Human Development Report is a barometer of the state of human development in different countries of the world. The report is not only an ultrasound of individual countries but also shows relative ranking among regions and countries. The Human Development Index is an aggregate value of a range of human development indicators. It encompasses a wider spectrum of vital indicators of human development sectors e.g. health, education, environment, gender and income.

Launched in 1990, the flagship annual document of UNDP provides an empirical evidence of commitment, or lack of it, of governments to develop its people. Gone are the days when development was measured only against income, infrastructure development, financial wealth and weaponry.

The first human development report succinctly delineates the principle of human development; "people are the real wealth of a nation. The basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. This may appear to be a simple truth. But it is often forgotten in the immediate concern with the accumulation of commodities and financial wealth."

In the post-cold war era, human development discourse gained momentum and new dimensions of development came under debate. The international community converged on millennium development goals (MDGs) to achieve well-defined targets of human development. Although many countries missed key milestones of the MDGs, the agenda of human development has now become a rallying point for civil society. Over the years, global and local civil society found a measuring scale to fathom performance of their governments and international powers to hold them accountable. Sustainable development goals (SDGs) is an evolved and more comprehensive framework of human development that is set to dominate political agenda of future years.

In the post-9/11 world, conflicts and natural disasters have emerged as daunting challenges and stumbling blocks retarding the pace of human development. Scant resources available for basic needs of people are frequently diverted to meet security and emergency needs in the wake of recurring conflicts and disasters.

Countries living with asphyxiated economies due to a narrow tax base, catastrophic corruption and crippling debt burden are particularly bracketed in low human development block. South Asian and African countries perceptibly dominate the low human development category on human development index.

Pakistan is a chronic victim of conflicts and disasters. The recent annual report of 2015 entitling "Work for Human Development" ranked Pakistan at 147^th number out of 188 countries placing it in the low human development category. Compared to the last year, Pakistan slipped one rung down on the ladder. Last year Pakistan shared 146^th position with Bangladesh. This year Bangladesh took an enviable stride by not only moving four steps upward but also elevating to medium human development fraternity.

Among the SAARC countries, Pakistan stood second last, trailed only by restive and ruined Afghanistan. Sri Lanka (73^rd) and Maldives (104^th) are among the glorious high development countries whereas India (130^th), Bhutan (134^th) and Bangladesh (142^nd) are among the medium development fraternity. Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan share the ignominy of being bracketed in the low human development club.

A cursory look at various human development indicators of the SAARC countries reveals inglorious realities of human development in the country. Pakistan stands second lowest on the life expectancy index with 66.2 years compared to 71.6 years in Bangladesh and 69.6 years in Nepal. Pakistan’s infant mortality rate of 69 per 1000 live births is more than twice higher compared to 32.2 in Nepal, 29.7 in Bhutan and 33.2 in Bangladesh. African countries Congo and Cameroon have lower infant mortality rate of 35.6 and 60.8 respectively.

Pakistan’s 45 per cent of children under five years age are afflicted by malnutrition. The proportion is higher than Bangladesh (41.1 per cent), Nepal (40.5 per cent), Congo (25 per cent) and Nigeria (36.4 per cent). This coincides with higher child mortality rates in the same age group. Pakistan’s child mortality rate of 85.5 per cent is more than twice higher of Nepal’s (39.7 per cent), Bangladesh’s (41.1 per cent) and Bhutan’s (32.6 per cent).

Situation in education sector is equally deplorable. Pakistan’s literacy rate 54.7 per cent is lower than that of Bangladesh (58.8 per cent), India (62.8 per cent) and Nepal (57.4 per cent). Similarly gross enrollment ratio of Pakistan is only 92 per cent, which is the lowest in the region compared to 113 per cent in India, 114 per cent in Bangladesh, 133 per cent in Nepal and 106 per cent in Afghanistan. Primary school dropout ratio of Pakistan is 37.8 per cent, which is higher than 33.8 per cent in Bangladesh and 20.7 per cent in Nigeria.

The appalling state of health and education in Pakistan is explained by its lowest public spending in the two vital sectors compared to other countries in the region. Pakistan spends only 2.8 per cent of its gross domestic product on education, which is lower than the spending by India (4 per cent), Bangladesh (3.7 per cent), Nepal (6 per cent), Afghanistan (8.1 per cent), Bhutan (3.6 per cent), Sri Lanka (3.2 per cent), Maldives (10.8 per cent) and Nigeria (3.9 per cent). Likewise, public spending in health sector is 2.5 per cent in Pakistan, which is lower than Nepal (4.7 per cent), India (3.8 per cent), Cameroon (3 per cent) and Yemen (4.6 per cent).

Pakistan not only has a stark gender gap in education and health sectors, its economic indicators are also adverse to women and a major contributing factor in women’s disempowerment. A yawning gap prevails between per capita gross national incomes of female and male. The difference is widely skewed compared to other major countries in the region. In Pakistan, per capita gross national income of female is only US$1,450 against $8,100 of male. The variation for other countries is much lesser e.g. Bangladesh ($2,278 of female against $4,083 of male) and Nepal ($1,956 of female against $2,690 of male).

Pakistan’s poor performance in the human development arena reinforces the fact that higher incomes alone cannot guarantee better human development if financial wealth is clenched in fists of the few and if priorities of the governments are not centred on citizens’ welfare. Pakistan’s per capita gross domestic product US$4,454 is twice higher than that of Nepal’s $2,173 and significantly higher than that of Bangladesh’s $2,853, yet both countries outshone Pakistan on several critical indicators of human development.

Pakistan with its enormous potential of rapidly rising on the index possesses track record of a tepid performance on various indicators of human development. The country missed most of the MDGs targets and has earned a sobriquet of a security state. Pursuing a persistent obsession with security of ideological boundaries, it lost its geographic boundary in 1971, shares hundreds of miles long treacherous boundaries with embittered neighbours and has highly volatile political boundaries due to internal wrath of millions of citizen rendered insecure by poverty, morbidity, illiteracy, unemployment, unjust social stratification, plethora of conflicts, natural disasters and pathological extremism.

Political promises of development have lost trust among dejected citizens. After 18^th Amendment and 7^th national finance award, provinces have enhanced control over the subjects pertaining to human development. World reports would not absolve national government because of poor performance of sub-national units.

Since international obligations are a shared responsibility, the federal government and provinces should agree on a framework to set performance targets for provinces. Apart from international obligation, all these indicators are also part of the government’s commitment towards its own citizens. Leading political parties have also promised in their manifestos to deliver these rights and services to people. Along with provincial initiatives, national level policy focus is also highly desirable. Political leadership has to take drastic and urgent remedial measures to bridge the widening gap of human development. Time is ripe to shift priorities from war economy to business economy and from a security state to a development and welfare state. Seven decades of acrimonious cross border policies have resulted in terrorism, paraplegic economy, disgruntled citizenry and ultimately a fragile state. Regional peace, internal democracy, decentralisation of powers and resources, revitalisation of economy, rule of law, prioritizing people centred development and respect to rights of citizens can extricate the country from this deep quagmire.