Source: UNDP, Human Development Report 2005 (New Delhi: OUP, 2005).

This is sufficiently revealing on India's progress in comparative terms with which we often draw parallels on several fronts. In fact, a few of our states like Kerala and West Bengal have achieved in some areas which are comparable to some of the above mentioned countries. However, no one can refute the progress which India has made since 1990. But this is not adequate enough to lift millions of its people out of poverty including extreme poverty. Presented here is an overview of the development indicators between 1991 and 2001. It can be observed that the progress is not appreciable for all of them particularly when compared to the countries mentioned earlier.

Table 2. India’s Progress, 1991-2001: Selected Social Indicators

Indicator	1991	2001
Population (Millions)	846.40	1028.60
Annual Growth Rate of Population (%)	2.14	1.93
Fertility Rate	3. 8 (1990)	2.9 (2003)
Sex Ratio	927	933
Life Expectancy	58.6	64.8
Literacy Rate	52.20	65.49
Male	64.13	75.96
Female	39.24	54.28
Human Development Index Value	0.513	0.602 (2003)
Population below Poverty Line (%)	37.1	26.0

Source: UNDP, Human Development Report 2005 (New Delhi: OUP, 2005) and Government of India, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-2007), June 2005.

Table 3. India’s Progress, 1991-2001: Selected Economic Indicators

Indicator	1990	2003
GDP Growth Rate	3.9	6.9
Per Capita Income (US $) Check	380	480
GNI (US $ billion)	330.6	571.3
Trade (% of GDP)	15.7	30.5
External Debt (% of GNI)	26.7	19.0
Public Expenditure on Education (% of GDP)	3.7	4.1
Public Expenditure on Health (% of GDP)	1.3	1.3

Source: World Bank, India Country Profile http://www.worldbank.org/

The annual population growth rate has declined and so has the fertility rate which will directly contribute to the overall decline in population. So also sex ratio has improved but for some of the states this ration is alarmingly low as the following details illustrate. Diu and Daman-709, Chandigarh-773, Punjab -874, Delhi-821. Literacy rate could have been higher. In the percentage of population below poverty line despite the decline, the absolute numbers remain almost the same at 260 million considering the total population today. Economic reforms in India since 1991 have brought about many remarkable changes. Growth rate which never crossed 5% before recorded 8.6% in 2003 and 6.9% in 2004. Likewise in comparative terms there is improvement in national income, trade, debt reduction. An example for trade would be that in 1983 India’s total software exports were to the tune of US$ 12 million and by 2000 it has multiplied by 500 times.
Economic growth is not the final indicator of development and progress. The question here is how much of this growth has helped India’s poor and underprivileged. While there is an imperative need for making economic growth equitable benefiting all sections of the society, the gains of economic development have not been sufficiently translated so as to achieve appreciable levels in social development. Therefore, there is a strong need to link development with other interventions besides economic growth.
Comparing MDGs with India’s own goals as given in the Tenth Plan, most of them are far more ambitious than the MDGs targets.

Table 4. India's and MDGs Targets: A Comparison

Indicator	India’s Targets (Year)	MDGs Targets (Year)
Reduce Poverty (%)	11 (2012)	17 (2015)
Primary Enrolment (%)	100 (2003)	100 (2015)
Infant Mortality Rate (Per 1000 live births)	28 (2012)	26 (2015)
Maternal Mortality Rate (Per 1000 live births)	1 (2012)	124 (2015)
Forest Cover (Increase %)	33 (2012)	Reverse Loss (2015)
Access to Water (Rural) %	100 (2007)	78 (2015)
HIV/AIDS	Zero Level Increase (2007)	Reverse the Spread (2015)

Sources for Table 4: Government of India, Planning Commission, Tenth Five-Year Plan 2002-2007 Volume-I and Government of India, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-2007), June 2005.

In fact, Vision 2020 envisages India attaining parity with upper middle income countries by 2020 such as Argentina, Malaysia and South Africa on the assumption that per capita income would quadruple by 2020. Therefore, development challenges and achievable goals for 2020 have the average performance of these upper middle income countries as a benchmark for progress.
Some of the trends on the various MDGs and a comparison with some Asian countries and upper middle income countries are as follows.

Goal 1 Eradicate Extreme Poverty by Half by 2015.
Target 1 Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day;

Target 2 Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

In 1999 India had 260.03 million people below poverty line. Of this 193.2 millions are rural poor and 67.1 millions are urban. This means that 74% of the total poor are in rural India. India’s track record falls far behind when compared with few other countries as the following table highlights.

