After great expectation comes great disruption. This unenviable cycle of economy seems complete when there is a raging debate in the world over validity of the growth model. The wealth generated by the aggressive growth model may have led to expectations of comfortable and uncompromising rich lifestyle. But it entails a heavy cost on society.

A World Bank report released in October on gender equality and development gives a few finer points on how the high GDP growth is incapable of correcting social ills. This serves as reminder to the Indian government, headed by a distinguished economist, that the logic of growth is not always tenable. Ironically, prime minister Manmohan Singh seems to rely more on his skills as economist than as a politician.

Singh’s prescription often sounds like that of a salesman assigned a definite target. But managing the country’s economy is more of a political exercise than just a number game. The World Bank now says you do not need to sell numbers, you have to have political will to solve problems. Citing Malaysia and Sri Lanka as examples in the report, the Washington-based Bank says these two countries have brought down the incidence of maternal mortality despite not having a GDP growth of 10 percent. Maternal mortality rates in Sri Lanka fell to 24 in 1996 from a staggering high of more than 2,000 per 100,000 births in the 1930s. In Malaysia, the maternal mortality came down to 19 by 1997 from 534 in 1950.

The report notes that India and Bangladesh have maternal mortality ratios comparable to Sweden’s around 1900.

Does the country need 10 percent GDP growth to bring down maternal mortality? “Economic development is not enough to shrink all gender disparities. Corrective policies that focus on persisting gender gaps are essential,” notes the document.

Even when it comes to numbers, we have the example of the US which has gained prosperity over the years but has not been able to fulfil people’s aspirations. There is fire at the Wall Street, as people are protesting against the government’s track record. The real beneficiaries of the high GDP growth were the industrialists, not the masses who are victims of the existing high levels of inequality.

However, there have now been attempts to reverse the number game. Instead of numbers, why not take emotions of the countrymen? Political economist and Evian Group director Jean-Pierre Lehmann says, “We have more influence from economists now but we need more influence from philosophers on what kind of society do we want.”

The GDP is a number game. This is corroborated by the projection that India is destined to become the number two economy in the world in the next 30 years. But it would hardly lessen the incidence of poverty and reduce the gap between the haves and have-nots. In its recently released global hunger index (GHI) report 2011, India was placed at 67th spot among 81 nations listed in the decreasing order. What is intriguing is the fact that even data on poverty and other social indicators are five years old and there is no update to assess the real impact of growth on the contentment quotient of people.

Why such a bad show? The government has failed to update even the child malnourishment figure which is a factor in calculating the index. There is no doubt that India’s ascendancy to the league of economic superpowers would hardly be any worth if there is a conscious attempt to brush under the carpet the data pertaining to social deprivation. Data upgradation is the key to know the country’s health. Then, the success of the economic model could truly be assessed.