8 June 2017

IIT-Delhi, IIT-Bombay, IISc among world’s top 200 universities

The rise of IIT-Delhi and IIT-Bombay is significant as Indian educational institutions had lost ground in the QS rankings last year

The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)-Bombay has broken into the top 200 club in the latest edition of the ‘Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings’, to join IIT-Delhi and Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, in this group. With this, India, for the first time, is home to three of the top 200 universities in the world.

According to the ‘QS World University Rankings 2018’, released on Wednesday morning, IIT-Bombay improved its performance by 40 positions, from 219 rank last year to 179 this time. In another first, IIT-Delhi has replaced IISc as the best ranked Indian institution in the world. So, while IIT-Delhi has risen from 185 rank to 172 this year, IISc slipped over 30 places from 152 to 190.

The rise of IIT-Delhi and IIT-Bombay is significant as Indian educational institutions had lost ground in the QS rankings last year. But IISc’s performance could be a cause for concern as the institution, which dropped out of the top 150 club in the 2017 rankings, has slipped even further instead of recovering lost ground.

However, IISc is rated the sixth best institution in the world in terms of QS’s ‘citations per faculty’ metric. “This metric measures the research intensiveness and research impact of a university by dividing the number of citations that a university’s research acquires by the number of faculty members at that university. QS notes that IISc’s research papers were cited nearly 82,000 times over the five-year period QS used for this metric,” states the QS press release.

The HRD Ministry is currently working on a framework to encourage educational institutions to break into the top 100 club of any of the reputed world ranking metric.

The ranking table this year has provided a list of the world’s 959 top universities, which includes 20 Indian institutions — six more than last year. Jadavpur University (ranked in the 601-650 band), University of Hyderabad (601-650), Anna University (651-700), Manipal University (701-750), Aligarh Muslim University (800-1000) and Birla Institute of Technology and Science (800-1000) are the six new entrants.

Delhi University, for the first time, entered the top 500 group, moving up from the 501-550 category to the 481-490 category. IIT-Kharagpur improved its rank from 313 to 308, and IIT-Kanpur rose from 302 to 293 rank. IIT-Madras, however, lost a few places and moved from 249 to 264 rank. IIT-Guwahati moved from 481-490 band to 501-550 band. Banaras Hindu University, Panjab University, University of Mumbai and University of Pune are all ranked in the 801-1000 band.

“India is progressing in our global rankings. Five Indian universities feature among the global 100 for research indicator. However, there is still plenty of room for improvement, especially in the ‘employers reputation’ indicator, suggesting that a closer collaboration between the corporate world and the leading universities is essential. India is also less competitive than other countries in the international students and faculty indicators, which makes perfect sense given the huge internal demand for higher education,” Ben Sowter, Research Director at QS, has been quoted as saying.

In the overall rankings, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) continues its run as the world’s best university for the sixth consecutive year. Stanford University and Harvard University follow as the world’s second and third best institutions.

Despite the same electoral model, there are marked differences in how polls are conducted in Britain and in India

Their Westminster, and ours

Despite the same electoral model, there are marked differences in how polls are conducted in Britain and in India

The UK is all set for a mid-term general election on June 8, which could only be derailed if there is yet another terror attack. While the poll issues involved and the fluctuating fortunes of political parties are a matter of separate analysis, I will confine myself to the more mundane electoral system and its management issues. When the country had its last general election on May 7, 2015, I was an independent observer along with a sizeable international group, mostly election commissioners, many of whom were my old colleagues and counterparts. I was allotted three constituencies. Interestingly, two of these gave two successive prime ministers — David Cameron and Theresa May (I wonder if a third one is waiting in the wings!).

It is interesting to compare the system in the UK and India, which hold many similarities as well as significant differences. The first significant difference is that in India, the Election Commission of India (ECI) decides the dates for the elections keeping political parties, including the ruling one, guessing, whereas in the UK, the date was always decided by the prime minister, giving the ruling party a political advantage. This surely went against the principle of a level playing field. In 2011, therefore, the old system was changed to a fixed date election — May 7, every five years.

