SPECIAL ARTICLE
Multidimensional Deprivation in Rural India
A State-level Analysis
Soumyabrata Mondal, Vinay Kumar, Priyabrata Sahoo
The paper investigates the spatial pattern of
multidimensional deprivation in rural areas by
developing a multidimensional deprivation index and
examining its relationships with the poverty ratio and
per capita income across the states in India. The analysis
reveals that the states located in the central part of the
country suffer a greater degree of deprivation. It further
demonstrates that, with some exceptions, the MDI has a
strong and positive correlation with the poverty ratio
while it is inversely related with the per capita income in
most of the states. The findings, therefore, draw
attention towards the need for targeted spatial
interventions, within the social sector policies, to
overcome the persistent regional disparities at the
subnational level.
The authors are thankful to the Indian Council of Social Science
Research for the funding received to carry forward the paper which is a
part of the ICSSR major research project with F No: 02/80/2021-22/ICSSR/
MJ/RP titled “Covid-19 Pandemic, Reverse Migration, Vulnerability
and Employment Potential.”
Soumyabrata Mondal (soumyamondal1992@gmail.com) is a research
scholar with the Department of Geography, Institute of Science, Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi. Vinay Kumar (vinayeco21@bhu.ac.in) is
a research scholar at and Priyabrata Sahoo (priyabrata.s@bhu.ac.in)
teaches at the Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 19, 2023 vol lViii no 33
D
eprivation is a multifaceted concept that has gained
popularity across a wide range of social science disci-
plines. It refers to the situation in which a system, com-
munity, or region lacks the fundamental needs of a society
(Sarkar et al 2014), thereby preventing people from attaining a
basic standard of living. When a region has a high demand but
low supply of basic necessities, it is considered as a deprived
region (Pampalon et al 2000).
The approach towards deprivation is closely associated with
the concept of poverty, in a more intuitive way, than just
income or consumption measures. Deprivation indicators are
better suited to measure the “persistence” of ill-being and
helps examine exclusion more broadly. There are two ways to
analyse deprivation. The first includes a qualitative analysis
and is related to the socio-psychological condition. The second
is more useful and includes elements that are connected to
social and economic conditions (Basu and Das 2020). The
common first step in illustrating social or economic inequality
is to consider the variation in deficiency across geographic
areas or societal groups. By examining the patterns of defi-
ciency in the subregions, the susceptibility of the development
process can be spatially explained (Sarkar et al 2014).
The use of the term deprivation has increased in the recent
years. It is used in a wide variety of contexts, either by itself or
in conjunction with adjectives like “multiple,” “relative,” and
“transmitted” (McDowell 1982). Hey and Lambert (1980),
Kakwani (1984), and Chakravarty et al (1995) proposed
two categories of deprivation: absolute individual deprivation
is simply the sum of the gaps between the individual’s income
and the incomes of all individuals having higher income; and
relative deprivation, where the income gaps are deflated by the
individual’s income. However, the concept is multidimensional
(Norris 1979).
The Millennium Development Goals, 2000, of the United
Nations (UN) also acknowledge the multifaceted nature of depri-
vation that examines the socio-economic standard of the
households. It is a tried-and-true technique for identifying the
fundamental amenities or services required for sustainable
development. According to Ansary and Das (2018), the concept
includes the absence of durable goods or assets, access to
essential services or amenities, and housing characteristics.
The consideration of multiple dimensions has some distinct
advantages for policy formulation. But when it comes to devel-
oping a composite index, it also poses some theoretical and sta-
tistical challenges (Basu and Das 2020). Therefore, determin-
37
SPECIAL ARTICLE
ing multidimensional deprivation is important for establish-
ing equity towards balanced development across the country as
well as for meeting the regional concerns.
Sen’s (1985) influential work on the concept of capability
approach gave rise to the idea of deprivation and was used
in numerous empirical studies (Klasen 2000). Jayaraj and
Subramanian (2010), employing Chakravarty-D’Ambrosio
approach, showed how Punjab and Bihar were the least and
most deprived states respectively, for the two years of 1991–92
and 2005–06. Bhattacharjee and Wang (2011) calculate
weighted deprivation indices based on access to clean water,
sanitary facilities, and electricity at the household level in the
north-eastern states in India. Applying human development
index (HDI)-based indicators, Sarkar et al (2014) have exam-
ined the relationship between the pattern of socio-economic
deprivation and poor quality of life across the blocks of Malda
district in West Bengal. Ansary and Das (2018) compared
regions based on housing conditions in different households
using the principal components analysis (PCA) method, look-
ing at the basic amenities available and their lack of assets in
districts across India and found that the Empowered Action
Group (EAG) states suffered severely, contributing to poor
health, high mortality rates, and low quality of life. Mishra
(2019) examined interstate disparities in multidimensional
deprivations in the areas of education, health, and poverty
during the post-reform period in India and found that the
better-off states have performed quite well, while the majority
of the backward states were unable to do so because of their
high initial levels of deprivation.
Basu and Das (2020) attempted to present and compare
the regional pattern of deprivation in rural India by develop-
ing a simple summary index of multidimensional deprivation
at the district level using global PCA and a geographically
weighted principal component analysis (GWPCA) and discov-
ered that India’s east-central heartland is the most deprived
region. Using the Wroclaw Taxonomic method, Deb and
Mukherjee (2022) calculated the deprivation index among
the Scheduled Tribe population in eastern Indian states
and found that Odisha has the highest level of deprivation,
followed by West Bengal.
In a country like India, a large portion of the population
lacks basic modern conveniences. Despite accelerated economic
growth since the implementation of economic reforms, India
continues to face significant socio-economic disparities. Although
various flagship programmes are launched by different minis-
tries under each successive five-year plan to ensure a basic
minimum standard of living for every citizen, particularly
those living in rural areas of India (Das and Mistri 2013), the
socio-economic disparity between regions and the poor and
the elites continues to widen, contributing to a cumulative
national effect in which certain parts of India remain chroni-
cally underprivileged.
The paper, therefore, examines the spatial heterogeneity in
the level of multiple deprivation among the rural households
in India. The study develops a composite index of multidimen-
sional deprivation using housing, basic amenities, social and
38
material indicators to assess some of the possible causes
of highly impoverished states. To achieve this objective, the
study probes three factors related to deprivation: the
extent of regional differences, the interlinkages with the pattern
of poverty, and per capita income.
Database and Methods
In the last four decades, studies have measured deprivation
using a variety of factors like health, welfare, education, hous-
ing, and development (Durán and Condor 2019; Fu et al 2015;
Ward et al 2019). Deprivation can be measured in any region
or community with the help of a deprivation index, which
is a geographic indicator of a person’s standard of living
(Pampalon et al 2009). Based on different criteria, weights ap-
plied to various indicators, and cut-off points selected, scholars
have proposed various sets of indicators since the 1970s.
Townsend (1987) designed an index known as the
“Townsend Material Deprivation Score” or “Townsend Index”
using four indicators: unemployment, household overcrowding,
non-house and non-car ownership. Callan et al (1993) suggest a
deprivation score based on items in the basic dimension.
Marsh et al (2001) use a hardship score based on relative
measures of low living standards. In the last few decades,
some studies have used a quantitative approach (Kakwani
and Silber 2008; Silber 2007), while there are others that
rely upon the counting approach with a strong emphasis on a
number of social indicators.
It is an undeniable fact that different regions within an
economy are subject to various social, economic, or political
shocks that may deprive one region of a number of character-
istics. Hence, it is unlikely that any one set of indicators
will accurately capture the overall state of social deprivation.
A practical goal of the indicator selection is to focus efforts on
lowering multidimensional deficiency (Alkire et al 2015). Multiple
deprivations, according to Noble et al (2006), are the accumu-
lation of different dimensions. Hence, various indicators of
deprivation or ill-being are related, such that they have a
causal effect. The estimated indicators can be applied to local
development planning, monitoring, and evaluation of pro-
grammes with a view to reduce distributional disparities.
As the performance of the indicators will determine the level
of deprivation in each individual unit of study, their choice has
emerged as the study’s primary concern, so that they can accu-
rately reflect the socio-economic context of the study area. It
should be emphasised that the deprivation indicators can only
be thought of as “summary statistics” of the overall living con-
ditions of the households. They cannot be taken into account as
important indicators of particular aspects of poverty in itself.
However, they can be viewed as a proxy for the general depri-
vation present in the community and society.
For the paper to assess the statewise heterogeneity in mul-
tidimensional deprivation, a multidimensional deprivation
index (MDI) is constructed, which is mainly a combination of
a set of variables. The MDI constructed here is composed of four
components: housing, basic amenities, social and material
deprivation index. After reviewing a wide range of literature,
august 19, 2023 vol lViii no 33 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

