Since Independence in 1947, India has made enormous efforts towards the progress of its nation (Agarwal, 2006). According to Agarwal (2006), the intense and coordinated efforts of the governments, through various Five Year Plans, have significantly changed the economic scenario of the country. Agriculture production has risen but the progress of industrialization has increasingly played a significant role in Indias economic development. Although, there are many areas in which Indias achievements have been incredible, however, the overall success in reducing poverty, ignorance and inequality has been quite limited. From a population of 350 million in 1952, Indias population has grown to 1.12 billion (Dasgupta & Mohan, 2004). However, a large proportion of the population continues to fall short of minimum basic needs. The country suffers from large and persistent inequalities. As the world sings the saga of India rising, Indians are confounded by the contrasting realities. Every day as millions of youths chase their dreams in the rapidly growing economy, million more continue to struggle in poverty, illiteracy and ill health. The question, How is India doing today? provides a strong motivation for studying the process of uneven development, in the country, and thereby identifying the indicators responsible for the existing diversity in development. The paper would focus on development indicators such as level of poverty, literacy rate, life expectancy and health services, and fertility rate and population growth, in order to assess the variability in rural-urban development in India.According to The World Bank, development is a multi-dimensional phenomenon (what is development, 2004). Development can be measured in term of a countrys economic growth, level of education, population growth, level of health service, status of women, employment and etc. Socio-economic development is not homogenous among the rural-urban regions of India. Where some urban sector is undergoing rapid economic development, the rural still continue to face impoverishment, infirmity and lack of education. While GDP growth is absolutely essential for development, human development cannot be undermined in this process.

GEOGRAPHY OF INDIAThe term region needs to be clarified for this study. Here, region is defined as a large area of land that is different from other areas of land because of some geographical, cultural, social or economic characteristics. The term region can be confusing because it can refer to different kinds of land area depending on the criteria used (Ghosh, 2006, 61). In this study, the term region is used to refer to a sub national unit, part of a country (for example, northeast India), a state (Maharashtra in India), or a cluster of states that can be classified as an urban/rural area. Such a region within a country may or may not have fixed and officially endorsed boundaries, but the term is a convenient way to refer to a contiguous land area with one or more common characteristics. The problems addressed in this study are the imbalances or disparities in development between the urban and rural areas of India. Determining the disparities between urban and rural areas is, however, more difficult than it might seem, since it is difficult to define what is urban and what is rural.Researchers have provided different definitions for urban areas but they have not explicitly defined rural areas, rather treating then as an undefined residual (Mainwaring, 1991, 12). Urban areas can include town and cities, by this it could be assessed that rural areas would include villages and hamlets. Rather than defining rural and urban in geographical or demographical term, it may be better to look at the character of the rural and urban society and their corresponding economies. Many economists define areas as urban when the economy of the region is seen to be engaged in non-extractive occupations, for example, industry or commerce (Mainwaring, 1991, 12). Mainwaring (1991) also adds that, unlike rural areas, urban settlements are defined by their advanced opportunities in education, facilities for transport, and overall better standard of living. According to many scholars an area is designated as urban when it reaches a certain population size (for example, 500 residents) or when its population density reaches a certain level (for example, 100 per square kilometer) (Ghosh, 2006, 36). However, this can vary from developed countries to developing countries. But in India, urban cities must include at least 50,000 residents with 1,500 or more people per square kilometer (Ghosh, 2006). Based on this we can group and classify various cities of India as urban or rural. For this essay, the country (India) would be divided into two different regions (urban and rural). These regions would consist of sixteen major states of the country, which account for above 95 percent of the total population of India (Census Data Summary, 2011). This categorization of states would be based on the above the definition of rural and urban areas. The urban region would be comprised of 5 states: Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat. The rural region would be comprised of 11 states: Punjab, West Bengal, Assam, Orissa, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and Karnataka. About 77 per cent of the Indian population lives in villages (Census Data Summary, 2011). When travelling through this subcontinent, one can really visualize the difference between rural and urban India; thus uneven development in the country. There is a big difference between urban and rural India. One of the major differences that can be seen between rural India and urban India is in their standards of living. People living in urban India have better living conditions than those living in the rural parts of India. There is a wide economic gap between rural and urban India. Rural India is very poor when compared to urban India.Another difference that can be seen between urban and rural India, is education. In rural India, the parents seldom educate their children, and instead, make their children work in the fields. Poverty and lack of sufficient infrastructure can be attributed to the lack of education in rural India. When considering homes, about three quarters of the households in urban India live in pucca (means solid or permanent in Hindi) homes (Dankedar, 2006, 34). The source also claims that, on the other hand, only a quarter of the people in rural India live in pucca homes. While groundwater is the main source of drinking water in rural India, the urban people rely more on tap water. Urban India is almost electrified when compared to rural India. One can even come across villages where electric power is not yet available. Sanitary facilities are very limited in rural India. About 90 per cent of the households in rural India do not have proper washrooms, but this is not the case in urban India (Datt, 2002). With regards to health care, rural India lacks good hospitals when compared to urban India. Some of the rural areas even lack a dispensary. From the above, its explicit that India is unevenly developed. Most of the development has not yet reached the rural parts of the country.Many of these striking regional disparities can be seen due to difference in natural resources, growth rate, policy structure, political reform, social and cultural traditions and etc. Assessing development and tracking history is imperative in understanding the current social conditions of India; and the political and public policies that are shaping the socio economic development process of the country. In this venture, it is important to study the various development indicators separately in order to obtain a good measuring stick, through which I can rank India on the development ladder.

