Regional deprivation in India follows a stark geographical divide

India’s rural deprivation landscape underscores the pressing need for inclusive and targeted policy interventions. 

Despite years of targeted poverty reduction programmes, large swathes of India continue to grapple with severe socio-economic inequalities. This enduring deprivation is not uniform — it varies significantly across regions, and is shaped by historical, structural, and policy-driven factors.

The central and north-eastern regions house the most deprived districts, while the least deprived districts are concentrated in India’s northern and south-western extremities.

Understanding these spatial variations is critical for developing inclusive policies that could help bridge regional disparities and foster sustainable development.

Deprivation is a multidimensional phenomenon that extends beyond mere economic poverty. Scholars conceptualise deprivation as a relative disadvantage within a socio-economic context. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) formally recognised multidimensional deprivation, emphasising aspects such as inadequate housing, lack of basic amenities, and restricted access to education and employment opportunities.

Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach further broadened the analytical lens, focusing on the freedoms and capabilities individuals require to lead fulfilling lives.

In India, where rapid economic growth has failed to ensure equitable socio-economic outcomes, understanding multidimensional deprivation is critical.

With 69% of India's population residing in rural areas, the persistence of deprivation in these regions underscores the limitations of existing policy frameworks.

The spatial heterogeneity of multidimensional deprivation across states can be measured by constructing a Composite Deprivation Index (CDI) based on four key dimensions: housing, basic amenities, social, and material deprivation. 

The index incorporates 28 indicators sourced from the 2011 Census, the Socio-Economic Caste Census 2011, and the Multiple Indicator Survey 2020–2021 of the National Sample Survey.

It employs standardised variables and an equal weighting method to ensure an accurate representation of deprivation levels.

Mapping India’s deprivation hotspots

Such an index of multidimensional deprivation reveals stark spatial differentiation in deprivation, which can be divided into four categories: Very High, High, Moderate, and Low Deprivation. The most deprived states, including Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Bihar, Meghalaya, Assam, Rajasthan, and Tripura, suffer from acute housing deficiencies, inadequate sanitation, and limited economic opportunities. These states also exhibit severe social deprivation, characterised by high adult illiteracy, low birth registration rates, and restricted access to media. Material deprivation further compounds their plight, with a significant proportion of households earning below Rs 5,000 per month and lacking stable employment.

The persistence of such deprivation underscores deep-seated structural inequalities and historical neglect, necessitating urgent and targeted policy interventions.

States falling under the High Deprivation category — Rajasthan, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Mizoram, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra — fare marginally better. However, they continue to struggle with inadequate housing, insufficient access to clean water, and economic instability.

While these states may exhibit relatively better literacy rates or higher income levels compared to the most deprived states, persistent unemployment and low median consumption levels highlight the fragility of their economic progress. 

Sustainable economic growth and stronger welfare measures remain imperative for these regions.

The Moderate Deprivation states — including Karnataka, Manipur, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, and Sikkim — present a mixed picture of development. While some indicators, such as literacy rates, may be higher, challenges remain in areas such as housing inadequacies (particularly in Manipur) and financial instability (as seen in Gujarat and Uttarakhand).

These states exemplify the uneven development trajectory within India, where regional progress is often marked by glaring intra-state disparities.

The Least Deprived states — including Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, and Goa — benefit from superior infrastructure, better educational outcomes, and stronger economic conditions. Kerala, for instance, boasts a literacy rate of nearly 98% and minimal adult illiteracy, while Goa records the lowest multidimensional deprivation, reflecting a higher overall standard of living. 

However, even within these states, pockets of deprivation persist, reinforcing the need for sustained development efforts to ensure comprehensive progress.

Unpacking structural disparities

The regional deprivation patterns in India follow a stark geographical divide. This spatial inequality demands a critical re-evaluation of development planning, resource allocation, and policy interventions.

Historically, the ‘BIMARU’ states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh) have been focal points of deprivation studies. 

However, clearly the deprivation crisis extends beyond these states to include Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Meghalaya, and Assam. The dreadful socio-economic conditions in these regions underscore the urgent need for tailored policy interventions addressing specific dimensions of deprivation.

A key issue exacerbating regional disparities is the inequitable allocation of resources. The continued underdevelopment of the central and north-eastern states suggests systemic inefficiencies in financial and infrastructural investments.

Addressing these disparities requires a two-pronged approach: targeted spatial interventions complemented by comprehensive social sector programmes. Policymakers must move beyond one-size-fits-all strategies and develop region-specific solutions that address the unique socio-economic realities of these deprived areas.

Bridging the deprivation gap

To mitigate multidimensional deprivation, a holistic and regionally sensitive policy framework is essential. 

Several key strategies must be prioritised:

Enhanced financial and infrastructure investments: The underdeveloped states require increased public and private sector investments to boost economic opportunities, improve infrastructure, and enhance basic services.

Targeted education and skill development programmes: Addressing social deprivation requires robust literacy programmes, vocational training, and digital education initiatives to enhance human capital.

Strengthening the social safety net: Expanding access to welfare schemes, direct cash transfers and subsidised essential services can provide immediate relief to the most deprived populations.

Localised policy approach: Decentralised governance models empowering local authorities to design and implement development strategies can yield better outcomes by aligning policies with grassroots needs.

Sustainable livelihood initiatives: Strengthening rural employment programmes, promoting micro-enterprises, and enhancing agricultural productivity can provide long-term economic stability.

India’s stark regional disparities demand a departure from extensive policy solutions towards region-specific development strategies. 

Addressing the root causes of multidimensional deprivation — whether through better resource allocation, structural economic reforms, or strengthened social safety nets — requires political will, administrative efficiency, and community participation.

The success of future development efforts hinges on India’s the ability to recognise, understand, and systematically address the spatial heterogeneity of deprivation. 

(Soumyabrata Mondal is Research Associate, Department of Economics, Banaras Hindu University)

(This article was first published under Creative Commons by 360info.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.