India finds itself in the unenviable company of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the Global Hunger Index scores for 2026. Other South Asian countries such as Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, and Sri Lanka fare much better than their SAARC "big brother". With a score of 24.1 against the global score of 18.1, India continues to be in the "serious" category for a decade now. The silver lining, however, is the decline in stunting among children under five by 20.7% since the year 2000.

Hunger is multidimensional and not limited to a mere lack of food. The GHI adopts a holistic formula combining child stunting, undernourishment, child wasting, and child mortality. For a long time, India's food security framework prioritised access to food in caloric terms, and therefore it falls short in the GHI, which includes nutrition and dietary diversity. Malnutrition results in wasting (low weight for height), stunting (low height for age), and child mortality.

If India has been faring somewhat better in hunger reduction, it was due to the pioneering efforts of the United Progressive Alliance government through its landmark National Food Security Act (NFSA) of 2013, which ensured access to highly subsidised foodgrains and covered about 76% of the total population (75% rural and 50% urban). The Act was also a forerunner regarding Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) towards food entitlements. The NDA government continued the scheme with some improvements, and in 2023, ahead of the 2024 general elections, made baseline NFSA entitlements completely free of cost through the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) for over 80 crore beneficiaries.

The UPA government adopted the multidimensional framework and accordingly provided nutrition support at three levels: pregnant women and lactating mothers, children aged six months to six years through ICDS, and those aged six to 14 years under the mid-day meal scheme. Here again, the NDA government continued these initiatives. One of its policy innovations was the rice fortification initiative to improve the intake of essential nutrients, but it had to discontinue it due to various issues. It was yet another case of rushing into a policy without thinking through all aspects and allegedly being unduly influenced by corporate interests. The unseemly hurry could have serious health consequences, including iron toxicity and organ damage due to mandatory iron fortification. Investigative reports by independent media outlets revealed how the requirement of safety warning labels was removed. The government used the IIT Kharagpur study to discontinue the initiative as it focused on storage and stability aspects rather than health side effects.

Instead of being perpetually in denial mode regarding international indices, the government should be open to some GHI policy recommendations. For instance, it should ensure meaningful participation of affected communities and civil society in food and nutrition security policy design, implementation, and monitoring through accessible and accountable mechanisms. As participatory models are an anathema to the NDA government, it instead opts for a top-down, centralised, expert-driven model of policymaking and is sometimes forced to grudgingly eat humble pie. Likewise, it relies on digital tracking and surveillance instead of social audits. Secondly, instead of succumbing to corporate lobbying, the government must prioritise long-term investment in local and regional food systems and promote climate-resilient, resource-efficient agriculture.