Poverty LevelPoverty level indicates the number of people with low purchasing power and lack of access to basic amenities like drinking water, health care, education, and etc (Dankedar, 2006). The World Bank Development Indicator report (2004) estimates that in India, more than 300 million inhabitants of the nearly 1.2 billion population lives in extreme poverty, earning less than $1 per day (DCosta, 2011, 242). Manikandan (2011) claims that, of these figures, 232.9 million reside in the rural areas and 67.1 million in the urban areas. More than 77% of the poor Indian resides in villages and hamlets (Census Data Summary, 2011). The poverty level is below 10% in urban states like Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab and etc.; whereas, it is approximately 50% in rural states like Bihar, Orissa, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and others (Bruce, 2011). The source also claims that, four out of every ten people are poor in Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, and Arunachal Pradesh. One way of assessing the disparities between urban and rural areas is to look at the percentages of the urban and the rural population that are living below the poverty line. The table below shows the trend in widespread regional disparities in the level of poverty, since the independence of India (1947) to the early 21st century. Despite the drop in the number of poor rural population, in some period of history, there have always been wide disparities between the percentages of rural and urban population below the poverty line.Poverty Ratio %Number of poor people (million)

UrbanRuralUrbanRural

1947-195724.949.260.0244.0

1958-196824.847.564.6231.9

1969-197922.647.870.9231.0

1980-199013.434.275.2231.3

1991-20018.333.776.3267.5

Source: (Dankedar, 2006)After Independence, governmental policies had little effect on reducing poverty in rural India. From 1947 to mid1979, the poverty level grew to about 50% and showed no clear sign of decline (Dankedar, 2006). Dankedar also adds that, the 1980s showed a significant decline in poverty: about 13% in a decade. Land reforms, robust agricultural growth and export contributed to this decline. Since the economic reforms in the 1990s urban development had been robust and dramatic, but poverty level show only a marginal decline in the rural sector of India (Dankedar, 2006). Infact, there is evidence that poverty actually increased during the early 1990s and it was only after 1998 that there was a clear indication of declining poverty (Deaton & Dreze, 2010). Rural regions continuing dependence on agriculture, which employs 60% of the total rural labor force and contribute only 20% to nation GDP has been cited as one of the prime reasons for persistent poverty (Bruce, 2011). Bruce also adds that, The jobs created since liberalization have been mainly in the service sector, giving little scope for the millions of illiterate or semi-literate population to reap the benefits of an open economy (392).