The 2015 election was the first under this system. But, in an article I wrote for this paper (‘Britain’s electoral plumbing’, IE, May 12, 2015), I raised a question as to what would happen to the fixed date in case of a mid-term general election. Who imagined that this question would come to haunt the British in less than two years?

The basic common factor is the electoral model itself that we both follow — the Westminster model. Our Lok Sabha and their House of Commons are counterparts to which voters directly elect their representatives. But the size of the house and the parliamentary constituencies differ enormously. The size of the Indian electorate is 20 times that of the UK which almost corresponds to the state of Rajasthan. Despite the small population, the House of Commons has a huge strength of 650 MPs as against 543 in India. The average number of electors for each of these MPs is about 70,000 while India has an average of 1.6 million electors. Campaign styles and logistics thus are worlds apart.

In the UK, campaigning is much cheaper, confined to door to door visits by candidates or agents, and TV debates. Paid political advertising on TV and radio is not permitted — this is unthinkable in India where mass media, despite the exorbitant costs, is the backbone of campaigns. Paid news, which is rampant in India, is unheard of in the UK. There is a cap on election expenditure of both the candidates and the parties in the UK, whereas in India, it extends only to the candidates. That’s a huge loophole that raises campaign expenditure to obscene levels.

The participation of voters in the UK was the same with a total turnout of 66.1 per cent against 66.4 per cent in India in 2014; however, over the years, it’s coming down in the UK and going up in India, thanks to the voter education programme started by the ECI in 2010. Youth apathy has been common to both, though the ECI’s efforts to increase youth participation have had a dramatic effect, especially since the launching of the National Voters Day, focussed on young persons, leading to an addition of nearly 120 million voters (three UKs!) between the last two elections.

India is also one-up using electronic voting machines (EVMs) since 1998 while the demand for electronic voting in the UK has never been very audible. The clamour for internet or online voting however is gathering slow momentum in both countries. The biggest plus for the UK is that their system is very clean, with no violence, booth capturing, no impersonation and no rigging. For us in India, this is a constant struggle. Their system is very trusting: The UK is the only country in the world where no identity proof is required. No photo on the electoral rolls. No marking of fingers. There are no party agents in the booth to verify the voter’s identity. There is no police near polling stations, whereas, in India, a booth has to be secured like a fort. We are accused of killing the festival of democracy; the British are happy with quiet, civilised polling.

A very significant difference is that poll day is not a holiday. To enable working class persons to vote, the voting hours are long — 7 am to 10 pm. They normally vote either early in the morning or late evening. Housewives and the elderly vote during the day. So, the scene is never chaotic. The UK has about 8 million foreigners, nearly two million of whom are from Commonwealth countries. The latter are entitled to vote. Of these, there are over 6,15,000 Indian voters who alone can influence the results in 30 constituencies. Voices are often raised against this anomaly.

Both countries follow the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system of election, where the candidate getting the highest number of votes is declared elected. Questions are often raised about the fairness of the system. In the UK, it snowballed to the extent that a referendum was held in 2011, though it failed with 68 to 32 per cent vote (with a low turnout of 42 per cent). Many questioned the fairness of the result as the government conducted only perfunctory publicity about it.

In India, the demand for replacing FPTP with Proportional Representation has become louder after the 2014 general election, when a party (the BSP) with the third largest vote share in the country ended up with zero share in parliamentary seats. In the end, questions have sometimes been raised about the logistics and management of elections in the UK. In the 2010 and 2015 UK election, there were complaints about postal ballots and some polling stations, even in London, falling short of ballot papers before the poll’s end, unthinkable in India. Our election management, despite its mind-boggling problems, like the Maoist insurgency, militancy, the constant shadow of terrorism, is quite fail-safe.

Brexit being at the heart of debate in this election, global interest in this poll is greater than ever. Let us now see how it plays out.

