEZ developers? Whether spending Rs 12,000 crore for 17 crore children i.e. Rs 700 per child per year is too much of a burden for a country whose Global Hunger Index status is ALARMING? It is high time that the UPA government goes back to Common Minimum Programme to find the answer, otherwise the hungry millions would give a befitting rebuff through the ballot boxes, taking into account prime minister's undue concern on food subsidy for a country whose hunger and under-nourishment is so sadly reflected in Global Hunger Index.
Let the government decide its priority – sensex or Hunger Index?
Dipankar Mukherjee