Human development index

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen hardly lets slip a chance to praise Bangladesh's achievement on human development index (HDI). This time he was focusing on what he considers India's poorer records compared not only to Bangladesh but also Bhutan and Nepal. Sure enough, the indices of human development can be deceptive but the fact is that on the lists of countries by both the 2010 and 2011 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) HDI, India holds a higher position than these countries. On its 2011 HDI list, India is ranked 134 and Bhutan 141 but Bangladesh finds itself placed at146th position, one place below Pakistan and Nepal in a distant 157th slot. Sri Lanka has always remained at the top of the list (with 97th position in 2011) among the South Asian nations ever since the development of HDI by Amartya Sen and Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq in 1990. Another island nation, the Maldives has also been doing well and this year it follows Sri Lanka to remain at 109th place. Now it is interesting to note that due to adoption of new methodology since 2010, HDI figures look poorer. But this has happened in general to all countries but what is highly significant here is that the four categories in which the countries have been divided give some idea of a country's performance within a group. No South Asian country qualifies for the first two categories under the heads of 'very high human development' and 'high human development'. Sri Lanka, the Maldives and India figure in the 'medium human development' category. Bhutan takes the last position of this group. But Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal languish in the 'low human development' category. Yet this does not take away the fact that on certain issues Bangladesh has impressive records to its credit. Known as a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living, the HDI now concentrates more on the wellbeing or quality of life of people in a country due to the economic policies adopted by that country. Sure enough, Bangladesh has reduced mother and child mortality at birth and the longevity of its people and today a Bangladeshi on an average can expect to live up to 67 years as against hisher Indian counterpart's 64 years. Even in primary education Bangladesh has gone ahead of India, according to HDI measure. Then how come India's literacy is higher than Bangladesh's? And more importantly, a large number of students go to that country for higher studies. So far as healthcare is concerned, Bangladesh's performance has been given higher scores. Then why people go in droves for treatment to India? These are pertinent questions that need plausible answers. One answer may be that the quality education and health service or facilities at the top has not been complemented by the rudimentary infrastructure or network at the bottom of society. Bangladesh's relative better performance in this regard, however, is no guarantee that the goal of 'education for all' has been achieved or there is any possibility of achieving it in the near future. Economic disparities here, as in India, not only remain but continue to widen in the wake of sharp degradation of people's value system and ethical standard. Quality of life is, therefore, open to question.