Overview
West Bengal records the highest prevalence of anaemia among Indian states. The latest NFHS-5 (2019‑21) showed 71.4% of women aged 15‑49 in West Bengal were anaemic, while men showed about 39%. However, the newly released NFHS-6 omitted anaemia data altogether, leaving a critical evidence gap.
Key Developments
- NFHS‑6 omission (2026): No anaemia estimates, making trend analysis impossible.
- Revision of Anaemia Mukt Bharat (June 2026): The old 6×6×6 framework was replaced by a 7×7×7 scheme that adds testing, treatment, a digital T4 tracking system, and a national centre of excellence.
- Shift to venous blood sampling: Government argues finger‑prick samples inflate figures; recommends venous samples as used in the SAMPADA survey.
- Field evidence from Bankura (2025): Women discarded fortified rice and missed iron‑folic acid tablets due to time constraints and household norms.
Important Facts
Nationally, anaemia among women of reproductive age rose from 53% (2015‑16) to 57% (2016‑17). In West Bengal the increase was about 9 percentage points, and for children (6‑59 months) it jumped from 54% to 69% in the same period. Districts such as Purulia and Uttar Dinajpur report anaemia in nearly four‑fifths of women. The gender gap is stark: 59.1% of adolescent girls are anaemic versus 31.1% of boys.
Four gender‑related factors aggravate the problem:
- Time poverty: Unpaid domestic and agricultural work leaves women little time for nutrition or health‑seeking.
- Meal hierarchy: Food is served to men and children first; women eat last and receive less iron‑rich portions.
- Social norms: Women’s health is considered secondary; anaemia is seen as a “women’s ailment,” while men are rarely screened.
- Financial dependence: Lack of own income restricts ability to purchase iron‑rich foods or supplements.
Exam Relevance
The issue touches multiple GS papers. ICMR‑NIN and the SAMPADA survey illustrate the role of scientific agencies in policy design. The gendered dimensions of anaemia link to GS4 (Women’s empowerment, health) and GS3 (Public health programmes, nutrition security). Understanding the data gap created by NFHS‑6 is crucial for answering questions on health indicators, monitoring mechanisms, and policy evaluation.
Way Forward
- Publish SAMPADA results by a fixed date, disaggregated by sex, age and state, and ensure methodology aligns with NFHS for trend comparison.
- Utilise the T4 tracking system to publish sex‑wise data regularly; extend iron supplementation to men where prevalence is high.
- Design outreach that targets entire households—mothers‑in‑law, migrant husbands, and community leaders—to shift the perception of anaemia from a “women’s problem” to a family health issue.
- Integrate nutrition education with livelihood programmes to reduce time poverty and improve women’s purchasing power.
Only with reliable, gender‑sensitive data and a holistic implementation approach can the revised 7×7×7 scheme achieve its goal of an anaemia‑free India.