Global Hunger Index 2024 ranks India under ‘serious’ category
London, Oct 12: The Global Hunger Index (GHI), a tool used by international humanitarian agencies to measure and track hunger levels with GHI scores based on under-nourishment and child mortality indicators across 127 countries, has ranked India 105th, which places it under the “serious” category of the analysis.
The 2024 report, now in its 19th edition, is published this week by Irish humanitarian organisation Concern Worldwide and German aid agency Welthungerhilfe to highlight that hunger levels will remain high in many of the world’s poorest countries for several decades in the absence of more progress in measures to tackle the issue.
India is among 42 countries that fall within the "serious" category, alongside Pakistan and Afghanistan, with other South Asian neighbours such as Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka showing better GHI scores to be listed under the “moderate” category.
“With a score of 27.3 in the 2024 Global Hunger Index, India has a level of hunger that is serious,” reads the index entry.
India's GHI Score is based on the values of four component indicators: 13.7 per cent of the population is undernourished, 35.5 per cent of children under five are stunted with 18.7 per cent of them being wasted, and 2.9 per cent of children die before their fifth birthday, the report notes.
For the purpose of the index, undernourishment is defined as the share of the population with insufficient caloric intake, stunted as the share of children under age five who have low height for their age to reflect “chronic” undernutrition, wasting as the share of children under five who have low weight for their height due to “acute” undernutrition, and mortality refers to the fatal mix of inadequate nutrition and unhealthy environments.
Based on the values of these four indicators, a GHI score is calculated for each country on a 100-point scale reflecting the severity of hunger, where 0 is the best possible score (no hunger) and 100 is the worst.
Based on its analysis, the report concludes the chances of achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of Zero Hunger by 2030 are looking very unlikely.
“Despite the international community’s repeated emphasis on the importance of the right to adequate food, there remains a troubling disparity between the standards established and the reality that in many parts of the world the right to food is being blatantly disregarded,” the report concludes.
Globally, around 733 million people face hunger each day due to a lack of access to a sufficient amount of food, while about 2.8 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet.
Some of the African nations are on the extreme ends of the GHI spectrum under the "alarming" category, with wars in Gaza and Sudan being highlighted as having led to exceptional food crises.
Conflict and civil strife are also generating food crises elsewhere, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Mali and Syria, it added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refuses to adjourn hearing on pleas against EC law, says this matter is more important
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accede to the Centre's request to adjourn the hearing on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a 2023 law that removed the CJI from a committee responsible for appointing the chief election commissioner and the deputies, saying the matter is "more important" than the Sabarimala case.
A nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.
A bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case.
Referring to the gravity of the current challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Justice Datta said, "This matter is more important than any other matter."
"Let your (solicitor general's) associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspapers that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place," Justice Datta said.
ALSO READ: Girl mauled to death by stray dogs in Punjab's Hoshiarpur
The bench then directed the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Thursday, allowing the Centre to present its submissions on a subsequent date. The bench then proceeded with the hearing which is underway.
Earlier on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions. "I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest," the CJI had said. The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.
The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted.
Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the prime minister, a Union minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha).
The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.
The law has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms.
Earlier, the Centre defended in the Supreme Court the appointment of two new election commissioners under the 2023 law that excludes the chief justice of India from the selection committee, saying the independence of the Election Commission does not arise from the presence of a judicial member on the committee.
In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the Union law ministry rejected the petitioner's claim that the two election commissioners were hastily appointed on March 14, 2024, to "pre-empt" the orders of the top court the next day, when the matters challenging the 2023 law were listed for hearing on interim relief.
The apex court also refused to stay the appointment of new election commissioners under the 2023 law.
A five-judge constitution bench had in March 2023 ruled that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India.