Table 5. Poverty Indicators: Selected Countries

Country	People Living Below Poverty Line (% of Total Population)	% Undernourished (of Total Population)	% of Children Undernourished
India	26.1	52	47
China	4.6	11	10
Thailand	13.1	20	19
Sri Lanka	25.0	22	29
Pakistan	32.6	20	38
Malaysia	15.5	2	12
Mexico	10.1	5	8

Source: UNDP, Human Development Report 2005 (New Delhi: OUP, 2005).

India is on track in achieving the target of halving the population below poverty line, the target of halving those who suffer from hunger may not be achievable given the present rate and the nature of growth.

Goal 2 Achieve Universal Primary Education
Target 3 Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.
Of which the indicators are:

Net enrolment ratio in primary education was 82.8 % in 2001
Percentage of pupil reaching grade 5 was 83.8 in 2001
Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds 76.4 was in 2001
The target for 2015 is that these figures will be 100 percent. But as of September 2004 about 8.1 million children are still out of school. The goal may be achieved by 2015

Goal 3 Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women,
Target 4 Eliminate gender disparities in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015.
A comparative analysis between India and few other countries reveals where India stands with regard to gender equality and opportunities for women.

Indicator/ Country	india	Malaysia	Pakistan	South Africa	Thailand
Female Ratio (%) in Primary Education	85	93	50	89	84
Female Literacy as % of Male Literacy Rate	80	100	72	101	100
Seats in Parliament (Lower House) held by Women % of Total	8.3	9.1	21.3	32.8	10.6

Source: UNDP, Human Development Report 2005 (New Delhi: OUP, 2005).

India, besides these numbers, definitely has to do a lot more to promote gender equality and empower women. Cultural underpinnings contribute to the status of women and the treatment of the girl child as is evident from the national sex ratio, female feticide and infanticide, maternal mortality rate, dowry system and deprivation of women at various levels. All these issues need to be addressed to meet this goal.

Goal 4 Reduce Child Mortality
Target 5 Reduce by two thirds between 1990 and 2015 the under-five mortality rate.

The following table highlights the challenges that India has.

Table 7. Child Mortality: India and the World

Indicator	India per Year	% of the World Total
Live Births	26 million	20
Child Deaths (Under 5)	2. 4 million	22.2
Infant Deaths	1.7 million	22.3
Neonatal Deaths (Four Weeks Old)	1.1 million	30

Source: J. Kishore, National Health Programmes of India (New Delhi: Century Publications, 2005).

Child mortality is a classic example of the grave inter-state disparity that exists in India with the infant and neonatal mortality rate for Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa being over 5 to 7 times higher than that of Kerala. Proportion of 1 year old children immunized against measles, another indicator in this goal is only 67%.

Goal 5 Improve Maternal Health
Target 6 Reduce by three quarters between 1990 and 2015 the maternal mortality ratio.
In this goal again the contrast between India and some selected countries is quite high as the following table demonstrates.

Table 8. Maternal Health in India and Few other Asian Countries

Country	Births Attended by Skilled Health Personnel (%)	Maternal Mortality Ratio (Per 100,000 Live Births
India	43	540
Sri Lanka	97	92
China	97	56
Maldives	70	110
Thailand	99	44

Source: UNDP, Human Development Report 2005 (New Delhi: OUP, 2005).

The above numbers are revealing enough in relation to some of the Asian countries. In fact, about 1, 36, 000 women die during child birth every year which is almost 27% of the maternal deaths globally.

Goal 6 Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases has the following targets:
Target 7 Have halted by 2015 and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS;
Target 8 Have halted by 2015 and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases.

Table 9. Current Status of HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria in India

Indicator	Number (Year)
Estimated Number of HIV Infections	5.134 Million (2004)
Cumulative Number of AIDS Cases Reported	96,978 (2004)
Cumulative Number of AIDS Deaths	7,322 (2004)
Number of People Contracting TB Every Year	1.8 Million (2004)
Estimated Number of Deaths due to TB	400, 000 (2004)
Number of Malarial Cases Every Year	1.86 Million (2003)
Estimated Deaths due to Malaria	1,006

Source: J. Kishore, National Health Programmes of India (New Delhi: Century Publications, 2005).