India’s Seafood Export at all-time High in 2016-17 :MPEDA

Riding on a robust demand for its frozen shrimp and frozen fish in international markets, India exported 11,34,948 MT of seafood worth an all time high of US$ 5.78 billion (Rs 37, 870.90 crore) in 2016-17 as against 9,45,892 tons and 4.69 billion dollars a year earlier, with USA and South East Asia continuing to be the major importers while the demand from the European Union (EU) grew substantially during the period.
Frozen shrimp maintained its position as the top item of export, accounting for 38.28 per cent in quantity and 64.50 per cent of the total earnings in dollar terms. Shrimp exports increased by 16.21 per cent in terms of quantity and 20.33 per cent in dollar terms. Frozen Fish was the second largest export item, accounting for a share of 26.15 per cent in quantity and 11.64 per cent in dollar earnings, registering a growth of 26.92 per cent in terms of value.
USA imported 1,88,617 MT of Indian seafood, accounting for 29.98 per cent in terms of dollar. Export to that country registered a growth of 22.72 per cent, 33 per cent and 29.82 per cent in terms of quantity, value in rupee and US dollars, respectively. South East Asia remained the second largest destination of India’s marine products, with a share of 29.91 per cent in dollar terms, followed by the EU (17.98 per cent), Japan (6.83 per cent), the Middle East (4.78 per cent), China (3.50 per cent) and other countries (7.03 per cent). Overall, exports to South East Asia increased by 47.41 per cent in quantity, 52.84 per cent in rupee value and 49.90 per cent in dollar earnings.
“Increased production of L. Vannamei, diversification of aquaculture species, sustained measures to ensure quality, and increase in infrastructure facilities for production of value added products were largely responsible for India’s positive growth in exports of seafood,” said Mrs. Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister for Commerce and Industry.
The overall export of shrimp during 2016-17 was pegged at 4, 34,484 MT worth USD 3,726.36 million. USA was the largest import market for frozen shrimp (1, 65,827 MT), followed by the EU (77,178 MT), South East Asia (1, 05,763 MT), Japan (31,284 MT), Middle East (19,554 MT), China (7818 MT) and other countries (27,063 MT).
The export of Vannamei shrimp, a major seafood delicacy, improved from 2, 56,699 MT to 3,29,766 MT in 2016-17, registering a growth of 28.46 per cent in quantity. In value terms, 49.55 per cent of total Vannamei shrimp was exported to USA followed by 23.28 per cent to South East Asian countries, 13.17 per cent to the EU, 4.53 per cent to Japan, 3.02 per cent to the Middle East and 1.35 per cent to China.
Japan was the major market for Black Tiger shrimp with a share of 43.84 per cent in terms of value, followed by USA (23.44) and South East Asia (11.33). Frozen shrimp continued to be the principal export item to USA with a share of 94.77 per cent in dollar value while Vannamei shrimp to that country showed an increase of 25.60 per cent in quantity and 31.75 per cent in dollar terms.
Vietnam, with a share of 76.57 per cent in value (US dollar), was the major South East Asian market for Indian marine products, followed by Thailand (12.93 per cent), Taiwan (3.88 per cent), Malaysia (2.60 per cent), Singapore (2.21 per cent), South Korea (1.50 per cent) and other countries (0.30 per cent). Vietnam alone imported 3, 18,171 MT of Indian seafood, the quantity being much more than that of any other individual markets like US, Japan or China.
The EU continued to be the third largest destination for Indian marine products with a share of 16.73 per cent in quantity. Frozen shrimp was the major item of exports, accounting for 40.66 per cent in quantity and 55.15 per cent in dollar earnings out of the total exports to the EU. Exports of Vannamei shrimp to the EU improved by 9.76 per cent in quantity and 11.40 per cent in dollar value.
Japan, the fourth largest destination for Indian seafood, accounted for 6.83 per cent in earnings and 6.08 per cent in quantity terms. Frozen shrimp continued to be the major item of exports to Japan with a share of 45.31 per cent in quantity and 77.29 per cent in value out of the total exports to that country.
Besides frozen shrimp and frozen fish, India’s other major seafood product was frozen squid, which recorded a growth of 21.50 per cent, 59.44 per cent and 57 per cent in terms of quantity, rupee value and dollar earnings, respectively. Export of frozen cuttlefish showed a decline in quantity terms, but increased in the rupee value and dollar terms by 18.85 per cent and 16.95 per cent, respectively.
Dried items registered a growth of 40.98%, 20.14% & 79.05% in terms of quantity, rupee value and dollar terms, respectively. Indian ports handled a total marine cargo of 11,34,948 tons worth Rs 37,870.90 crore (5,777.61 million dollars) in 2016-17 as compared to 9,45,892 tons worth Rs 30,420.83 crore (4,687.94 million dollars) in 2015-16. Vizag, Kochi, Kolkata, Pipavav and Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNP) were major ports that handled the marine cargo during 2016-17. Exports improved from Vizag, Kochi, Kolkata, Pipavav, JNP, Krishnapatanam and Tuticorin as compared to 2015-16.
Vizag port exported 1,59,973 tons of marine cargo worth Rs 9,294.31 crore (1,401.94 million US dollars) in 2016-17 as compared to 1,28,718 tons worth Rs 7,161 crore (1,105.76 million dollars) in 2015-16.
Vizag port was followed by Kochi (1,55,989 tons, Rs 4,447.05 crore), Kolkata (1,04668 tons, Rs 4,451.67 crore), Pipavav (2,32,391 tons, Rs 4,217.45 crore), JNP (1,49,914 tons, Rs 4,084.96 crore), Krishnapatnam (62,049 tons, Rs 3,701.63 crore), Tuticorin (42,026 tons, Rs 2,220.52 crore), and Chennai (37,305 tons, 1,693.87 crore).