pertinent indicators for these component indices were identi- index, SDi is social deprivation index, MDi is material depri-
fied, which are enlisted in Table 1. Each of these components has vation index, and I is the number of major component
its subcomponents. The data on these indicators was collected index. Finally, all the states were assigned ranks according to
from the secondary sources, including the Census of India the index value.
2011, the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) 2011, and the For classification, the study calculated the range of the
Multiple Indicator Survey 2021 of the National Sample Survey whole index data sets and thereafter divided the value with
Office (NSSO), which are the most reliable data sources available the number of classes (here 4) to determine the class inter-
at the state level in India. One of the main drawbacks of secondary val. Besides, correlation-coefficient and regression model is
data sources is that they do not offer symmetric data for all the used to find out the association between multidimensional
variables and for a specific time period. As a result, during the deprivation with poverty and per capita net state domestic
research period, an effort was made to use the most recent of- product (NSDP) among the states. The data for 2020–21 on
ficial state-level data, which has the most up-to-date knowl- per capita NSDP was gathered from the Economic and Political
edge about the variables that make up the composite index of Weekly Research Foundation (EPWRF). Besides headcount
multidimensional deprivation. ratio (HCR), poverty gap (PG) and squared poverty gap (SPG)
The contribution of each indicator to the MDI is equalised were estimated by using consumer expenditure survey data
using an average-weighted approach. The method used to of NSSO 2011–12.
standardise each indicator is adapted from the method used in
calculating UN’s HDI. As all the indicators have different units Spatial Differentiation and Multidimensional Deprivation
they need to be standardised. Applying the following formula Socio-economic inequalities among the regions are shaped
(Dimension Index), the data is normalised. by natural factors as well as new developments that further
X୧୩ െ Min(X….୩ ) widen them. However, when the disparity is wide and
DI୧୩ = … (1) extremely significant, it can lead to major social problems. For
Max(X ….୩ ) െ Min(X….୩ )
better analysis after calculating statewise MDI in India, all the
where, states have been categorised into four different categories of
i = 1, 2, …..., n for the states in India deprivation—very high, high, moderate, and less deprived
k = 1, 2,……, n for the indicators of multidimensional deprivation (Table 2, p 40).
Max(X….k) denotes the maximum percentage of households Table 1: Statewise Multidimensional Deprivation in India
in a given state having the deprivation in kth indicator (k = 1, State Housing Basic Social Material Multidimensional Rank
2, …….n) in entire nation and Min(X….k) represents the min- Deprivation Amenities Deprivation Deprivation Deprivation
Index Deprivation Index Index Index
imum percentage of households in a given state having the Index
least deprivation in kth indicator (k = 1, 2, 3) at the Andhra 0.181 0.383 0.568 0.697 0.457 13
national level. Pradesh
Arunachal 0.613 0.345 0.333 0.606 0.474 11
The value of DIik varies from o to 1, where the value of 1 Pradesh
implies that the given state is most deprived in comparison to Assam 0.502 0.507 0.517 0.628 0.538 8
the best state in the country in the kth facility. The reverse is Bihar 0.373 0.608 0.621 0.666 0.567 6
Chhattisgarh 0.454 0.693 0.719 0.686 0.638 2
true for a value of 0. Goa 0.197 0.09 0.109 0.26 0.164 28
When each of these indicators are standardised, the value of Gujarat 0.24 0.436 0.407 0.493 0.394 20
the component index is derived by averaging the indicator val- Haryana 0.174 0.218 0.212 0.325 0.232 25
Himachal 0.134 0.156 0.155 0.339 0.196 27
ues using the following formula (2): Pradesh
Jammu and 0.192 0.268 0.253 0.356 0.267 23
σ୬୧ = 1 Index X୧୩ Kashmir
C୧ = … (2)
n Jharkhand 0.427 0.904 0.545 0.597 0.618 4
Karnataka 0.473 0.314 0.324 0.514 0.406 18
where Ci is the one of the four major components of depriva- Kerala 0.193 0.268 0.118 0.45 0.257 24
tion, namely housing, basic amenities, social and material Madhya 0.401 0.71 0.693 0.678 0.62 3
Pradesh
deprivation. Index Xik is the value of each indicator (k) that
Maharashtra 0.334 0.329 0.483 0.566 0.428 17
makes up the major component and n is the number of indica- Manipur 0.345 0.339 0.337 0.563 0.396 19
tors in each major component. Each index thus ranges from 0 Meghalaya 0.447 0.543 0.498 0.712 0.55 7
Mizoram 0.385 0.356 0.403 0.668 0.453 15
to 1. A higher value of the component index implies households
Nagaland 0.385 0.404 0.508 0.594 0.473 12
are more deprived. After calculating all the five major compo- Odisha 0.441 0.816 0.649 0.686 0.648 1
nent index, finally the MDI is constructed by averaging them Punjab 0.185 0.151 0.205 0.327 0.217 26
using the formula (3) given as below: Rajasthan 0.273 0.643 0.59 0.557 0.516 9
Sikkim 0.441 0.153 0.316 0.472 0.345 22
Tamil Nadu 0.365 0.487 0.476 0.498 0.456 14
HD୧ + BAD୧ + SD୧ + MD୧
MDI୧ = … (3) Tripura 0.378 0.555 0.431 0.679 0.511 10
I Uttar Pradesh 0.178 0.648 0.44 0.526 0.448 16
Uttarakhand 0.246 0.353 0.444 0.448 0.373 21
where MDIi is multidimensional deprivation index, HDi is West Bengal 0.487 0.685 0.483 0.671 0.581 5
housing deprivation index, BADi is basic amenities deprivation Source: Calculated by authors.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 19, 2023 vol lViii no 33 39
SPECIAL ARTICLE