India only had a few thousand HIV infections in the early 1990s. Globally India is only second to South Africa in the overall number of people living with HIV. UN Population Division projects HIV prevalence will peak to 1.9 % in 2019 and during 2000-2015 there could be 12.3 million deaths.
The health target found in Goals 4 to 6 may not be achieved considering the present rate of progress. There are new health initiatives as in the National Rural Health Mission 2005 which presents a greater drive in realizing the tenth plan health objectives.

Goal 7 Ensure Environmental Sustainability has three clear targets.
Target 9 Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources;

Target 10 Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation;

Target 11 By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers.

Major focus in this section is on water and sanitation. India’s record in this area suggests that it can achieve these targets well on time provided the present approach continues.

Table 10. Access to Improved Water in India: Rural Urban Divide

Country	Rural	Urban
Population with Access to Improved Water Source (%)	79	95
Access to Sanitation	21.91	61

Source: Government of India, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-2007), June 2005.

The slum population in India for the year 2001 was 61.82 million. Several government initiatives like seek to provide and upgrade shelters for the slum dwellers. There is also a rethinking on slum policy.

Goal 8 Develop a Global Partnership for Development
Target 48 In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications.
As mentioned earlier this goal is addressed to the developed countries so only one target is mentioned here.

Table 11. Tele-Density in India, Asia and World

Country	India	World	Asia
Tele-density (2002)	7.10	40.32	28.52

Source: Government of India, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-2007), June 2005.

Table: 12 Access to Computers and Internet in India, China and Malaysia

Access & Infrastructure per 100 persons	India	China	Malaysia
Personal Computers	1.3	2.8	15.0
Internet	.45	2.0	11.0
Internet Users	2.5	5.0	33.0

Source: Government of India, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-2007), June 2005.

The recent trend of greater accessibility to these technologies will also contribute their share to development.
Since the fulfillment of MDGs have 1990s as its reference point, whatever progress India has made since then goes into the analysis while evaluating the issue to what extent India’s progress is on track. India’s track record in achieving MDGs is a mixed bag with significant improvement in areas such as reducing the number of those below poverty line and providing access to improved water sources while failing in the rest as the following table demonstrates.

MDGs and India’s Progress

Indicator	On Track Value 2005	Track Value	MDG 2015	Status
G. 1 (PBPL)	30	26.1(99-00)	18.75	On Track
G. 2 (Lit. 15-24 Yrs)		73.3(2001)		NA
G. 3 (Ratio G-B PE)	0.83	0.77(2000)		Off Track
G. 4 (IMR) (UMR)	56.7 0.87	66(2001) 93(2001)	27 41	Off Track Off Track
G. 5 (MMR)	332	407(1998)	109	Off Track
G. 6 (Deaths/AIDS)		1114(2004)
G. 7 (Water-Rural) (Sanitation)	69 39.3	79(2000) 21.91(2001)	80.5 72	On Track Off Track
G. 8 (Tele-density)		7.1(2002)	None	NA

Source: Government of India, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-2007), June 2005.

Conclusion
There is no dearth of programmes in India as far as achieving any of the goals is concerned. For example, consider the following number of programmes launched by the government to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger:

1. Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana; Launched in April 1999 after restructuring Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) and allied schemes. Components of this programme include organizing Self Help Groups (SHGs), training, development of infrastructure, establishment of marketing linkages and providing technological support. Under this scheme upto Rs. 10, 000.00 can be given to NGOs/CBOs and animators etc for facilitating capacity building of SHGs.

2. Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana; is a wage employment scheme launched in September 2001 with the idea of providing food security and improve nutritional levels. Wages paid partly in cash and partly in food grains. A minimum of Rs. 50, 000.00 per year is given to each Gram Panchayat as part of this scheme.

3. National Food for Work Programme; Introduced in November 2004 in 150 identified backward districts for improving the plight of the poor in these districts.

4. National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill passed in 2005 aims to provide 100 days of work to unemployed unskilled persons in a financial year.

5. Swarna Jayanthi Shahari Rozgar Yojana is a self-employment venture.

6. Public Distribution System which provides food for the poor at prices they can afford.

7. Land Reforms to ensure equitable ownership of land.

8. Watershed Development Programmes to enhance agricultural productivity.

9. Integrated Child Development Services addresses the nutritional needs of children in the age group of 0-6 years and pregnant and lactating mothers.

10. Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojna also focuses on nutrition for children between 0-3 years of age.