Genetically modified crops: Taking fear-mongering to new heights

Concerns over GM mustard impacting pollination and honey production have no empirical basis

Pollinators such as honeybees play a vital role in our agricultural production systems. Roughly a quarter of the world’s food is estimated to come from transfer of pollen, from the male to female organs of the flowers of plants, by bees. India alone is home to four major species of honeybees – Apis mellifera (European bee), Apis cerana indica (Indian bee), Apis florea (dwarf floral) and Apis dorsata (rock bee) – of which the two have been domesticated, whereas the others are wildly-occurring and found mainly in forests. The domesticated bees are maintained in manmade hives not only for production of honey, wax and other by-products; beekeepers sell honeybees from their colonies also to other farmers for improving crop pollination and resultant yields.

Unfortunately, honeybees are in the news today for an entirely different reason related to unsubstantiated fear-mongering by so-called environmentalists and NGOs claiming to speak for farmers. Cultivation of genetically modified (GM) mustard now awaiting regulatory clearance, it is alleged, will cause a 30-40 per cent reduction in production of nectar in flowers, thereby attracting fewer bees to collect and make honey from it. The end-result: lower production as well as export of honey from India!

We have heard such wild theories before; they surface whenever any new GM crop is ready for environmental release. Take Bt cotton. At the time of its commercial approval in 2002, many anti-GM activists claimed that the widespread cultivation of cotton hybrids containing gene(s) derived from the Bacillus thuringiensis soil bacterium would hugely reduce pollinator populations. Well, farmers did resort to widespread cultivation of Bt cotton, which, in 2016-17, covered 10.6 million hectares or 95 per cent of the country’s total area under the crop. But this caused no harm to either bee activity or honey production.

A recent study by entomologists at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (Karnataka), investigating the impact of Bt cotton on pollinator fauna and honeybees, showed no hindrance to their foraging activity. The study even suggested relative abundance of natural insect predators in cotton fields, which may have had to do with the overall reduced insecticide sprays courtesy Bt technology. In fact, the higher yields from Bt cotton are themselves a result of conservation of pollinators and more number of honeybee colonies.

Against this background, it is surprising to see the same stories of “threat” to the beekeeping industry being repeated in GM mustard, which has been recommended for commercial planting by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) in the Union Environment Ministry. In Bt cotton, it could be said, for argument’s sake, that the alien genes introduced into the crop codes for a protein toxic to insects – even if specific to the heliothis species, particularly the dreaded American bollworm. But in GM mustard, even that logic does not hold.

