Essay: India Is A Difficult Country To Classify (human Geography)

With an ever increasing population of 1.1 billion, India is the second largest country in the world, behind China. India is also the second fastest growing economy - again second only to China. As one would imagine, a country of this size going through a period of rapid economic growth creates an issue for anyone trying to place a label on what stage of development India is at. There are immediate problems with classifying a country as diverse, economically and culturally, as India, where the juxtaposition is so bold that urban and rural populations might as well be living in different countries. Whilst there are areas of extreme rural poverty, many of the cities sport wealth similar to their Western counterparts and have a growing middle class; there is no clear cut definition of where India sits on the global spectrum. Statistical analysis of India creates as many questions as it answers about how India should be classified. India`s population pyramid sits between the textbook models of a stage 2 and stage3 demographic - lending itself to neither an LDC nor NIC classification. Although there is a larger middle aged population, the pyramid still peaks quite sharply and has a relatively wide base. Secondly, India`s Gini coefficient is very similar to the UK`s (36.8% and 34% respectively), a relatively low income inequality usually is indicative of economic development in a country with the lowest belonging to some of the richest countries, such as Norway. However, there are issues with using the Gini coefficient as development indicator because many sub-Saharan African countries which are definitely classifiable as LDCs, such as Togo and Guinea-Bissau score similarly to India and the UK. Also, it is confusing as to how India achieves such a low score when there are such obvious differences in wealth between the rural, slum and urban populations.

If looking generally at the country`s features, perhaps the most obvious label to place on India is that of an NIC, or newly industrialised country - indeed, most articles and textbooks will refer to India as such. India, along with the other BRIC countries, has a huge disparity between the urban and rural populations - typical of all NICs; this is due to a limited spread of urbanisation because investment is focused on the existing city areas. In recent years there has been mass rural to urban migration, due to lack of job prospects in rural India - essentially the foundation of a textbook NIC. The huge influx of people to the cities has caused the development of vast slum areas around the urban hubs; for example in Mumbai slum-dwellers make up 60% of the population and there are 5 distinct slums, including Dharavi, with over 600,000 inhabitants. In many of India`s cities the slums are growing faster than the cities themselves despite heavy investment in the urban growth poles of India, which would supposedly allow the cities to expand and facilitate further migration. In terms of epidemiology, India`s mix of infectious disease and diseases of affluence is also typical of a NIC. Whilst there are over a million deaths each year from diarrhoeal diseases, there is a near equal amount from lung disease and CHD which can be attributed to the widespread availability and use of cigarettes in urban settlements.

In India`s urban hubs - Mumbai, New Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta would not be unfamiliar to a tourist from the US or Western Europe. The British colonial presence has been a major influence in the development of India`s cities; they were developed in accordance with the needs of the British occupants and have benefitted hugely from the investment made, particularly in education. Due to the British influence there are over 125 million English speakers in India which has allowed an FDI funded service industry to flourish as India, also being a huge untapped source of cheap labour, was a prime location for BPO. Hundreds of foreign companies such as Tesco have been able to set up service centres in India, particularly in Bangalore, due to the growing concept of a `flat world`, people can do their work from anywhere with the right technology. India has since been able to set up, and experienced huge success with, its own multinational companies, such as Infosys. To facilitate the growth of industry, there has been huge investment in urban infrastructure, for example the Golden Quadrilateral highway between India`s main cities. In addition to this economic success, India`s political system is democratic and mirrors its Western counterparts and since its independence 64 years ago, the country is cited to have achieved widespread socio-economic progress. However, it could be concluded that this is also a reason behind the disparity; the British influence catalysed development of urban areas - pushing them rapidly through predicted growth models whereas the rural areas, deemed useless for the British shipping industry were left untouched and undeveloped. The current Indian government have done little to rectify the situation and the rural population lacks the infrastructure and investment necessary to develop. Whilst urban India was able to adapt to a tertiary industry based economy, rural people lacked the English skills vital for BPO based jobs provided by foreign companies. They remained isolated in poverty as unskilled labour is not used in services like it would have been if India had taken the traditional manufacturing route.

Home to 1/3rd of the world`s poor and with ¾ on Indians on less than $2 a day, it is hard to avoid the label of LDC. Although there has been extensive rural-urban migration, 70% of the population still live in rural towns and villages. The large majority of rural communities exist almost entirely on small scale subsistence agriculture, most with no access to sewage, electricity or clean water supplies. India scores only 0.51 on the HDI, similar to Swaziland and Congo- which are clearly classified as LDCs - but lagging far behind the other BRIC countries which are all around the 0.7 mark. While HDI fails to take into account aspects of cultural and social development, it is still a valid indicator for the education, health and financial situation of the majority of the population. The government`s investment has been heavily concentrated on the urban growth poles in order to encourage FDI and economic growth - as mentioned above there has been little to no investment in the vast expanses of rural India, leaving it unable to development. In addition to the economic and sanitation problems faced, the "socially backwards" Caste system is still a central part of daily life for many Indians. Accused of being "India`s hidden apartheid" , the Caste system has severely limited the social mobility of the lower classes for hundreds of years and been the cause of much violence towards the `Dalits` or `Untouchables`. Lack of social mobility and widespread discrimination, although present in certain MDCs, is much more commonly associated with LDCs.

To conclude, India is probably most closely aligned with the label of NIC, as the standard of living in rural areas is too far removed from anything `developed` for the country to be classed as a MDC. However, in today`s globalised world the definition of an NIC is becoming increasingly stretched to accommodate a huge variety of countries that are neither LDCs nor MDCs so placing this label on India may not be useful or appropriate. Even within the BRIC countries there are huge differences between the circumstances, methods and levels of development; is it even correct to say India has `industrialised` when the service industry is so far removed from traditional ideas of industrialisation, far more applicable to China`s manufacturing route? Nevertheless, India can be classified as an NIC and will most likely remain so for the next few decades until a larger proportion of the country has been urbanised.