The MDI reveals that very high deprivation persists in Odisha, Odisha is the most deprived state in the country and it ranks
Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh (MP), Jharkhand, West Bengal, third in basic amenities and social and material deprivation
Bihar, Meghalaya, Assam, Rajasthan and Tripura (Figure 1, p 41). (Table 1). However, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and MP have expe-
Table 2: Categories of States According to MDI rienced higher growth in the monthly per capita expenditure
Categories Range No States (MPCE) and faster reduction in rural poverty among the rural
Very high deprived >0.530 8 Odisha, Chhattisgarh, occupational groups during the post-reform period (Sahoo et al
Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, 2020; Sahoo and Senapati 2022). Like Odisha, rural house-
West Bengal, Bihar,
Meghalaya, Assam holds of Chhattisgarh also severely suffer from a number of
Highly deprived 0.410–0.530 9 Rajasthan, Tripura, Arunachal indicators of basic amenities and housing deprivation (Tables 3
Pradesh, Nagaland, Andhra and 4). Another central state of India, MP, also portrays a
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Mizoram,
Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra
picture of intense deficit (Table 6, p 41).
Moderately deprived 0.290–0.410 5 Karnataka, Manipur, Gujarat, Jharkhand has the highest rate of deprivation in India in
Uttarakhand, Sikkim terms of five indicators in basic amenities, including not
Less deprived <0.290 6 Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, having kitchen facility (67.20%), piped water in the dwelling
Haryana, Punjab, Himachal
Pradesh, Goa (97.20%), latrines (41.30%), and bathrooms (81.78%), and have
Source: Calculated by authors. the principal source of drinking water outside their premises
Table 3: Indicators of Housing Deprivation among Major States of India
Deprivation Housing Deprivation
Level Not Owned House Kutcha Roof House Kutcha Wall House Not Having Exclusive Room for Dilapidated Houses
Married Couple
Very high Sikkim (18.58%), Chhattisgarh (84.49%), Manipur (91.85%), Karnataka (17.65%), West Bengal (14.22%),
Arunachal Pradesh Jharkhand (67.75%), Arunachal Pradesh Tamil Nadu (11.94%) Assam (11.85%)
(17.02%) Madhya Pradesh (64.71%), (90.19%),
Odisha (64%), Nagaland (87.59%),
Arunachal Pradesh (63.93%) Tripura (85.98%)
High Mizoram (12%), Bihar (56.97%), Chhattisgarh (78.11%), Arunachal Pradesh (4.59%), Odisha (8.82%),
Goa (11.57%), West Bengal (39.65%), Assam (75.07%), Uttarakhand (4.18%) Punjab (7.65%),
Meghalaya (11.48%), Jammu and Kashmir Meghalaya (73.07%), Uttarakhand (7.52%)
Nagaland (10.40%) (37.38%) Jharkhand (71.43%)
Moderate Himachal Pradesh (5.17%), Gujarat (24.96%), Bihar (57.96%), Bihar (2.82%), Haryana (5.23%),
Jharkhand (4.65%), Karnataka (20.87%), Gujarat (44.70%), Gujarat (2.97%), Tripura (5.35%),
Madhya Pradesh (3.70%) Maharashtra (21.10%) Karnataka (43.50%) Madhya Pradesh (2.85%) Rajasthan (4.59%)
Low Jammu and Kashmir (1.13%), Himachal Pradesh (5.60%), Punjab (8.48%), Punjab (0.93%), Jammu and Kashmir
Bihar (1.35%), Uttarakhand (7.81%), Haryana (10.28%), Himachal Pradesh (1.07%), (0.77%),
Uttar Pradesh (1.59%) Kerala (7.95%) Andhra Pradesh (10.70%) Uttar Pradesh (1.07%), Goa (1.63%),
Sikkim (1.09%), Kerala (1.25%) Himachal Pradesh (1.63%)
Source: Authors’ estimation from Multiple Indicator Survey 78th round, NSSO.