The GM mustard, developed by Deepak Pental and fellow scientists at the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants in Delhi University, contains no insecticidal protein gene. It has mainly two genes (‘barnase’ and ‘barstar’) that allow for cross-pollination and hybridisation in mustard, which is largely a self-pollinating plant because of its individual flowers containing both female and male reproductive organs. In addition, there is a third ‘bar’ gene, conferring tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. This is basically a marker gene, used to identify those plants that have been genetically modified – the non-GM plants cannot withstand glufosinate application – and are necessary for large-scale hybrid seed production.

Now, it should be obvious that a crop expressing hybrid vigour – GM mustard has been shown to yield 20-30 per cent more than the existing popular ‘check’ varieties – will have more flowers per plant. Wouldn’t that attract more rather than less honeybees and other pollinator insects? The Assessment of Food and Environmental Safety report, prepared by a sub-committee of scientific experts constituted by the GEAC, has clearly established no difference in honeybee foraging behaviour between GM and non-GM mustard. This was based on field studies in six locations over three seasons (2010-11, 2011-12 and 2014-15) as part of biosafety research level (BRL-1 and BRL-2) trials conducted by Indian Council of Agricultural Research and state agricultural universities. Biosafety studies, moreover, concluded that the ‘barnase’ and ‘barstar’ proteins weren’t detectable in the GM mustard pollens, hence ruling out any exposure – even if not harmful – to honeybees.

As far as the ‘bar’ gene goes, the presence of its proteins at very low levels in the pollen has not revealed any adverse effect on bee foraging, colony health or the quality of honey produced. The ‘bar’ protein, produced in glufosinate-tolerant GM crops, has received regulatory approval in as many as 20 different countries (including in the European Union), as per a 2016 International Life Sciences Institute study. Glufosinate spraying, as already noted, is required only for seed production. Even assuming farmers apply this herbicide, they would do so only during the first fortnight after germination or, at the most, within a month after sowing. Flowering in mustard happens only after 45 days, when there’s no threat from weeds and no necessity for herbicide application. How can, then, glufosinate spraying impact honeybee visits during pollination? On the contrary, removal of weeds will boost plant growth and make it flower more, which would attract larger bee populations.

If at all anybody is aware about the role of honeybees with respect to mustard, it’s the breeders themselves. Honeybees are known to visit the crop during flowering to enhance pollination. Studies carried out at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi have demonstrated that the exclusion of honeybees can significantly bring down yields in mustard, despite it being a self-pollinated plant. Another study at the GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology in Uttarakhand has found as many as 18 different insect pollinators visiting mustard. Our scientists should be credited with at least minimum intelligence; no breeding programme in mustard will pass muster without factoring in the predominant role of honeybees in enhancing seed setting necessary for higher yields!

In conclusion, the concerns over GM mustard “contaminating” our honey and compromising the livelihoods of beekeepers are sheer figments of imagination. GM mustard is no different from GM canola, which is also a brassica genus plant and whose oil is already being imported into India. When no adverse impact on pollinators, bees and honey production has been reported by GM canola-growing countries, including Australia, Canada and the US, in the last 20 years, why should different standards apply to GM mustard that Indian farmers will hopefully plant soon?

Isro scripts history with GSLV Mark III rocket, GSAT-19 satellite launch

Isro’s latest satellite launch—the GSAT-19 onboard the GSLV MK III rocket—is its heaviest payload yet, demonstrating its capability to hurl next-gen satellites into orbit and carry astronauts to outer space

The Indian Space Research Organization (Isro) launched its heaviest rocket— the GSLV MK III—to put the GSAT-19 communications satellite into orbit, in a demonstration of its capability to hurl next-generation satellites into orbit and carry astronauts into outer space.

At 5.28pm, the 43m, 640-tonne geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) Mark III (D1), lifted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh. The rocket’s mission was to place the 3,136kg GSAT-19 communications satellite into a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) at 36,000km above earth.

The successful first developmental flight opens up commercial opportunities for Isro to launch heavy satellites for foreign customers besides reducing its own dependence on foreign space organizations such as Arianespace SA.

