Last week, as the festival season kicked off, the Union Government inaugurated a new initiative. No, it has nothing to do with taxes, nor is any Diwali bonanza awaiting us. Instead, the government has resumed the retail sale of pulses. Several mobile vans have been deployed to sell the "Bharat" brand of various dals, including chana (split chickpea lentils), moong (split green gram), moong sabut (whole green gram), and masur (red lentils).

The prices are kept slightly lower than usual. For instance, moong dal, normally priced at 116 rupees per kilogram, is available at 107 rupees per kg. Similarly, chana dal is priced at Rs 70 per kg, down from the usual price of Rs 95 per kg. Interestingly, chana dal was priced at Rs 60 per kg just a few months ago.

The initiative was started around the same time last year and was discontinued in June 2024. Additionally, the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs is maintaining price interventions for onions and tomatoes at Rs 35 and Rs 65 per kg, respectively.

"Direct interventions through the retail sale of basic food items such as rice, atta, dals, and onions have helped maintain a stable price regime," says Food and Consumer Affairs Minister Prahlad Joshi. The idea is to ensure the availability of essential items at affordable prices. This intervention, however well-intentioned it might seem, only scratches the surface of a far deeper crisis, one that India has been grappling with for decades—Hunger.

Unsurprisingly, India has been placed 105th out of 127 nations in the 2024 Global Hunger Index (GHI) with a score of 27.3, categorising it as a country with "serious" hunger levels. At a time when NITI Aayog's report on multi-dimensional poverty and the SDG Index report claim that India has lifted 248 million people out of poverty in recent years, the GHI 2024 is a grim reminder that hunger remains a daunting challenge for this country of 1.4 billion people.

The Global Hunger Index score is derived from four key indicators: child stunting (the proportion of children under five with heights too low for their age, signalling long-term undernutrition), undernourishment (the percentage of the population not consuming adequate calories), child wasting (the proportion of children under five whose weight is too low for their height, indicating acute malnutrition), and child mortality (the share of children who die before reaching age five).

According to the report, 13.7% of India's population is undernourished, 35.5% of children are stunted, 18.7% suffer from wasting, and 2.9% die before turning five. Notably, India continues to have the highest global rate of child wasting. Critics claiming the report is exaggerated should note that the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) data (2019–21) also presented similar figures. Moreover, the SDG Index Report shows comparable outcomes against these indicators. In fact, the prevalence of anaemia among pregnant mothers has increased since the last SDG Index report. In other words, India faces an uphill battle in achieving the targets set under Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) of the SDGs.

The GHI report mentions that the government has announced several schemes to transform the country's food and nutrition landscape. However, much more remains to be done. The report underscores the intergenerational pattern of undernutrition, highlighting the direct correlation between poor maternal nutrition and poor child health outcomes. Mothers with insufficient weight gain during pregnancy often give birth to low-weight babies, leading to high rates of stunting among infants.

India's status in the GHI Index has not improved considerably since 2015. The GHI report clearly states that the relationship between per capita GDP growth and lower hunger levels is "not always direct or guaranteed." In other words, GDP growth alone does not ensure improved food and nutritional security for the entire population nor guarantees more resources or higher incomes for everyone.

According to the findings of Thomas Piketty and associates, income inequality in India, measured by the share of the top 1% of the population in national income, was 22.6% in 2022—the highest since 1922, when the income tax office began providing such estimates. The inequality generated by neoliberalism exceeds even that of the British Raj. This should be a wake-up call for the powers-that-be, who dream of achieving a Viksit Bharat by 2030. It's time to reflect: Whose development are we actually aiming for—the top 1% or the bottom 30%?

Had current policies been focused on lifting the bottom 30% out of poverty, the situation would have been starkly different. Dependence on schemes like MNREGS would have declined over the years. However, official figures tell a different story. In 2019–20, the demand for 100 days of work was 265.3 crore person-days, which surged to 389.9 crore and 363.2 crore person-days during the next two pandemic-affected years. Even in 2023–24, the demand remained high at 305.2 crore person-days—a 15% increase from 2019–20—indicating high unemployment, reduced incomes, and greater deprivation in rural areas.

Furthermore, climate change presents additional challenges. According to a 2018 G20 sustainability group report, the increasing frequency and intensity of environmental hazards have already reduced human productivity. Between 2000 and 2015, 23 million working-life years were lost globally each year due to hazardous workplace environments.

Among G20 members, China, Brazil, and India were the most affected, with 8.7, 3.2, and 1.5 working-life years lost per person annually from 2008–15. Projected temperature increases by 2030 will exacerbate heat stress, potentially reducing the total number of work hours in G20 countries and India specifically by 1.9% and 5.2%, respectively. Heat stress is expected to affect agricultural workers and those in emerging economies more severely.

The current SDG Index report reveals a lack of preparedness to tackle climate change. In fact, many states have regressed from front-runner to aspirational status in achieving the targets for Goal 13: Climate Action.

The GHI report suggests a multi-pronged approach to address hunger, including improved access to social safety nets, addressing factors related to well-being and nutrition, and dedicated approaches to assessing and meeting nutritional needs. It also emphasises investing in maternal and child health, anticipating risks from climate change, and ramping up efforts to make agriculture climate-resilient by promoting drought-resistant crops, water conservation, and environmentally sustainable farming practices.

With just six years left to achieve the Zero Hunger target set by the SDGs, India's window for transformative action is closing. The GHI and NFHS findings show that while India has made some progress, significant barriers remain to tackling food insecurity at scale. The government's recent initiatives, such as controlling pulse prices, may be necessary but are insufficient on their own. Short-term measures may benefit some but cannot significantly reduce the country's hunger levels.

It is time for the government to intensify its efforts, focusing on systemic reforms to ensure that no one is left behind in the fight against hunger. Achieving Zero Hunger will require not just policy changes but a national movement uniting government, civil society, and the private sector to work toward a common goal—ensuring that every Indian has access to sufficient, nutritious food every day. If India does not act decisively now, the dream of a hunger-free India by 2030 will remain just that—a distant dream.