While the programmes are not entirely new, some of them have been restructured and revamped several times over to deliver better results. Yet, the results have not been appreciable. The problems of non-achievement are the cumulative effect contributed from different levels beginning with the very instrument of intervention used by the government. Holding the government accountable by various strata in a more organized manner would definitely produce better results.

Improving local governance and increasing the role of people can bring in ownership of the programmes which could yield better results. By involving the beneficiaries of any programme in governance you achieve simultaneously the twin goals of both empowering the people and evolving context-specific programmes.

There needs to be a fair amount of flexibility in the adoption of the programmes to the local context. This is a primary requirement for the success of any programme that it suit the particular needs of the region, society or community. One-type-suits-all development programmes will not produce the best results.

Another significant factor is that all these issues are strongly interlinked and deprivation in one area automatically leads to decline and deprivation in other areas as well. What is crucial is an integrated approach and tackling just one or a few aspects will not produce any concrete results. So this brings us once again to the fact, as many have argued that poverty is not just to do with paucity of monetary resources but steeped in several social parameters. Therefore efforts cannot be just for income improvement but the fact of multiple deprivations of the poor needs serious consideration. Development must be inclusive of freedom, equity, health, education and safe environment. Interventions have to be wide-ranging for development to be sustainable rather than addressing just the issue. Health target may not be met by merely providing better health care but improving water, sanitation, income growth, better infrastructure, literacy, empowering the women, cleaner environment etc will be crucial in achieving better health. It is obvious that significant associations exist in all these dimensions and this interrelatedness requires that simultaneous efforts in every area are requisite for concrete results.

The roles of the community, the civil society organizations and NGOs have in the process of change and development in the country is vital. All these have proliferated in the recent past and they have been actively engaged in the development sectors all over India including remote areas. The advantages at their disposal include being people-centric and a great deal of autonomy and flexibility besides others. They also work on improving people’s participation in development programmes and decision-making. It is also imperative that these groups look beyond economically sustaining the poor.
Poverty has to be addressed in all its dimensions particularly reworking the socio-cultural underpinnings of the community which often hamper development or even prevent accesses to facilities for certain groups. Redefining value system so as to make it equitable holds the key in most underdeveloped regions of the country. Development and empowerment of the poor is the ultimate goal of both NGOs and the government. If effective coordination is worked out between them at various levels and in different ways better results can surely be achieved.

Regional imbalances that were mentioned earlier are an indisputable reason for India’s present status. States’ performance figures in a wide spectrum with a few doing exceptionally well in most of the sectors being on the high end of the spectrum. But the answer to India’s problem lies in addressing the needs of the states which are on the lower end and their levels far from even average. Any efforts for equitable development have to strongly address the issues in these states. The poverty reduction has also been uneven with most of the poor being in the states of Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Variations can be seen also within states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra.

Rural-Urban divide also needs to be addressed adequately. Empowerment of women at all levels is another crucial aspect that requires concerted efforts. Simultaneously tackling all these issues with equal focus will yield appreciable dividends.

In the different countries with which comparisons has been drawn earlier some reasons for better performance could be effective governance, robust commitment towards development so as to improve the lives of their citizens and the fact that these countries are smaller with lesser population with the exception of China. Literacy levels and empowerment of women also holds the key in these nations.

As far as the Millennium Development Goals and India is concerned this time-bound focus of the goals could be the panacea for India’s slow track record in these areas. One of the facts for the inability to realize appreciable levels of development could be that goals in India have never been strictly time-bound. There are no compulsions even as far as achieving the MDGs is concerned but they have become a framework in assessing different countries’ performance. Failing to accomplish MDG goals will reflect poorly on the Indian commitment to equitable development.

Paper written by Bonnie Miriam Jacob

References
General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000.

Report of the Secretary General, Road Map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, 6 September2001.

Government of India, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-2007), June 2005.

UNDP, Human Development Report 2005 (New Delhi: OUP, 2005).

Government of India, Planning Commission, India: Vision 2020 (New Delhi: Academic Foundation, 2004).

Government of India, Planning Commission, Tenth Five-Year Plan 2002-2007 Volume-I,II&III.

K.S. Parikh and R. Radhkrishna, India Development Report 2004-05 (New Delhi: OUP, 2005).

J. Kishore, National Health Programmes of India (New Delhi: Century Publications, 2005).

World Bank, India Country Profile http://www.worldbank.org/idg/IDG Profile.asp?CCODE=IND&CNAME=India&SelectedCountry=IND