<p>India’s poor ranking on the Global Hunger Index (GHI) has been a point of contentious discourse. Despite government initiatives like the National Food Security Act (NFSA) and the Public Distribution System (PDS), India’s low rank of 105 out of 127 countries in 2024, placing it under the ‘serious' category would suggest that severe hunger is widespread, casting doubts on the effectiveness of our social protection programmes. It raises questions about the Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) – one of the six services under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme. We, therefore, need an evidence-based resolution of the Global Hunger Index conundrum to counter a flawed portrayal of Indian society.</p>.<p>While it is true that in certain geographies and populations malnutrition persists, scrutiny of the GHI methodology exposes limitations that can misrepresent the reality, especially for a diverse and populous country like India. It is, therefore, important to understand the Global Hunger Index methodology. The GHI, jointly published by the International Food Policy Research Institute, Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe, measures hunger using four key indicators: Undernourishment (percentage of the population with insufficient caloric intake); Child Wasting (percentage of children under five who are low-weight-for-height); Child Stunting (percentage of children under five who are low-height-for-age); and Child Mortality Rate (under-five mortality rate). Each of these indicators contributes equally to the final GHI score, which is then used to rank countries. The higher the score, the more severe the hunger level. Countries are categorised into low, moderate, serious, alarming, or extremely alarming levels of hunger based on their scores.</p>.<p>While this approach appears rigorous, it is far from scientific, limited in scope, lacks data granularity, and can hence, potentially misinterpret complex social issues, especially for large, heterogeneous countries. Among the limitations of the GHI Indicators in the Indian context, we must note that:</p>.Shameful position on hunger index.<p>First, the Undernourishment Indicator relies on calorie intake to determine hunger, based on Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) data. However, calorie intake alone is an insufficient measure of nutritional well-being. The dietary needs of individuals vary significantly based on factors like age, occupation, lifestyle, and health conditions. With a growing focus on dietary quality over quantity, many Indians are shifting towards diets that prioritise quality proteins and micronutrients over sheer caloric intake. Those familiar with food and nutrition know that caloric security is not equivalent to nutrition security. Thus, using calorie consumption as a primary criterion may not accurately represent hunger in India, where dietary diversity is improving among several sections of the population, including in rural India, even if calorie intake remains static or shows a decline.</p>.<p>Second, child wasting and stunting are significant issues in India, but they reflect broader socio-economic and healthcare challenges rather than pure hunger. For example, child stunting and wasting are influenced by a multitude of factors such as sanitation, healthcare access, and maternal health. Open defecation, poor hygiene practices, and limited healthcare access can exacerbate child malnutrition without necessarily reflecting food scarcity. Child stunting and wasting rates are sensitive to local conditions, and India’s geographic and socio-economic diversity means that a national average may not reflect specific improvements in certain states or regions.</p>.<p>Third, the child mortality indicator can also be a misleading proxy for hunger. Child mortality in India is more often a result of inadequate healthcare infrastructure, poor maternal health, infectious diseases, and sanitation issues rather than outright hunger or starvation. The NFSA and PDS systems provide substantial food assistance; yet, high child mortality can persist due to the lack of a robust health infrastructure or the absence of institutional deliveries in underserved regions.</p>.<p>Fourth, giving equal weightage to each indicator is a methodological flaw. For a country like India, which has made substantial progress in food production and distribution through various welfare schemes, undernourishment rates alone might give a more accurate picture of hunger than child wasting or stunting rates, which are more complex indicators involving a range of socio-economic factors. The equal weighting fails to account for the unique dynamics in each country and can unfairly penalise countries like India, where structural issues contribute to certain indicators but do not necessarily reflect widespread hunger.</p>.<p><strong>Complexities not captured</strong></p>.<p>Finally, the devil is in the data. GHI relies substantially on secondary data sources, including FAO estimates, health surveys, and national demographic surveys. Many of these sources have limitations, including outdated data and small sample sizes. In India’s case, the most recent comprehensive nutrition survey (National Family Health Survey) was conducted in 2019-2020. Relying on such data without timely updates misses the strides India has made in food security programmes since then. Besides, many of these surveys are based on recall data and self-reporting, which may not capture the full picture. The complexities of food access, cultural dietary practices, and informal food systems prevalent in India can lead to discrepancies between reported and actual conditions.</p>.<p>India’s NFSA provides millions of vulnerable individuals with subsidised food grains. India also runs the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and ICDS; their impact is not captured in the GHI metrics. With its excessive focus on children (three of four indicators) and applying metrics without adjusting to regional differences, the GHI ends up wrongly labeling children as malnourished just because they do not fit a global average. Similarly, it is well known that Asians typically tend to have a lower Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), which is the energy we use while resting, and lower Physical Activity Levels (PAL). So, a realistic Kcal requirement would likely average 1,500 calories against the global average of 1,800 Kcal.</p>.<p>GHI appears to overshoot the hunger problem using a one-size-fits-all approach, resulting in a skewed portrayal of India’s hunger levels. Without a more nuanced and empirical approach, well-intentioned efforts like the GHI risk oversimplifying complex issues, hindering the very progress they aim to measure.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is Director, School of Social Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)</em></p>
