The BBC has asked the Indian government why it hasn't been released and when it expects to - but we haven't received a response.

We have, however, managed to get hold of a copy of the report.

Looking just at the overall figures, India's reluctance to publish the survey is rather surprising.

It shows the country has an encouraging story to tell. Indicators of malnutrition are still very high, far higher than most African nations, but they are improving.

Ten years ago, two-fifths of children under five were underweight, now it is more like a third.

However, the survey confirms large and enduring discrepancies between states, including the continuing strikingly poor performance of the Indian prime minister's home state, Gujarat.

As chief minister, Narendra Modi ran the state for more than a decade. His general election campaign was based on the promise that he would do for India what he had done for Gujarat.

The results of the survey might lead some people to question whether - in terms of health - it is really a model the nation should seek to emulate.

It shows that despite impressive economic growth, the state continues to have some of the worst health outcomes in India.

It says 41.8% of children in Gujarat are stunted while 43.8% don't have the all the vaccinations they need, for example.

Gujarat's poor results have led to speculation that one reason the government has been holding back the report is to spare the prime minister embarrassment.

It certainly appears that Gujarat's shortcomings are, at least in part, a result of policy.

A decade ago a survey found the neighbouring state of Maharashtra had malnutrition figures almost as woeful as Gujarat does now.

Maharashtra decided to take action. Sujata Saunik, the head of the state's health department, says it used the data from that earlier survey to design a programme to improve child health. It has been a great success. She says stunting has been cut by almost 41% and in the number of underweight babies is down by 24%.

"These are encouraging trends," she says, rather modestly.

India, however, is unlikely to see similarly dramatic changes in the national picture.

The Indian government spends just 1% of GDP on healthcare - one of the lowest figures in the world. And since Mr Modi came to power, he has cut central government spending back.

truthbetold wrote:A question for psuedo secular/ psuedo socialists:
Is there a democratic nation where economic progress failed to improve living standards of its citizens ?  The pace of change of an indicator like health care differs from state to state.  But over long periods of time there is a stronger correlation between economic growth and health care than govt subsidies and healthcare.

truthbetold wrote:CD,

If there are any holes they are in your head. 

USA's median house hold income is $50K and it has a strong democratic tradition. So it created wealth and its democratic traditions resulted in creation of services like social security and medicare. Similarly all industrialized countries created wealth and followed it with social programs to benefit the poor. It took them more than a century to reach those levels.  People in those countries endured terrible hardships during that century. But each country found a slightly modified version
of its own democratic path to wealth creation and distribution through social programs. 

India, after shedding its Nehruvian socialism in 1990, is making progress economically. For the first time in its history, India is creating more wealth than its ever expanding social needs.  It has made gains in poverty reduction. 

However, India needs another 30 to 40 years of such growth to reach a stable economy.  India has to balance growth vs distribution (social justice) to keep the economy moving forward at a decent rate. The mess created by UPA govt corruption and economic imprudence probably cost India a decade of growth. 

Now Modi is making effort to revive the economy.  If India hits 7 to 8% growth , it is a good start. It will allow state and central govt to find resources to support social programs.  No economic growth means not enough resources. That means cuts in social programs.  Higher growth means more jobs, less stress on available resources to support social programs.  

May be one day India will have a real social security net instead of a vote buying social program.