Table 4: Indicators of Basic Amenities Deprivation in Indian States

Deprivation Indicators of Basic Amenities Deprivation
Level Without Waste Not Having No Access to Principal Source of Unclean Fuel as Unclean Fuel as No Access Not Having
Water Outlay Kitchen Facility Piped Water Drinking Water a Primary Source a Primary Source to Latrine Bathroom
Outside Premises of Lighting of Cooking
Very high Chhattisgarh Bihar (68.64%), Jharkhand Jharkhand Uttar Pradesh Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Jharkhand
(88.48%), Jharkhand (97.20%), (73.90%), (3.60%), (84.80%), West (41.3%), (81.78%),
Odisha (88.11%), (67.20%), Uttar Pradesh Odisha (73.70%), Assam (3%) Bengal (78.50%), Odisha (36.4%), Tripura (81%),
Assam (86.23%), Madhya Pradesh (96.80%), Chhattisgarh Madhya Pradesh Bihar (33.4%) Odisha (78.36%)
West Bengal (61.16%) Assam (96.70%), (70.40%) (75.80%),
(84.70%) Odisha (93.60%) Jharkhand
(75.40%)
High Arunachal Pradesh Rajasthan Bihar (88.30%) Tamil Nadu Arunachal Tripura (69.60%), Madhya Pradesh Bihar (59.56%),
(78.06%), Madhya (57.10%), Chhattisgarh (59.30%), Pradesh (2.10%), Assam (58.4%), (28.3%), Chhattisgarh
Pradesh (74.75%), Andhra Pradesh (85.50%), Rajasthan Meghalaya Himachal Pradesh Rajasthan (59.49%), West
Meghalaya (56.43%), Tripura (84.80%), (51.70%), (1.70%), (57%) (28.1%), Bengal (55.57%),
(77.25%) Chhattisgarh Nagaland Andhra Pradesh Jharkhand Gujarat (24.3%) Uttar Pradesh
(48.36%) (78.30%) (51.20%) (1.60%) (51.71%)
Moderate Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra Arunachal Haryana Bihar (0.80%), Kerala (39.4%), Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh
(52.24%), (34.49%), Pradesh (25.30%), Gujarat (0.70%), Manipur (31.1%), (13.6%), (44.29%),
Goa (45.60%), Tamil Nadu (39.30%), Gujarat (24.60%), Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Assam (27.17%),
Himachal Pradesh (34.33%), Gujarat (35.10%), Uttar Pradesh (0.50%), (29.1%) (15.7%), Gujarat (26.75%)
(38.37%) Uttar Pradesh Haryana (28.50%) Madhya Pradesh West Bengal
(35.45%) (33.90%) (0.40%) (13.4%)
Low Haryana (17.16%), Nagaland Himachal Punjab (6.90%), Punjab (0%), Goa (7.3%), Sikkim Manipur (0%), Sikkim (0.21%),
Punjab (19%) (3.51%), Pradesh Bihar (9.60%), Goa (0%), (8.1%), Karnataka Mizoram (0%), Haryana (1.62%),
Kerala (4.25%), (12.80%), Himachal Himachal (13.4%) Tripura (0.1%) Punjab (3.41%)
Goa (8.80%) Goa (19.90%), Pradesh (12%) Pradesh (0%)
Sikkim (25.40%)
Source: Same as Table 3.

40 august 19, 2023 vol lViii no 33 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

(73.90%). Likewise, a large chunk of rural West Bengal is Figure 1: Spatial Pattern of Multidimensional Deprivation in India
underprivileged in most of the indicators of basic amenities
and material deprivation. Bihar, which is generally known as
the highest poverty-prone states of India, also portrays a
picture of acute deprivation in a number of indicators across
several indicators like households without having kitchen
facility (68.64%), television (89.80%), illiteracy (34.12%), and
expenditure less than the median (95.93%). Acute multiple
deprivations are also observed among the few states of north-
east India like Meghalaya and Assam. The findings of the
study show that Meghalaya is the most deprived state of India
in terms of MDI.
Table 5: Indicators of Social Deprivation in Indian States Multidimensional Deprivation Index
Deprivation Social Deprivation Low
Level No Literate Adult Without Birth Without Any Not Access to Moderate
High
Above 25 Years Certificate Bank Account Mass Media
Very High
Very high Bihar (34.12%), Assam (86.1%),
Nagaland Jharkhand
Chhattisgarh Bihar (85.07%),
(33.5%), (56.1%), 0 145 290 580 870 Kilometers

(33.88%), Mizoram (82%)

Meghalaya Bihar (45.5%),
Rajasthan (29.9%), Odisha The map is only for representational purposes and does not, in any way, indicate the
(31.39%) Manipur (41.9%) national boundaries.
(23.1%) Source: Authors’ estimation using GIS mapping.
High Jharkhand Jharkhand Gujarat Rajasthan The combined index of MDI unveils that nine states—
(28.4%), (76.38%), West (20.4%), (38.2%),
Odisha (27.8%), Bengal (74.97%), Haryana Assam (36%),
Rajasthan, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Andhra
West Bengal Madhya Pradesh (15.3%), West Bengal Pradesh (AP), Tamil Nadu, Mizoram, Uttar Pradesh (UP), and
(25.7%) (72.57%), Assam (30.1%) Maharashtra fall under the category of high deprivation.
Odisha (69.66%), (17.2%)
Uttarakhand
Rajasthan lagged behind in most of the indicators of social
(65.51%) and basic amenities, Tripura in material, Arunachal Pradesh
Moderate Arunachal Arunachal Jharkhand Maharashtra in housing and social, Mizoram in material and AP in mate-
Pradesh Pradesh (11.8%), (18.2%),
rial and social deprivation. Though UP—the most populous
(19.53%), (48.64%), Sikkim Meghalaya
Gujarat (17.03%), Haryana (10.4%), (15.5%), state of India—is well ahead in most of the indicators of
Haryana (40.36%), Sikkim Uttarakhand Uttarakhand housing, a significant proportion of rural households of the
(16.68%) (42.52%) (11.7%) (15.1%)
state are deprived in different indicators of basic amenities.
Low Kerala (1.81%), Kerala (28.45%), Goa (2.1%), Goa (1.8%),
Goa (4.01%), Himachal Himachal Himachal Tamil Nadu falls under the category of high deprivation due
Himachal Pradesh Pradesh Pradesh to intense deficit in certain indicators of basic amenities,
Pradesh (7.78%) (31.02%) (3.2%), (1.9%), Jammu and social and material deprivation. While Maharashtra is
Karnataka and Kashmir
(3.9%) (4.35%) deprived due to a higher score value in several indicators of
Source: Same as Table 3. social and material deprivation index.

