Hunger and duty to feed

Hunger and duty to feed

India has more billionaires than China but scores worse on the Global Hunger Index than China. That says it all. All global indices have some flaw or another and are at best approximations to the truth and not necessarily the truth itself. Moreover, rankings on any index are a function of definition and weights. However, accounting for all such caveats, India must still hang its head in shame that it is in the company of a block of 25 countries, including sub-Saharan Africa, where the hunger level is alarming. It shares this dishonor with some of the most underdeveloped countries of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Ethiopia, Angola, Zambia and Timor-Leste. India ranks 67 with Nepal at 56, Pakistan at 52 and Sri Lanka at 39. Only Bangladesh at 68 ranks below India in South Asia. The Global Hunger Index 2010 is prepared jointly by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and two global non-governmental organisations (NGOs), Welthungerhilfe and Concern Worldwide. It is based on three significant indicators of hunger, each with equal weight, namely (a) percentage of underfed population, (b) proportion of underweight children below the age of five, and (c) child mortality rate. Sadly, it is the high incidence (43.5 per cent) of underweight children that pulls India’s ranking down. It is both tragic and unacceptable that India is home to 42 per cent of the world’s total underweight children and 31 per cent of children with stunted growth. The hunger index ranking comes at a time when India’s policy-makers are grappling with, on the one hand, the problem of high foodgrain stocks (if stock numbers are to be believed) and, on the other, the administrative challenge of implementing a Right to Food law.

It is important to note, however, that undernourishment is not due to a paucity of food but because available stocks are either not reaching the needy — especially children and pregnant and lactating mothers — or, cannot be sold at a price they can afford for fiscal and other reasons. There is ample medical evidence that shows that the most critical stage when adequate nutrition is essential is the first 1,000 days of life, between conception and the second birthday of the child. The ill-effects of undernourishment are irreversible after the age of two. Unfortunately, this aspect tends to be disregarded while formulating food policies.

There is indeed no denying the fact that India has made perceptible progress in alleviating hunger in the past decade. But this progress is far from satisfactory, considering that even some poorer countries have done far better. More significantly, the impressive growth in per capita income and poverty reduction this past decade does not seem to have made much of an impact on hunger. Clearly, apart from economic and social inequalities and a lack of purchasing power among the poor, poor management of existing stocks has contributed to this state of affairs. As pointed out in the hunger index report, pro-poor economic growth, strong agricultural performance and increasing gender equity are vital for alleviating the kind of starvation that is plaguing India where the overall food supply is not inadequate. The only institutional response to this sorry state of affairs is to strengthen the public food distribution system and ensure that the poor, especially women and children, have access to food. Brazil has taken this route to bring down its high incidence of stunted children to almost a negligible level. India needs to learn similar lessons. Merely legislating Right to Food, that too from New Delhi, when there is no effective food distribution system at the village level in most parts of the country, would serve little purpose. Hopefully, the response of the political system to this news would not be merely legislative but would, in fact, be essentially administrative. The duty to feed does not have to wait for a right to feed law.