The report ranks nations according to the extent of the "human poverty," using the Human Poverty Index (HPI), a multi-dimensional measure of poverty. The HPI for India is 59. This accrues, among others, from the following: 16.1 per cent of its people cannot expect to survive till the age of 40; an adult illiteracy rate of 46.5; 19 per cent people lack access to safe water; 25 per cent people lack access to health services; 71 per cent people lack access to sanitation, and 53 per cent Indian children aged five or below are underweight. HPI also takes into account the Real GDP per capita in termsof the per capita purchasing power. India's poorest 20 per cent are estimated to have a per capita purchasing power of US $ 527; the richest 20 per cent over five times ahead at US $ 2,641, and 52.5 per cent Indians live below the poverty line.

So, one is tempted to believe, lives have improved substantially over the last year for the country to jump from the `low development category' to the `medium development category.' But far from that; there has been no appreciable change in the index parameters. The country's position improved due to changes in the positions of other nations.

But there is more to the HDR that has been missed in the euphoria. The theme of this year's report is `Globalisation with a Human Face: People, not just Profits.' According to the report, while globalisation offers great opportunities for human advancement, expanding choices and creating a community based on shared values, markets have been allowed to dominate the process at the expense of countries' specific politicalsocio-economic and cultural forces. According to HDR '99, governments, international organisations and individuals need not be passive observers of global change. Instead, through new rules and institutions for stronger governance -local, national, regional and global-the advantages of global markets and competitions can be leveraged while ensuring that globalisation has a human face. While pursuing this line, the HDR does, however, recognise the power of globalisation to bring about economic and social benefits to societies.

So, it cautions, globalisation is too important to be left as unmanaged as it is presently, because it has the capacity to do extraordinary harm as well as good.

This is why the HDR speaks so eloquently on governance. The report looks with concern the way the markets have outpaced governance. Says the report, "Reinventing global governance is not an option-it is an imperative for the 21st century." It adds, "Multinational corporations need to be brought within the framework ofglobal governance, not just the patchwork of national laws, rules and regulations." It cites the instance of the East Asian crisis and its global repercussions, estimated at nearly $ 2 trillion.

Given the social failure of the theory of "shrinking space, shrinking time and disappearing borders," HDR '99 advocates for "care"-the invisible heart of human development that stands threatened with globalisation putting a squeeze on care and caring labour. It says that the competitive global market puts pressure on time, resources and incentives for caring labour, without which individuals do not flourish and social cohesion can break down.

Indeed, in its attempt to envision global governance, HDR '99 falls back on where Keynes left. Says the report, "Keynes went much further than the governments of the time were prepared to accept. He proposed a fund with access to resources equal to half of world imports. The IMF today controls liquidity equal to less than three per cent of world imports."

However, sans itstheme, the current HDR is no different from its previous avatars. The HDRs' robost editorial independence and its unapologetic scholarship have led its authors to say the unthinkable. Sooner than later, conventional opinion catches up. In doing so, HDR has also served to vindicate many thinkers who live ahead of their times. Like Professor Muhammad Yunis, founder of Bangladesh's Grameen Bank, who says, "When I was arguing that helping a one-meal family to become a two-meal family, enabling a woman without a change of clothing to afford to buy a second piece of clothing is a development miracle, I was ridiculed. That is no development, I was reminded sternly. Development is growth of the economy, they said; growth will bring everything. We carried out our work as if we were engaged in some very undesirable activities. When UNDP's Human Development Report came out we felt vindicated. We were no longer back-street operators, we felt we were in the mainstream."