Table 6: Indicators of Material Deprivation in Indian States

Deprivation Material Deprivation
Level MPCE Less Than the Half Without Salaried Job Monthly Income of Less Landless Household Without Telephone Without Television Without Two-wheeler
of the Median Value Than `5,000
Very high Bihar (95.93%), Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh Goa (91.58%), Chhattisgarh Bihar (89.8%), Sikkim (97.28%),
Chhattisgarh (94.95%), Odisha (90.78%), Odisha Mizoram (79.51%), (78.76%), Odisha Jharkhand (86.26%), Mizoram (89.52%),
(94.99%), Uttar (93.24%), West (87.94%), Madhya Meghalaya (66.36%), Odisha (80.64%), Meghalaya
Pradesh (92.27%) Bengal (91.5%), Pradesh (83.49%) (75.98%) Arunachal Pradesh West Bengal (79.81%) (81.28%)
Uttar Pradesh (64.29%)
(91.38%)
High Arunachal Pradesh Assam (87.73%), Mizoram (77.02%), Andhra Pradesh Assam (58.2%), Rajasthan (74.45%), Arunachal Pradesh
(88.04%), Madhya Haryana (84.71%), Tamil Nadu (78%), (65.46%), Bihar Manipur (51.19%), Tripura (66.12%), (68.88%), Kerala
Pradesh (86.6%), Kerala (86.04%) Uttar Pradesh (65.58%), Punjab Nagaland (59.3%) Maharashtra (62.1%) (64.4%), Rajasthan
Rajasthan (84.35%) (71.63%) (64.51%) (58.55%)
Moderate Punjab (69.67%), Sikkim (73.14%), Manipur (64.9%), Chhattisgarh Andhra Pradesh Haryana (40.56%), Bihar (44.63%),
Gujarat (71.26%), Uttarakhand Uttarakhand (46.73%), (45.18%), Bihar Uttar Pradesh Gujarat (48.01%),
Tamil Nadu (76.33%) (63.41%) Karnataka (46.53%), Gujarat (46.69%) Manipur (46.43%)
(74.52%) (46.57%), Uttar (41.23%)
Pradesh (44.78%)
Low Haryana (58.17%), Goa (41.37%), Goa (40.02%), Himachal Pradesh Kerala (11.99%), Tamil Nadu (14.68%), Uttarakhand
Kerala (58.19%) Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh (22%), Jammu and Himachal Pradesh Punjab (20.66%), (13.2%), Jammu and
(66.13%) (53.53%) Kashmir (22.42%), (19.07%), Punjab Goa (25.6%), Kashmir (23.08%),
Jharkhand (37.69%) (20.39%) Kerala (27.93%) Jharkhand (29.77%)
Source: Same as Table 3.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 19, 2023 vol lViii no 33 41
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Figure 2: Relationship between Multidimensional Deprivation with Poverty Ratio
PG and MDI
HCR and MDI

.7
.7

Od ChG
Od Jr MP
ChG

.6
MP Jr WB
Bi
.6

WB Me
Bi As
Me Tr Ra

.5
Ra As
Tr Na ArP
.5

AnP TN UP Mi
ArP

MDI
Na
AnP TN UP Mi Kr Mh
MDI

Mh Mn

.4
Kr Gu
Mn UK
.4

Gu
UK Sk
Sk

.3
JK y = 0.0342x + 0.2983
.3

Ke Hr
Ke JK y = 0.0083x + 0.2503 Pu R² = 0.447
Hr

.2
Pu R² = 0.5086 HP
HP
.2

Go
Go
0 2 4 6 8 10
10 20 30 40 50 PG
HCR
Multidimensional_deprivation_index Fitted values
Multidimensional_deprivation_index Fitted values

SPG and MDI Goa—are the least deprived states in India (Figure 1). J&K is
the least deprived with respect to those who did not
.7

Jr
Od ChG
MP
own houses (1.13%) and owned dilapidated houses (0.77%).
.6

WB
Bi Likewise, in Haryana, few do not have waste water outlay
Me As
Tr Ra (17.16%), and consumption expenditure is less than half of the
.5

Na
AnP TN UP Mi ArP median value (58.17%). Haryana is the second least deprived
MDI

Mh
Kr
Mn state of India in material deprivation index after Goa. It
.4

Gu
UK
Sk y = 0.1005x + 0.3247
should be noted that in spite of having third lowest rank in
.3

JK R² = 0.4008 MDI, 84.71% of the rural households of the state are underpriv-
Ke
Pu Hr ileged in indicators like households without salaried job.
.2

HP
Go Punjab secures the third position from the bottom in MDI
0 1 2 3 (Table 1). Very few in the state have kutcha wall houses
SPG

