You could call this the ultimate do-gooders’ list conceived by the faceless grey suits of the United Nations. Bunker Roy, founder of the Barefoot College, in his well-known critique of MDGs, commented acerbically in an article that appeared in The International Herald Tribune some years ago: “The virtual reality in which the authors (of the MGDs) live, full of action plans, road maps and fact sheets, is frightening...The model encourages colossal falsification of figures, the excessive hiring of private consultants, conflicts of interest and a massive patronage system.”

One needs to keep in mind Bunker Roy’s repudiation of the “factsheets approach” when one revisits these goals. Human development is far too complex to be addressed by targets, the piety of “making poverty history” too much of a fantasy to sound credible. Social Watch estimates that it could take South Asia another 47 years to achieve these targets. Nevertheless, it may be useful to revisit the list, if only to highlight the areas of concern that pop up in that large space between pledges and performance.

The Government of India, incidentally, came up with its own “MDG report card” last February. What was intriguing about the government’s response was the inordinate attention it paid to the last goal: there was much whinging about the gaps that still exist in terms of the international assistance promised.

India, according to the report card, must reduce by 2015 the proportion of people below the poverty line — from nearly 37.5 per cent in 1990 to about 18.75 per cent in 2015. There was some optimism that the country’s high growth figures will help it achieve that target. There was recognition, too, that while achieving universal primary education in terms of enrolment may be possible, wiping out the drop-out rate — which stood at 34.89 in 2002-2003 — is considerably more difficult. The government also believed that it is making progress in closing the gender gap in education: “The female-male proportion in respect of primary education was 71:100 in 1990-91, which has increased to 78:100 in 2000-01; and from 49:100 to 63:100 in the case of secondary education.” As for under-five mortality, it is committed to bringing the level down to 42 per 1000 live births by 2015. In 2003, the figure stood at 60. Maternal mortality, similarly, is required to decline to 109 per 100,000 live births. In 1998, it stood at 407. India hoped that given the rise in the proportion of births attended by health personnel, this will be achieved. It is also fairly optimistic about combating diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. As for the promise to “ensure environmental sustainability”, the government claimed that because of its “persistent efforts”, about a fifth of the country’s area is under forest and that “energy use has declined consistently from about 36 kilogramme oil equivalent in 1991-92 to about 32 kilogramme oil equivalent in 2003-04”. It also said that it is on track about halving, by 2015, the proportion of population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

These are the official claims but even in this cursory summation some areas emerge as Bermuda Triangles. At least four need immediate attention. The first is persistent malnutrition among India’s children, with the latest National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) data indicating that 46 per cent of Indian children under three are underweight. Of course, there are wide variations even of this figure, depending on the location and the social profile of the children — for instance, in 1998, the under-5 mortality rate was 126.6 for tribal children, when the all-India figure was 94.9.

The second area of concern is India’s high maternal mortality level. This is the direct consequence of three factors: One, the lack of agency of the expectant mother: NFHS-3 estimates that 45 per cent of Indian women were married before they reached 18. Two, the poor health of the mothers: NFHS-3 reveals that 56.2 per cent of “ever-married women aged 15-49” were anaemic. Three, serious infrastructural lacunae, ranging from poor quality village roads to poorly equipped primary health centres and district hospitals.

School education is the third concern. Here it is not so much access to schools that is the problem — we can claim that almost all Indian children have a school within one kilometre of their homes. The real problem is that of retention — both in terms of children remaining in school beyond a few years and their being able to retain and gain from what they have been taught. The fact that at least a quarter of teachers on the rolls of primary schools are absent does not help matters.

We have little hope of “halving the proportion of population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 2015”, as the government has optimistically claimed, and that brings up the fourth big concern. At present, only 18 per cent of rural India and 58 per cent of urban India have sanitation. Only 70 of 300 Class-1 cities have partial sewerage coverage.

What emerges from these discrete figures is that MDGs, if they are to be of any relevance, require to be seen as inter-locking concerns rather than as fixed sectoral targets. You cannot, for instance, bring down the level of maternal mortality, without at the same time fighting malaria and addressing gender equality; or address child mortality without tackling sanitation. And undergirding all these goals is, of course, the foundational issue of poverty eradication. This calls for holistic approaches to human development, not atomised intentions that translate into mere shibboleths.