Source: (Datt, 2002, 102)Due to the recent economic growth, poverty level has drastically been reduced in the urban areas of the country; but poverty level has not been reduced at the same pace in the rural regions of the country. The above map shows region-wise people below poverty line. It is evident from the map that the poverty is high in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar and parts of Uttar Pradesh. The main causes of rural poverty are seen to be the inadequate and ineffective implementation of anti-poverty programs by government. Since the 1970s the Indian government has made poverty reduction a priority in its development planning (Agarwal, 2006). Agarwal also claims that these policies have focused on improving the poor standard of living by ensuring food security, promoting self-employment, increasing wages and improving access to basic social services. All these policies have been very affective in alleviating the standard of living and eliminating poverty in the urban sector of the country. However, these policies have been quiet futile in the rural sector, where a vast majority of the population survives on agriculture. Peoples living conditions have been deteriorated because of environmental degradation, stock depletion and vulnerability to natural disasters (Datt, 2002, 91). Governments long term poverty reduction policies and strategies should focus on making development more inclusive.

Literacy and Education LevelLiteracy rate measures the human capital (i.e. productive skills and knowledge) of the population (Zaidi & Salam, 2008). More literate population generally shows lower birthrate per woman, lesser infant mortality and has better access economic activities. India has some of the widest regional disparities in education. In India, average enrolment ratio is estimated to be 88.8% (Census Data Summary, 2011). Bihar has the lowest level of enrollment ratio (39.5%), followed by Rajasthan (42.5%) and Uttar Pradesh (49.9%) (Bruce, 2011). Bruce also claims that the highest levels of enrollment are achieved in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Delhi, raging over 125.1%. Two third of the boys and three fourths of the girls in Uttar Pradesh are illiterate (Manikandan, 2011). Manikandan also adds in his article that, in the states of Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the gender gap in enrolment was 56 per cent or more than in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Back in the 1950s, the literacy rate was just above 18% in the rural regions and 21.4% in the urban (Kar & Sakthive, 2004). The authors also claim that between 1950s and 1980s, India has not seen more than 10%, on average, increase in literacy rate, in both regions. However, since the economic reform in the 1990s there has been a drastic increase in the percentage of urban literary, jumping to over 90%; however, growth in rural literacy rate has been very slow even stagnant (see graph below) (Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in India, 2005).

Source: (Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in India, 2005)

In India the literacy level in the urban areas is 60 per cent higher than in the rural areas (Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in India, 2005). On average, children attend school for almost six years in urban areas, but only for three years in the villages. However, adult illiteracy rates in rural areas are twice as high as those in cities (Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in India, 2005). In a country like India, where the economy is in transition or undergoing structural adjustment, governments often allocate fewer public funds for education, esp. in rural regions, and introduce user fees. This affects rural areas, in particular remote rural areas, more than the urban areas, and increases rural-urban disparities. The introduction of user fees creates more hurdles for the poor to attain education. Due to lack of access to knowledge and information, the rural population is deprived from participating in the political decision making processes that affect their lives.A survey also showed that the learning level of children is dismally in many states of India (Rural Development in India, 1999). According to the survey, these states where, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The survey also states that, about two-thirds of the students aged between 7-14 couldnt read a story at grade 2 level, and about 40% of them couldnt do basic subtraction and division (Rural Development in India, 1999). Dropout rates at primary schools still remain high in many rural areas. To achieve overall development, government should reform its policies to ensure that everyone is entitled to gain education, in both rural and urban areas, and that all children enrolled in schools should learn well and complete their primacy education.