Fitted values
(8.48%), or face the issue of non-availability of exclusive
Multidimensional_deprivation_index
rooms for married couples (0.93%) or have the principal
Source: Authors’ own estimation.
source of drinking water outside the premises (6.90%), and
Five states, namely Karnataka, Manipur, Gujarat, Uttara- have female-headed households with no adult male member
khand, and Sikkim fall under the category of moderate dep- (1.18%). The study also shows that Himachal Pradesh, which
rivation. Though Karnataka is well ahead in indicators of occupies the second-last position in MDI is the most advanced
basic amenities, social and material dimensions, rural house- state with respect to the housing index. Similarly, Kerala
holds of the state severely suffer in several indicators of has the lowest rates of adult illiteracy (1.81%), unregistered
housing deprivation. Uttarakhand is well ahead in MDI. births (28.45%) (Table 5, p 41), and households without tele-
While Sikkim, in spite of gaining an apprehending position phones (11.99%). Although the state is well ahead in most of
in basic amenities, social and material deprivation index, it the indicators of MDI, still 86.04% rural households do not
lagged behind in several indicators of housing deprivation. have salaried working member in their family. Goa is the
The MDI reveals that most of the northern states of the least deprived state combining all the indicators of deprivation,
country such as Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), Haryana, Punjab, except the housing index. In spite of being the least deprived,
Himachal Pradesh and two southern states—Kerala and Goa holds the highest proportion of rural landless house-
Table 7: Association with Poverty and Multidimensional Deprivation holds (91.58%) of the country.
High MDI–High HCR Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha and Madhya Pradesh The spatial pattern of deprivation entails that the central
Low MDI–Low HCR Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and region with some isolated patches of north-eastern states
Jammu and Kashmir
High MDI–Low HCR Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Tripura and Andhra Pradesh
High MDI–High PG Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar
Low MDI–Low PG Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, and
Jammu and Kashmir available at
High MDI–Low PG Meghalaya, Tripura, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
West Bengal, Rajasthan Skandaa Distributors
High MDI–High SPG Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh 30-265/25/19, Flat No. S-1, Sai Enclave, Geetha Nagar,
Low MDI–Low SPG Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala,
Near Sai Vidya Vihar, RK Puram Post, Malkajgiri,
Jammu and Kashmir
High MDI–Low SPG Meghalaya, Tripura, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Nagaland,
Hyderabad 500 056, Telangana
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu 9908074973
Source: Calculated by authors.

42 august 19, 2023 vol lViii no 33 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE
Figure 3: Relationship between Multidimensional Deprivations with Per The analysis also reveals that a low positive correlation
Capita NSDP
exists (r = 0.633) between SPG and MDI. Further, the R2 value
PCI and MDI comes to 0.4008, hence it can be stated that 40% variance in
.7

MDI can be explained by the severity of poverty (Figure 2). In

Od
ChG y = -1E-06x + 0.5917
JrMP states like Chhattisgarh, MP, and Arunachal Pradesh, both MDI
.6

WB
Bi Me R² = 0.4002 and SPG are very high. In contrast, Goa, Himachal Pradesh,
As
Ra Tr Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, and J&K have positive association
.5

Na ArP
UP AnP TN
Mi between low MDI and low SPG. While there are few states like
MDI

Mh
Mn Kr Meghalaya, Tripura, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Nagaland, AP,
.4

Gu
UK
Sk and Tamil Nadu that follow an opposite trend between MDI
and SPG which entails MDI is high but SPG is low.
.3

JK Ke
Hr
Pu
HP Multidimensional Deprivation and Per Capita Income
.2

Go

0 100000 200000 300000

PCI
Multidimensional_deprivation_index
Source: Authors’ own estimation.
forms a pocket of the most underprivileged region of the
country as compared to the other parts of the country. This
kind of spatial distributional pattern signifies the growing
polarised unequal development as well as disparity in India.
It seems that most of the deprived states in India have failed
to taste fruits of the different development schemes, which
is a reflection of the failure of the state policies to eliminate
regional disparity (Appendix Figure A1, p 45).
Multidimensional Deprivation and Poverty
The study tries to examine whether any kind of association
exists between multidimensional deprivation and poverty
in India (Table 7, p 43). The Pearson correlation coefficient
value (r = 0.71) between MDI and HCR reveals that both have
a strong positive correlation and hence high HCR is associated
with high pattern of deprivation. R 2 value comes as 0.5086
which entails that 51% variance in MDI can be explained by
the HCR. The states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha,
and MP follow a very high positive association between
HCR and MDI (Figure 2, p 42). Whereas in states like Goa,
Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, and J&K, the
association between HCR and MDI is very low. Although
there are some states (Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Tripura, and
AP) that have an inverse relationship between HCR and MDI,
where MDI is very high but HCR is very low, which requires
some serious attention and policy intervention from policy-
makers and development planners.
The study depicts that a positive correlation exists between
PG and MDI as r = 0.67. Where R2 appears as 0.447 it means
44% of the observed variation can be explained by the model’s
inputs. In states like Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, MP, and
Bihar, high MDI is associated with high PG (Figure 3). While low
MDI and low PG is observed in several states such as Goa,
Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, and J&K, however
there are few states where the pattern of MDI and PG are inversely
associated with one another. In Meghalaya, Tripura, AP, Tamil
Nadu, West Bengal, and Rajasthan, MDI is more than 0.410
and PG is less than 4.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 19, 2023
The interrelationship between monthly per capita NSDP and
multidimensional deprivation is demonstrated in Figure 3. A
Fitted values negative correlation persists between these two variables
as r = -0.63. R 2 value was derived as 0.4002. Statewise
pattern reveals that there are few states like Odisha, Chhat-
tisgarh, MP, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Bihar, Meghalaya, and
Assam where a high MDI is strongly associated with a low
per capita NSDP.
Whereas in several states like Sikkim, Goa, Haryana, Kerala,
Himachal Pradesh, and Punjab, per capita NSDP is high and
MDI is low. While there are a few states like Maharashtra,
Tamil Nadu, Mizoram, and AP where, in spite of having high
per capita NSDP, the MDI is high. These four states largely face
material deprivation which is the main reason behind the
prevalence of high multidimensional deficiency.
Concluding Observations
Building composite indices at the state level in India,
the current study has endeavoured to estimate the spatial
heterogeneity in multidimensional deprivation, taking into
account housing, basic amenities, social, and material
factors. As witnessed, large disparity persists among the
states in different domains. In terms of housing, Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, and Karnataka are the most
deprived states, while Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, UP, and
AP are counted among the least deprived. When it comes to
basic amenities, Jharkhand, Odisha, MP, and Chhattisgarh
are the top four underprivileged states in the country’s
central region as opposed to Goa, Sikkim, Himachal
Pradesh, and Haryana. The four most socially disadvan-
taged states are Chhattisgarh, MP, Odisha, and Bihar, while
Goa, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, and Punjab are far ahead.
The study also reveals that in respect to material domain,
Goa, Haryana, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh are the least
deprived as opposed to the deprived states of Meghalaya,
AP, Chhattisgarh, and Tripura. According to the combined
index, the majority of eastern and central Indian states,
including Odisha, Chhattisgarh, MP, Jharkhand, Bihar,
and West Bengal—as well as some north-eastern states—
Meghalaya and Assam—suffer significantly higher multidi-
mensional deficiency than other states. Whereas J&K,
Kerala, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Goa are in
a better position.
vol lViii no 33 43
SPECIAL ARTICLE

