It is unlikely that the ancient philosopher who remarked ‘‘man is the measure of all things’’ had human development reports in mind, but a better wrap of what they are about would be hard to find. For years, human development data were perceived strictly as the realm of the developmental economist and statistician. No longer. The recent elections saw political parties hurling data, as much as invective, at each other. This may have been the first elections in which developmental indices defeated the Congress in one state and powered it to a win in another; when expressions like ‘‘infant mortality rate’’, ‘‘per capita availability of water’’ and ‘‘connectivity’’ became part of pollspeak. Perhaps it had something to do with the BJP’s desire to beat Digvijay Singh at his game of presenting his achievements through figures culled from his state’s human development reports (HDRs). Madhya Pradesh, in fact, was the first to come up with its own HDR, based on parameters evolved in UNDP’s international Human Development Report. That was 1995. Since then six other states have joined the club with their own versions; nine others — including Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam — are now finalising theirs; while five — like Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir and Kerala — are hunkering down to the task. In Goa, over the past weekend, the Planning Commission and the UNDP jointly hosted a comprehensive and critical review of this process of evolving HDRs at the state level. The questions thrown up were many: what purpose do these reports serve? Do they lead to action on the ground? How can the various discriminations people face in terms of caste and gender get reflected in HDRs? What happens when a state like Gujarat, that has made impressive gains, cannot guarantee the right to life to thousands? Can quantitative indices capture the full spectrum of human deprivation? And as Manohar Parrikar, the Goa chief minister, felt compelled to ask, what happens when states like his are on top of the charts but continue to have high rates of suicides? Wouldn’t a ‘‘satisfaction index’’ be a useful measurement? Queries like these may not get comprehensive answers but the fact they are raised at all is indication of the tremendous interest state governments evince in this process of self-measurement. K.C. Pant, deputy chairman, Planning Commission, was only recognising this when he hoped these reports, which highlight both inter-state and intra-state differences, will be used by states to address their specific problems and be prompted to do better. Curious paradoxes surface in the various state reports. Rajasthan, for instance, recorded the highest growth in literacy rates in any state in India between 1991 and 2001, but its expectation of life continues to be among the lowest in the country. Madhya Pradesh, too, made significant progress in education but the marriageable age of its women is as low as 15. Tamil Nadu was the first state to make computer education available in all government higher secondary schools, but it has to contend with HIV/AIDS in every one of its 29 districts. There is evidence at the all-India level of widespread degradation of land. A large percentage of net sown area continues to be vulnerable to drought. High unemployment is a recurring theme in every state. There is also a very clear decline in agriculture in certain states. Maharashtra’s per capita domestic product is 40 per cent higher than the national average (1998-99), but the share of agriculture in it has dipped from 42.14 per cent in 1960-61 to 17.44 in 1999-2000. The challenges have spurred some interesting responses. The first budget in Maharashtra after its HDR emerged in 2002, had human development as its central thrust. Kerala, now that it has achieved top-of-the table status in most indices, wants to innovate and address second-generational issues. The emphasis in its forthcoming HDR will be, not on literacy but on advancing human capabilities, not on mere employment but employability and education leading to employability, not on just on health, but healthcare for ageing populations, and so on. To achieve growth with equity, it hopes to usher in a democratic decentralisation of the planning process. Karnataka, now working on its second HDR, would also like to improve access to services that go beyond providing for basic necessities. Chhattisgarh has experimented with the bottom-up approach, using sangwaris or friends at the village level to provide primary data covering over 100 parameters. Nagaland, too, has aspirations to emerge as a top performing state and it wants to use the HDR process to help it achieve this. There are of course hurdles in coming up with credible HDRs. The need to hear the voices of the great unheard — specifically communities like Dalits and tribals — is one such. Getting hold of credible data and number crunching them effectively is another. Since HDRs are supposed to be not just glossy volumes but tools for social and economic change, translating them into action is a key challenge. But the Goa meet flagged the importance of the process, even as it recognised its intricacies and inadequacies. As Hafiz A. Pasha, assistant secretary general, UNDP, put it, ‘‘What is truly unique about the process in India is that it has gone from the global to the national to the sub-national. India’s state HDRs are today perceived as a global ‘best practice’.’’