Life Expectancy and HealthThe healthier a person is, the longer he or she lives. The average life expectancy of population indicates the physical health conditions of the people. Wealthier population can afford private medical care and generally live longer, while the long life of poor crucially depends on conditions of public health, nutrition and sanitation services of their country. India has seen a dramatic increase in life expectancy at birth after the 1950s, in both urban and rural areas (Zaidi & Salam 2008). Both urban and rural areas now show a relatively less variation in their life expectancy level. Bihar, whose life expectancy is, 61 years falls slightly behind Maharashtra which is 66 years (Zaidi & Salam 2008). The authors, in their article, add that even Madhya Pradesh, which is known to have the lowest life expectancy of 55 years, is not far behind. Swaminathan Iyer argues that, increased longevity has been the greatest single benefit to Indian citizens since independence, a benefit spread across all regions and income levels (Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in India, 2005) A world of caution has to be exercised before generalizing an increase in longevity to excellent public health. There are many other indicators of public health like infact mortality, maternal mortality and malnutrition in which India lags behind. In the name of economic reform and structural adjustment, the government spending on public health has infact decreased after the economic liberalization of the country (Agarwal, 2006). Agarwal also claims that India only spends 1% of its GDP on the public health sector of the rural region and approximately 2.7% on the urban public health sector. There are only 25 doctors per 10,000 people in the rural region and approximately 40 doctors per 10,000 people in the urban areas (Bruce, 2011). This scarcity of doctors can be addressed if the government subsidizes more medical colleges and hospitals. Life expectancy at birth and public health services are one of the most widely used variable in the field of human development. It can be assessed that India is witnessing an uneven development, in regards to it economic and human development statistics. Besides experiencing a lack of public health facility the poor in India have the difficulties of accessing services such as clean water supply (Agarwal, 2006). These services are essential for a healthy life. Lall & Chakravorty (2005) claims that, on the average, 62.7 % of households in Indias urban have the facility of pure drinking water. Maharashtra and Kerala are the most developed in this aspect and Orrisa is at the very bottom of the ladder. Only 6% of households in Orissa have the facility of safe drinking water (Lall & Chakravorty, 2005). As a result, many poor people are in poor health and this limits their ability to improve themselves. Some services, for example, water supply or health care, are so essential that the urban are prepared to buy them from private providers at much higher prices when water is not available for some reason. But how would a poor afford that? Access to safe drinking water, adequate sanitation and health care is a problem for the rural population of India. The urban population has generally much better access to such services than the rural population. Only when India is able to address the above issues, can it hope that its people will be healthier while the country is getting wealthier.

Fertility Rate and Population GrowthEver since independence, Indias population growth has been recognized as one of the major obstacle in its developmental path (Dutt, 1992). Dutt claims that Indias population has increased three-folds since independence (1947). Population is unevenly distributed in urban and rural areas of India. In a country like India, majority of the population live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for livelihood. According to 2001 census, the total population in rural areas of India is 742,490,639, which is 72.2% of the total population; whereas, total urban population is 286, 119, 686, which accounts for 27.8% of the countrys total population (Census Data Summary, 2011). The source also claims that, in next decade, rural population is estimated to increase by 12.4%; whereas urban population would increase by only 5.5%. One of the prime factors determining the population growth is the average number of children a woman bears in her lifetime, i.e. known as total fertility rate (Mainwaring, 1991). Currently India has a total fertility rate of 2.96 which is slightly above the world average (Census Data Summary, 2011). According to Zaidi & Salam (2008), the population of India would begin to stabilize if the total fertility rate reaches below the replacement level of 2.1. There is an astonishing regional diversity within India with regards to birth rate. Many urban regions, such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu have performed well in controlling their fertility rate, reaching to 1.7 and 1.8 respectively (Dasgupta & Mohan, 2004). The authors also claims that other urban states such as Karnatka, Maharashtra, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh are on the threshold of reaching the replacement level; however, rural regions such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, have a striking high birth rate, with all of them above 4 (see graph below).

Source: (Birth Rate in India, 2001)Indian rural couples have a higher fertility (5.7) than urban couples (2.2) (Bruce, 2011). Approximately 75% more births occur in rural areas in comparison to urban areas (Rural Development in India, 1999). A major reason behind such urban-rural diversity in term of fertility rate is due to the negligence of policy makers in promoting female literacy in the rural sector of the country. Female literacy is seen as one of the prime drivers of human development. In India, the female literacy rate in rural and urban areas has wide variation. In the urban areas of the country, female literacy rate is 79.92% and in the rural areas it is only 58.75% (Ghosh 2006). Rural states have a greater gender disparity as well, leading to lower human development. The government has failed in spreading awareness about family planning, reproduction and sex education, and etc in the rural areas of the country.