The pattern of multidimensional deficit across the states
is closely related to the pattern of poverty in a developing
nation like India. A very high positive association between
poverty and deprivation exists in most of the states like
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and MP, situated in the
heart of the country. On the other hand, despite having low
rates of poverty, deprivation is surprisingly high in a number
of states, including Meghalaya, Rajasthan, Tripura, and AP.
The study discloses that the majority of the states that expe-
rience severe multidimensional deficiencies have low NSDP
rates per capita. However, there are a few states, including
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Mizoram, and AP, where the MDI
is high despite having a high NSDP per capita.
The persistently high levels of deprivation in these states
are primarily the result of their subpar performance on vari-
ous material deprivation indicators. Another interesting fact
about India’s regional deprivation pattern is that the most
backward districts are found in the central and north-eastern
regions of the nation, while the least deprived districts are
found in the southern (Tamil Nadu and Kerala), northern
(J&K, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh), and the western (Goa
and Gujarat) regions of the country. Therefore, the spatial extent
of regional inequality in the pattern of multidimensional
deprivation pushes for a re-evaluation of current development
planning schemes, which ultimately raises some distinct
problems and presents challenges to decision-makers.
The “BIMARU” (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and
Uttar Pradesh) states have been the subject of research on
deprivation for the last few decades. However, the paper
shows that, in addition to these four states, the general
state of deprivation in Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,
West Bengal, Meghalaya, and Assam is equally severe as in
these states. To lessen the severity of deprivation across
various dimensions in these states, special measures are
required. The continued disparity in the north-eastern and
central regions of India suggests that there needs to be resource
allocation to the underdeveloped states from the union gov-
ernment. Additionally, it is suggested that for the betterment
of the underprivileged areas, targeted spatial intervention is
needed in addition to the formulation and implementation
of social sector programmes to address persistent regional
disparities in multidimensional deprivation.