<p>India’s poor ranking on the Global Hunger Index (GHI) has been a point of contentious discourse. Despite government initiatives like the National Food Security Act (NFSA) and the Public Distribution System (PDS), India’s low rank of 105 out of 127 countries in 2024, placing it under the ‘serious' category would suggest that severe hunger is widespread, casting doubts on the effectiveness of our social protection programmes. It raises questions about the Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) – one of the six services under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme. We, therefore, need an evidence-based resolution of the Global Hunger Index conundrum to counter a flawed portrayal of Indian society.</p>.<p>While it is true that in certain geographies and populations malnutrition persists, scrutiny of the GHI methodology exposes limitations that can misrepresent the reality, especially for a diverse and populous country like India. It is, therefore, important to understand the Global Hunger Index methodology. The GHI, jointly published by the International Food Policy Research Institute, Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe, measures hunger using four key indicators: Undernourishment (percentage of the population with insufficient caloric intake); Child Wasting (percentage of children under five who are low-weight-for-height); Child Stunting (percentage of children under five who are low-height-for-age); and Child Mortality Rate (under-five mortality rate). Each of these indicators contributes equally to the final GHI score, which is then used to rank countries. The higher the score, the more severe the hunger level. Countries are categorised into low, moderate, serious, alarming, or extremely alarming levels of hunger based on their scores.</p>.<p>While this approach appears rigorous, it is far from scientific, limited in scope, lacks data granularity, and can hence, potentially misinterpret complex social issues, especially for large, heterogeneous countries. Among the limitations of the GHI Indicators in the Indian context, we must note that:</p>.Shameful position on hunger index.<p>First, the Undernourishment Indicator relies on calorie intake to determine hunger, based on Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) data. However, calorie intake alone is an insufficient measure of nutritional well-being. The dietary needs of individuals vary significantly based on factors like age, occupation, lifestyle, and health conditions. With a growing focus on dietary quality over quantity, many Indians are shifting towards diets that prioritise quality proteins and micronutrients over sheer caloric intake. Those familiar with food and nutrition know that caloric security is not equivalent to nutrition security. Thus, using calorie consumption as a primary criterion may not accurately represent hunger in India, where dietary diversity is improving among several sections of the population, including in rural India, even if calorie intake remains static or shows a decline.</p>.<p>Second, child wasting and stunting are significant issues in India, but they reflect broader socio-economic and healthcare challenges rather than pure hunger. For example, child stunting and wasting are influenced by a multitude of factors such as sanitation, healthcare access, and maternal health. Open defecation, poor hygiene practices, and limited healthcare access can exacerbate child malnutrition without necessarily reflecting food scarcity. Child stunting and wasting rates are sensitive to local conditions, and India’s geographic and socio-economic diversity means that a national average may not reflect specific improvements in certain states or regions.</p>.<p>Third, the child mortality indicator can also be a misleading proxy for hunger. Child mortality in India is more often a result of inadequate healthcare infrastructure, poor maternal health, infectious diseases, and sanitation issues rather than outright hunger or starvation. The NFSA and PDS systems provide substantial food assistance; yet, high child mortality can persist due to the lack of a robust health infrastructure or the absence of institutional deliveries in underserved regions.</p>.<p>Fourth, giving equal weightage to each indicator is a methodological flaw. For a country like India, which has made substantial progress in food production and distribution through various welfare schemes, undernourishment rates alone might give a more accurate picture of hunger than child wasting or stunting rates, which are more complex indicators involving a range of socio-economic factors. The equal weighting fails to account for the unique dynamics in each country and can unfairly penalise countries like India, where structural issues contribute to certain indicators but do not necessarily reflect widespread hunger.</p>.<p><strong>Complexities not captured</strong></p>.<p>Finally, the devil is in the data. GHI relies substantially on secondary data sources, including FAO estimates, health surveys, and national demographic surveys. Many of these sources have limitations, including outdated data and small sample sizes. In India’s case, the most recent comprehensive nutrition survey (National Family Health Survey) was conducted in 2019-2020. Relying on such data without timely updates misses the strides India has made in food security programmes since then. Besides, many of these surveys are based on recall data and self-reporting, which may not capture the full picture. The complexities of food access, cultural dietary practices, and informal food systems prevalent in India can lead to discrepancies between reported and actual conditions.</p>.<p>India’s NFSA provides millions of vulnerable individuals with subsidised food grains. India also runs the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and ICDS; their impact is not captured in the GHI metrics. With its excessive focus on children (three of four indicators) and applying metrics without adjusting to regional differences, the GHI ends up wrongly labeling children as malnourished just because they do not fit a global average. Similarly, it is well known that Asians typically tend to have a lower Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), which is the energy we use while resting, and lower Physical Activity Levels (PAL). So, a realistic Kcal requirement would likely average 1,500 calories against the global average of 1,800 Kcal.</p>.<p>GHI appears to overshoot the hunger problem using a one-size-fits-all approach, resulting in a skewed portrayal of India’s hunger levels. Without a more nuanced and empirical approach, well-intentioned efforts like the GHI risk oversimplifying complex issues, hindering the very progress they aim to measure.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is Director, School of Social Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)</em></p>
