Supplementary analysis
Everyday India
The measures rich countries stopped thinking about
India’s development cannot be understood only through GDP, elections, markets, highways or geopolitical power. For millions of Indians, development is also much more immediate. Will a pregnant woman receive medical care early enough? Will she get iron and folic acid? Will she receive care after delivery? Will her child receive essential vaccines? Is severe childhood wasting falling? Can the family reach health financing?
These questions rarely dominate political debate in wealthy countries, because those societies largely crossed these thresholds decades ago. A voter in London or New York seldom argues about whether 80% or 90% of births happen in a medical facility, because near-universal access is already assumed. In India that difference is millions of mothers.
So alongside the project’s 73 national indicators, Everyday India examines 20 selected measures of basic lived development. The results are not one-sided.
- 13
- Modi ahead
- 4
- Rahul leads
- 3
- Broadly comparable
Across 20 selected Everyday India measures, the later period records faster normalised improvement on 13, the earlier period leads on 4, and 3 are broadly comparable. These are counted separately from the national analysis and are not added to it.
How the pace is measured
38% → 79% cannot be set against 79% → 91% using percentage points alone: the second starts far closer to the ceiling. Each period is therefore scored on how much of the distance still available to it was closed, per year.
- Higher is better
- Annualised remaining-gap closure — how quickly a period closes the distance left to 100%.
- Lower is better
- Annualised burden reduction — how quickly a period reduces the remaining undesirable outcome toward zero.
- Calling a lead
- A period leads only where its normalised annual rate exceeds the other by more than 10%. Otherwise the result is broadly comparable.
Periods: NFHS-3 (2005–06) → NFHS-4 (2015–16) (10 years) and NFHS-4 (2015–16) → NFHS-6 (2023–24) (8 years). The intervals differ, so every rate is annualised. A period lead describes faster observed normalised improvement. It does not by itself show that a particular government or policy caused the difference.
Why raw percentage points mislead
Institutional births
38.7%→78.9%→90.6%
- Raw change
- +40.2ppvs+11.7pp
- Earlier period looks far ahead.
- Adjusted annual rate
- 10.12%vs9.61%
- Broadly comparable.
The later period began at nearly 78.9% coverage, so far less room remained. Once the remaining gap is accounted for, the two periods advanced at almost the same pace. This is why the section reports normalised rates rather than percentage-point totals.
13Modi ahead
Faster normalised improvement in 2015–16 → 2023–24.
Households with health insurance or health-financing coverage
higher is better
2005–06
4.9%
2015–16
28.7%
2023–24
60.2%
- Earlier
- +2.84%
- Later
- +7.03%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +23.8pp then +31.5pp.
Currently married women using any family-planning method
higher is better
2005–06
56.3%
2015–16
53.5%
2023–24
69.1%
- Earlier
- -0.62%
- Later
- +4.98%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change -2.8pp then +15.6pp.
Unmet need for family planning
lower is better
2005–06
12.8%
2015–16
12.9%
2023–24
8.5%
- Earlier
- -0.08%
- Later
- +5.08%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +0.1pp then -4.4pp.
Mothers receiving first antenatal check-up in the first trimester
higher is better
2005–06
43.9%
2015–16
58.6%
2023–24
76.2%
- Earlier
- +2.99%
- Later
- +6.69%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +14.7pp then +17.6pp.
Mothers receiving four or more antenatal visits
higher is better
2005–06
37%
2015–16
51.2%
2023–24
65.2%
- Earlier
- +2.52%
- Later
- +4.14%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +14.2pp then +14pp.
Mothers taking iron and folic acid for 100 or more days
higher is better
2005–06
15.2%
2015–16
30.3%
2023–24
54.9%
- Earlier
- +1.94%
- Later
- +5.30%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +15.1pp then +24.6pp.
Mothers receiving postnatal care within two days of delivery
higher is better
2005–06
34.6%
2015–16
62.4%
2023–24
82.8%
- Earlier
- +5.38%
- Later
- +9.31%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +27.8pp then +20.4pp.
Children receiving three doses of polio vaccine
higher is better
2005–06
78.2%
2015–16
72.8%
2023–24
85%
- Earlier
- -2.24%
- Later
- +7.17%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change -5.4pp then +12.2pp.
Children receiving measles or first MCV vaccination
higher is better
2005–06
58.8%
2015–16
81.1%
2023–24
91.7%
- Earlier
- +7.50%
- Later
- +9.77%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +22.3pp then +10.6pp.
Children receiving most vaccinations through public health facilities
higher is better
2005–06
82%
2015–16
90.7%
2023–24
95.6%
- Earlier
- +6.39%
- Later
- +8.93%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +8.7pp then +4.9pp.
Children under five who are wasted
lower is better
2005–06
19.8%
2015–16
21%
2023–24
19%
- Earlier
- -0.59%
- Later
- +1.24%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +1.2pp then -2pp.
Children under five who are severely wasted
lower is better
2005–06
6.4%
2015–16
7.5%
2023–24
5.2%
- Earlier
- -1.60%
- Later
- +4.47%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +1.1pp then -2.3pp.
Ever-married women reporting spousal violence
lower is better
2005–06
37%
2015–16
31.2%
2023–24
22.3%
- Earlier
- +1.69%
- Later
- +4.11%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change -5.8pp then -8.9pp.
3Broadly comparable
Within 10% of each other once starting position is accounted for.
Institutional births
higher is better
2005–06
38.7%
2015–16
78.9%
2023–24
90.6%
- Earlier
- +10.12%
- Later
- +9.61%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +40.2pp then +11.7pp.
Births attended by skilled health personnel
higher is better
2005–06
46.6%
2015–16
81.4%
2023–24
91.3%
- Earlier
- +10.01%
- Later
- +9.06%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +34.8pp then +9.9pp.
Pregnancies protected against neonatal tetanus
higher is better
2005–06
76.3%
2015–16
89%
2023–24
93.8%
- Earlier
- +7.39%
- Later
- +6.92%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +12.7pp then +4.8pp.
These are the cases where raw percentage-point change strongly favours the earlier period, but that comparison is distorted because the later period starts much closer to universal coverage. Skilled birth attendance is the marginal case: its margin is 10.5%, just past the 10% line, so a stricter reading would place it with the earlier-period leads.
4Rahul leads
Faster normalised improvement in 2005–06 → 2015–16.
BCG vaccination coverage
higher is better
2005–06
78.2%
2015–16
91.9%
2023–24
95%
- Earlier
- +9.43%
- Later
- +5.85%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change +13.7pp then +3.1pp.
Women with below-normal BMI
lower is better
2005–06
35.5%
2015–16
22.9%
2023–24
19.7%
- Earlier
- +4.29%
- Later
- +1.86%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change -12.6pp then -3.2pp.
Women aged 20-24 married before age 18
lower is better
2005–06
47.4%
2015–16
26.8%
2023–24
20.1%
- Earlier
- +5.54%
- Later
- +3.53%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change -20.6pp then -6.7pp.
Men aged 25-29 married before age 21
lower is better
2005–06
32.3%
2015–16
20.3%
2023–24
15.9%
- Earlier
- +4.54%
- Later
- +3.01%
Normalised annual improvement. Raw change -12pp then -4.4pp.
This is not a one-direction scorecard. 4 measures show faster earlier-period progress and 3 are classified as broadly comparable. Those results stay visible alongside the 13 later-period leads.