References
Alkire, S, J Foster, S Seth, M E Santos, J M Roche
and P Ballon (2015): Multidimensional Poverty
Measurement and Analysis, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ansary, Rabiul and Bhaswati Das (2018): “Regional
Patterns of Deprivation in India: An Assessment
Based on Household Characteristics, Basic
Amenities and Asset Possession,” Social Change,
Vol 48, No 3, pp 367–83.
Basu, Tirthankar and Arijit Das (2020): “Formula-
tion of Deprivation Index for Identification of
Regional Pattern of Deprivation in Rural India,”
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol 74, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100924.
Bhattacharjee, Dibyojyoti and Wang Jianjum
(2011): “Assessment of Facility Deprivation in
the Households of the North Eastern States
of India,” Demography India, Vol 40, No 2,
pp 35–54.
Callan, Tim, Nolan Brian and T Whelan Christopher
(1993): “Resources, Deprivation and the
Measurement of Poverty,” Journal of Social
Policy, Vol 22, No 2, pp 141–72.
Chakravarty, Satya R, Nachiketa Chattopadhyay
and Amita Majumder (1995): “Income Inequality
and Relative Deprivation,” Keio Economic Studies,
Vol 32, No 1, pp 1–15.
Das, Bhaswati and Avijit Mistri (2013): “Household
Quality of Living in Indian States: Analysis of
2011 Census,” Environment and Urbanization
Asia, Vol 4, No 1, pp 151–71.
Deb, Pamela and Rameswar Mukherjee (2022):
“Pattern of Regional Disparities in the Level of
Household Deprivation among the Scheduled
Tribes of Eastern India: A District-level Anal-
ysis,” Journal of Asian and African Studies,
pp 1–21.
Durán, Rodrigo Javier and Miguel Ángel Condorí
(2019): “Deprivation Index for Small Areas
Based on Census Data in Argentina,” Social
Indicators Research, Vol 141, No 1, pp 331–63.
EPW Research Foundation (2018): “National
Account Statistics of India,” EPWRF India
Time Series.
Fu, Mengzhu, Daniel J Exeter and Anneka Anderson
(2015): “The Politics of Relative Deprivation: A
Transdisciplinary Social Justice Perspective,”
Social Science and Medicine, Vol 133, pp 223–32.
Gaiha, Raghav, Ganesh Thapa, Katsushi Imai and
Vani S Kulkarni (2007): “Disparity, Deprivation
and Discrimination in Rural India,” Working
Paper No 13, Manchester: Brooks World
Poverty Institute.
Hey, John D and Peter J Lambert (1980): “Relative
Deprivation and the Gini Coefficient: Com-
ment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 95,
No 3, pp 567–73.
IIPS and Macro International (2007): “National
Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06:
India,” Vol I, International Institute for Popula-
tion Sciences, Mumbai.
Jayaraj, D and S Subramanian (2010): “A
Chakravarty-D’Ambrosio View of Multidimen-
sional Deprivation: Some Estimates for India,”
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 45, No 6,
pp 53–65.
Kakwani, Nanak (1984): “The Relative Deprivation
Curve and Its Applications,” Journal of
Business Economics and Statistics, Vol 2, No 4,
pp 384–405.
Kakwani, Nanak and Jacques Silber (2008): Quan-
titative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty
Measurement, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Klasen, Stephen (2000): “Measuring Poverty and
Deprivation in South Africa,” Review of Income
and Wealth, Vol 46, No 1, pp 33–58.
Marsh, A, S D McKay, A Smith and G Stephenson
(2001): Low Income Families in Britain: Work,
Welfare and Social Security in 1999, DSS
Research Report No 138, Leeds: Corporate
Document Services.
McDowell, Linda (1982): “Housing Deprivation:
A Longitudinal Analysis,” Area, Vol 14, No 2,
pp 144–50.
Mishra, Brajaraja (2019): “Inter-State Disparities in
the Reduction of Multidimensional Deprivations
in India,” Indian Journal of Human Development,
Vol 13, No 3, pp 239–53.
MOSPI (2023): “Multiple Indicator Survey 2020–21,”
78th NSS Round Unit Level Data, March,
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Imple-
mentation, National Sample Survey Office
(NSSO), Government of India.
Noble, Michael, Gemma Wright, George Smith
and Chris Dibben (2006): “Measuring Multiple
Deprivation at the Small-Area Level,” Environ-
ment and Planning A: Economy and Space,
Vol 38, No 1, pp 169–85.
Norris, Geoff (1979): “Defining Urban Deprivation,”
Urban Deprivation and the Inner City, C Jones
(ed), London: Croom Helm, pp 17–31, .
Pampalon, R, D Hamel, P Gamache and G Raymond
(2009): “A Deprivation Index for Health Planning
in Canada,” Chronic Diseases in Canada, Vol 29,
No 4, pp 178–91.
Pampalon, R and G Raymond (2000): “A Deprivation
Index for Health and Welfare Planning in
Quebec,” Chronic Diseases in Canada, Vol 21,
No 3, pp 104–13.
Sahoo, Priyabrata, Dibakar Sahoo and Subhash
Chandra (2020): “Changes in Rural Poverty
among Occupation Groups in Odisha: An Anal-
ysis of Post-Reform Period,” Journal of Land
and Rural Studies, Vol 8, No 2, pp 150–65.
Sahoo, Priyabrata and Asis Kumar Senapati (2022):
“Poverty Alleviation and Pro-poor Growth in
Odisha: A Disaggregate Analysis,” Economic &
Political Weekly, Vol 57, No 46, pp 45–52.
Sarkar, Basudatta, Haimanti Banerji and Joy Sen
(2014): “Patterns of Socioeconomic Depriva-
tion and Its Impact on Quality of Life: Case of
a Less Developed Region in West Bengal,
India,” Athens Journal of Health, Vol 1, No 4,
pp 271–86.
SECC (2011): “Socio Economic Caste Census,”
Ministry of Rural Development, https://secc.
gov.in/homepage.html.
Sen, Amartya (1985): Commodities and Capabilities,
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Silber, Jacques (2007): “Measuring Poverty: Taking
a Multidimensional Perspective,” Hacienda
Pública Española, Vol 182, No 3, pp 29–73.
Townsend, Peter (1987): “Deprivation,” Journal of
Social Policy, Vol 16, No 2, pp 125–46.
Ward, Adam D, Holly Trowland and Paul Bracewell
(2019): “The Dynamic Deprivation Index:
Measuring Relative Socioeconomic Deprivation
in NZ on a Monthly Basis,” Journal of Social
Sciences Online, Vol 14, No 1, pp 157–76.

44 august 19, 2023 vol lViii no 33 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE
Appendix
Table A1: Dimensions and Indicators of Multidimensional Deprivation Index
Dimension Indicator Data Source
Housing deprivation % of HH not having owned house SECC (2011)
% of HH having kutcha roof house SECC (2011)
% of HH having kutcha wall house SECC (2011)
% of HH not having exclusive room for married couple Census (2011)
% of HH having dilapidated houses Census (2011)
Basic amenities deprivation % of HH not having waste water outlay Census (2011)
% of HH not having kitchen facility Census (2011)
% of HH No access to piped water into dwelling or yard/plot MIS (2020–21)
% of HH having principal source of drinking water outside premises MIS (2020–21)
% of HH using unclean fuel as a primary source of lighting MIS (2020–21)
% of HH using unclean fuel as a primary source of cooking MIS (2020–21)
% of HH having no access to latrine MIS (2020–21)
% of HH not having bathroom MIS (2020–21)
Social deprivation % of HH with no literate adult above 25 years SECC (2011)
Not registered with civil authority for birth certificate MIS (2020–21)
% of HH having disabled member and no able bodied adult member SECC (2011)
% of HH having no adult member between age 16 and 59 SECC (2011)
% of female headed households with no SECC (2011)
adult male member between age 16 and 59
% of the persons 18 years or above who do not have any bank account individually or jointly MIS (2020–21)
% of HH reported not access to mass media within the premises MIS (2020–21)
Economic/material % of HH having MPCE less than the half of the median value MIS (2020–21)
deprivation % of HH without salaried job SECC (2011)
% HH having monthly income of less than `5,000 SECC (2011)
% of HH with no land SECC (2011)
% of HH not having telephone Census (2011)
Number of persons of 18 years and above per 1,00,000 who were indebted to any institutional/ MIS (2020–21)
non-institutional agency
% of HH having no TV Census (2011)
% of HH having no two wheeler Census (2011)
Source: Prepared by authors.

Figure A1: Spatial Pattern of Deprivation across the Domains

Housing Deprivation Basic Amenities Deprivation

Housing Deprivation Index

Low Basic Amenities Deprivation Index
Moderate
Low
High Moderate
Very High High
Very High

0 145 290 580 870 Kilometers 0 145 290 580 870 Kilometers

Social Deprivation Material Deprivation

Social Deprivation Index Material Deprivation Index

Low Low
Moderate Moderate
High High
Very High Very High

0 145 290 580 870 Kilometers 0 145 290 580 870 Kilometers

The map is only for representational purposes and does not, in any way, indicate the national boundaries.
Source: Authors’ estimation from MIS 2020–21 data using GIS Mapping.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 19, 2023 vol lViii no 33 45