It demonstrates Isro’s ability to launch satellites weighing as much as 3.5-4 tonnes, up from 2.2-2.3 tons in the past.

“The GSLV-MKIII D1/GSAT-19 mission takes India closer to the next generation launch vehicle and satellite capability. The nation is proud,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote in a Twitter message.

The launch is the latest in a string of successes for Isro, which in February launched a record-breaking 104 nano satellites into orbit, all onboard a single rocket. On 5 May, Isro launched the 2,230kg GSAT-9 to boost connectivity among South Asian countries.

In November 2013, India launched a space probe that has been orbiting Mars since September. Last year, in nine missions, it placed 32 satellites in orbit.

The Mars feat burnished India’s reputation as a reliable low-cost option for space exploration, with its $73 million price tag drastically undercutting US space agency NASA’s $671-million Maven Mars mission.

The GSLV-Mark III rocket is India’s heaviest rocket, weighing as much as five fully loaded Boeing jumbo jets or 200 fully grown elephants.

Indian space scientists worked “relentlessly for decades and for this project since 2002 to successfully put the satellite into orbit”, Isro chairman A.S. Kiran Kumar said. “This is a historic day for Isro.”

The flight is expected to boost India’s aspirations of carrying out manned space missions. Isro is not considering this at present. “It is one step at a time,” Kumar said in a recent interview with Mint.

The successful mission means Isro now has a third stream of operational launch vehicles after the polar satellite launch vehicle and the GSLV-Mark II.

Approved in 2002, the three-stage vehicle with two solid motor strap-ons can also carry payloads weighing up to 10,000kg into the lower earth orbit at around 800km above earth.

Although Isro did not disclose the cost of the project, Kumar said in the interview that it would result in about 25% savings on the cost of satellite launches.

“We still depend on foreign procurement for heavy satellites. For example, the GSAT-17 is launching end of June from Ariane. In the very near future, this will not be required.” he said.

After its separation from the GSLV MK III in GTO, GSAT-19 will reach its geostationary orbital home using an electronic propulsion system.

The satellite will use multiple spot beams covering all of India. Isro claims this will increase internet speeds and connectivity, depending on the ground infrastructure.

The first suborbital test flight of GSLV Mark III was successfully conducted on 18 December 2014.

Hottest’ planet in universe discoveredKELT-9

Hottest’ planet in universe discovered
Scientists have discovered the hottest known planet located 650 light years from Earth, which is warmer than most stars in the universe and sports a giant, glowing gas tail like a comet.

The Jupiter-like planet orbits a massive star KELT-9 every day and a half, researchers said.

With a day-side temperature peaking at 4,326 degree Celsius, the newly discovered exoplanet, designated KELT-9b, is hotter than most stars and only 926 degree Celsius cooler than our Sun.

Glowing gas tail

The ultraviolet radiation from the star it orbits is so brutal that the planet may be evaporating away under the intense glare, producing a glowing gas tail.

The gas giant 2.8 times more massive than Jupiter but only half as dense, because the extreme radiation from its host star has caused its atmosphere to puff up like a balloon.

Tidally locked

Since it is tidally locked to its star — as the moon is to Earth — the day side of the planet is perpetually bombarded by stellar radiation, and, as a result, the planet is so hot that molecules such as water, carbon dioxide and methane can not form there.

“It’s a planet by any of the typical definitions based on mass, but its atmosphere is almost certainly unlike any other planet we’ve ever seen just because of the temperature of its day side,” said Scott Gaudi, professor at the Ohio State University in the U.S. and lead author of the study published in the journal Nature.

Scientists have discovered the hottest known planet located 650 light years from Earth, which is warmer than most stars in the universe and sports a giant, glowing gas tail like a comet.

The Jupiter-like planet orbits a massive star KELT-9 every day and a half, researchers said.

With a day-side temperature peaking at 4,326 degree Celsius, the newly discovered exoplanet, designated KELT-9b, is hotter than most stars and only 926 degree Celsius cooler than our Sun.

