Third Report

There seems to have been little action as far as this scheme is concerned. This is unfortunate, since the provision of well-functioning anganwadi facilities in all villages is essential to protect small children from undernutrition. It is also worth recalling that the early years of life are of critical importance to a person's lifetime health and nutrition achievements. The interim order of 28 November 2001 states that an anganwadi should be available in "every habitation". I am not aware that any state has made serious efforts to implement this very important direction.4This is all the more deplorable as earlier experience in states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu indicates that providing well-functioning anganwadis in every habitation is feasible, affordable and effective.

The continued neglect of small children (aged below 3) in the ICDS programme deserves special mention. Even though the government acknowledges the importance of improving the nutritional status of the under-three age group, only recently were efforts begun to target them in the ICDS. Most supplementation has primarily benefited the older children, among whom mortality is lower and stunting is already established.

As many observers have reported, the GOI has been much more interested in expanding the ICDS programme than in ensuring that it achieves results. In their quest for "universalisation", they have favoured quantity over quality. That is, they are more interested in covering larger and larger populations than in reducing undernutrition rates.

While ICDS was eventually able to reach 80 percent of the development blocks in the country, it had no mechanisms to ensure that its services and supplemental food actually reached those most in need. In addition, workers were inadequately trained and were overextended, and the programme's outreach, health, and educational components were often neglected.