Amartya Sen is right again: India is the worst in South Asia after Pakistan

The country has fallen behind Bangladesh, Bhutan on several socio-economic parameters, especially health and education

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has again kicked up a storm after he reportedly said, “India has taken a step in the wrong direction after 2014.”

Sen, who was speaking at a book launch function on Sunday along with economist Jean Dreze, added, “Now India was the second-worst and only Pakistan has managed to shield us from being the worst.” This is not the first time that the noted economist has made such comparisons either. He had said something similar at the Delhi Economics Conclave in 2011 when he hinted that India was trailing all its neighbours on several social indicators, especially health and education.

While much water has flowed under the bridge since Sen made these comments, nothing much seems to have improved dramatically on India’s important social indicators till date. A look at several key development pointers over the last couple of decades indicates that all of India’s South Asian neighbours, save Pakistan, have outperformed it on many basic health and education parameters.

One of the most basic parameters used to measure the quality of life -– life expectancy -- shows that India has fared marginally better than Pakistan, but is worse than all its other South Asian neighbours. Of particular concern is the country's poor performance on improving its population's life expectancy, when compared to Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal. In 1990, India’s life expectancy was just about 57 years – much better than Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal. In 2015, according to World Health Organisation (WHO) information, Indian’s lifespan is much shorter than these nations. It is marginally better than Pakistan – where terror attacks and religious dogma prevail over rule of law, and is significantly lower than Sri Lanka.

Even as India has a miserable record in ensuring a long and healthy life for its population, children here are more likely to die in their first month after birth than in all other South Asian neighbours, except Pakistan again. In India, 25 out every 1,000 children do not live more than a month after birth. Bangladesh and Nepal had a higher neo-natal mortality in 1990, while Bhutan was on par with India that year 1990. Bhutan managed to reduce such early deaths to 18 per 1,000 live births by 2016, according to the United Nations World Human Development Index. India’s abysmal record on these fronts is despite the fact that its health budget is many times those of all these nations. A similar story unfolds when one looks at the number of children who die before reaching the age of five. In 1990, India was second to Sri Lanka for having the least number of under-5 mortalities. In 2016, India is behind only Pakistan among all the five South Asian nations. Forty-three out of every 1,000 children die in the country before reaching the age of five. Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal are now way better than India in this regard. The problem with India is that not just has it failed to radically improve the chances of its new born to survive as compared to its less affluent neighbours, the quality of life of a child who manages to survive is also deplorable.

WHO information suggests that more children in India under the age of five years were stunted between 2007-16 than during 2000 to 2009. The country is the only other after Pakistan which has shown an increase in the number of stunted children among all these nations. In the first decade of the 21st century, a little above 36 per cent of children in India under the age of five were stunted. Over the next decade until 2016, the proportion of stunted children jumped to over 38 per cent. This is despite the fact that several programmes, such as Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), the much-admired mid-day meal scheme and large-scale distribution of subsidised food grains through a rather dilapidated public distribution system were in operation in every corner of the country.  It isn't just children whose lives are jeopardised by virtue of being born in India --even the women who give birth to them would have had better chances of surviving had they been living in neighbouring Bangladesh, Bhutan or Sri Lanka. In 1990, India’s maternal mortality rate (MMR) was just 570 per 100,000 of live births. Bangladesh and Bhutan had MMRs of 870 and 490 respectively. In 2015, these two nations recorded an MMR of 176 and 148 respectively. India’s MMR stood at 174 -– marginally better than Bangladesh but having showed much less improvement over the years than its eastern neighbour.

While Amartya Sen has derided India’s progress on improving its nation’s quality of life over the years, a look at the India’s record in improving its citizens’ educational profiles and consequently their chances of improving their earning potential also lag behind that of most of its South Asian neighbours. Since 1990, India has managed to add only four years to the expected schooling years of its children. Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal meanwhile have managed to add much more than their geographically bigger neighbour. Pakistan is the only nation that matches India’s record in increasing the expected schooling years of its children. In fact, when one looks at the overall rise in the education index in the UN’s World Development Report, Pakistan has managed to improve its education index score much better than India since 1990. Bangladesh and Nepal also seemed to have made better improvements than India during the same period. India’s youth unemployment rate also returned to 2000 levels in 2015. While unemployment among people in the 15-24 years age group was low in India as compared to Sri Lanka and Pakistan, both these nations had managed to lower youth unemployment since the dawn of the 21st century.

The abysmal rate of India’s progress on some of these vital social parameters has come even as the country has been the fastest growing economy among all these nations over the years. Sen’s reiteration of his analogy suggests that rapid economic growth in India hasn’t translated into a better life for its citizens.