Glowing gas tail

The ultraviolet radiation from the star it orbits is so brutal that the planet may be evaporating away under the intense glare, producing a glowing gas tail.

The gas giant 2.8 times more massive than Jupiter but only half as dense, because the extreme radiation from its host star has caused its atmosphere to puff up like a balloon.

Tidally locked

malnutrition in child

With one of the highest rates of child malnutrition in the world, India has won notoriety as one of the nutritional basket cases of the world over the past few years. Although India has witnessed significant progress in its battle against child malnutrition over the past decade, the progress has been quite uneven, and child malnutrition rates still remain high in many parts of the country, data from the latest round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) shows.

The survey of over 6 lakh households conducted in 2015-16 shows that over the past decade, the proportion of underweight children fell nearly 7 percentage points to 36%, while the proportion of stunted children (those with low height-for-age, a measure of chronic undernourishment) declined nearly 10 percentage points to 38%. Despite the progress, these rates are still higher than those of many poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa. And in some of the worst affected districts such as Purulia in West Bengal and Nandurbar in Maharashtra, every second child is undernourished.

Such high level of child malnutrition imposes a huge economic cost. Malnutrition accounted for losses worth at least 8% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in the 20th century because of “direct productivity losses, losses via poorer cognition, and losses via reduced schooling”, according to medical journal The Lancet, which published a special issue on the topic in 2013. The losses are higher for high-burden countries such as India.

As in the case of adult undernutrition rates, districts with the highest levels of undernutrition seem to be clustered largely in the central parts of the country. The bottom quartile of districts ranked according to child malnutrition rates includes not just districts from the most deprived tribal belts of central and eastern India but also some of the more urbanized districts of the country such as Udaipur in Rajasthan, Aurangabad in Maharashtra, Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh, Patna in Bihar, and Ranchi in Jharkhand. However, overall urban child malnutrition rates are lower than that of rural India.

Districts with relatively low levels of child undernutrition are clustered largely in the extreme north, the extreme south, and in the north-eastern parts of the country, as the district maps show. Some of the best-performing districts in the country with the lowest proportions of underweight children such as Mokokchung in Nagaland and Aizawl in Mizoram lie in North-east India.

Apart from poverty, there seems to be three key differences between districts with high and low levels of child malnutrition: the status of women, the kind of diets fed to children, and access to toilets.

One of the primary reasons for children being undernourished in the country is that often their mothers are undernourished. One in five women are underweight in India. Women who are themselves undernourished or have a pregnancy at an early age, are at a greater risk of delivering low birth-weight babies, who are nutritionally disadvantaged right at birth. Also, women without education or without much voice in their families often fail to ensure adequate diets for their children even when there is adequate food in the household. Districts with a high proportion of women who are illiterate and who have married early tend to have high ratios of undernourished children, the latest data shows. Districts where the proportion of children receiving an age-appropriate diet is low also tend to have high ratios of undernourished children.

The link between sanitation and undernutrition is even stronger. Districts with low levels of access to toilets have much higher rates of child undernourishment compared to districts with relatively high levels of access to toilets. In a densely populated country such as ours, the lack of sanitation contributes to the spread of infectious diseases. Children fall prey more easily to such diseases, and tend to lose their ability to absorb nutrients, leading to undernutrition.

Among states, Tripura and Himachal Pradesh seem to have made impressive strides in improving the rates of both stunting and underweight among children since 2005-06, when the previous NFHS round took place. Tripura has moved up three rungs between 2005-06 and 2015-16 to occupy the third position—behind Kerala and Goa—among states with the lowest levels of stunting. Himachal Pradesh has moved up five rungs over the same period to occupy the fifth position among states ranked according to levels of stunting. States such as Chhattisgarh and Punjab have seen significant improvements in rates of stunting over the past decade but their progress in reducing the proportion of underweight children has been less impressive. Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have both seen very slow progress in underweight and stunting rates over the past decade, and have slipped several notches in the rankings of states.

Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh have made some progress in the battle against child malnutrition but they continue to be among the worst states in terms of rates of underweight and stunting. They also continue to account for most of India’s undernourished children, as they did a decade ago