Human Development Index

The UN-Human Development Report notes, Physical expansion of economy, as measured by per capita GDP, does not necessarily mean that people are better off in the larger sense of the term, especially with regard to health, freedom, education and leisure time (Zaidi & Salam, 2008, 448). People are the real wealth of a nation. Many countries in the world have shown good social development in spite of relatively poor economic conditions; for India the opposite appears to be true. To measure the quality of life, Zaidi & Salam (2008) used the composite index called the Human Development Index (HDI). According to the authors, HDI (a number between 0 and 1) is based on a combination of factors like literacy, education level, life expectancy and per capita income. Countries with HDI greater than 0.8 are typically considered developed countries, 0.5 or below indicate an underdeveloped country (Zaidi & Salam, 2008). The authors also claim that India, as a whole, has an average HDI of 0.63 (medium). Indias high GDP growth, in the urban sector, contrasts with the poor human development, in the rural regions. The UNDP report adds, Pervasive gender inequalities, interacting with rural poverty and inequalities among states are undermining the growth into human development (Zaidi & Salam, 2008, 457).Regional disparities are clearly reflected in the varying degree of uneven development, between the urban and rural regions. With an HDI of 0.85, Delhi is comparable to some European countries in its quality of life, and high social and economic growth (Zaidi & Salam, 2008). Contrastingly, some economically and socially progressive states like Maharashtra and Kerala where unable to beat the development of Delhi. States in the rural region, such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and etc, fall at the very bottom of the state HDI ranking (Kar & Sakthive, 2004). Indias failure in raising human development reflects the myopic vision of political leaders and policy makers; to them per capita growth has overshadowed the need for equity and inclusiveness (Ghosh, 2006, 12). The ICDS (Integrated Child Development Scheme), considered the largest nutritional program in the world, has failed to deliver, nationwide, due to poor governance and widespread corruption (Manikandan, 2011). Public schools in many states, of the rural region, are unsuccessful in checking the high the dropout rates. Hardly 40% of the grains under the PDS (Public Distribution System) ever reach the people residing in the rural regions (Manikandan, 2011). Its usually the better off and the powerful that benefits from developmental plans than the poors, resulting in increased unevenness. All these inefficiencies and inadequacies are reflected in the HDI of both the rural and urban sector of the country.

ConclusionIn general, development can be viewed as a multi-dimensional phenomenon (What is Development, 2011) . In this paper four development indicators, such as level of poverty, literacy rate, life expectancy and health services, and fertility rate and population growth, where been used in order to assess the level of developmental in the India. The statistical data and findings, on the above development indicators, support the perception that India is going through uneven development, based on rural and urban analysis. The liberalization and globalization of the Indian economy created enormous opportunity for the educated urban population of the country; most of the poor rural population where left untouched by the wave of liberalization. The economic growth did not create opportunities, in the manufacturing or service jobs, for the illiterate rural population. The process of uneven development increased inequality and social unrest in the country. To achieve inclusive/overall development, public policies should focus towards investing in the human capital of the rural population. To have an overall development, important factors such as education, availability of food, safe drinking water, health care infrastructure, and etc needs to be provided to both rural and urban population. It is also found that enrollment ratio cannot be raised unless basic minimum needs of the people are satisfied (Zaidi & Salam, 2008). Therefore, true development requires government to take actions in improving elementary education, safe drinking water facilities and health care, and to remove barriers against women, especially. The wide disparities in the socio economic development process, between the urban and rural regions of India, leads to uneven development in India. Some urban states are better off in terms of economic development, while states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have shown remarkable decline in both its social and economic growth process. The role of social development such a literacy (and particularly of female literacy) in promoting basic capabilities emerges as the prerequisite to overall development (Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in India, 2005). Entitlement to basic commodities and services also differ significantly among regions. These results clearly emphasize a well functioning public policy that focuses towards improving the overall living conditions of the people in the country. Delhis success can be attributed to the role of government in promoting education, status of women, and provisions for health care and other services, in order to attain economic growth in the region.The condition of rural region states, such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Uttar Pradesh and etc, on the other hand, is the result of negligence by the government in promoting social and economic opportunities. Thus the overall results clearly stresses that economic reforms alone are not sufficient for overall development unless it is accompanied by human development. Overall, development requires government to take action in improving education, especially for the younger generation, in both rural and urban regions. Although, economic growth in terms of gross national product and other related variables is one of the most fundamental input to the overall development process; however, the basic objective of development should also focus on the human aspect of the overall country. This process has been neglected in India for quite long and could be said as the underlining cause of uneven development process in the worlds fastest growing country.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, A. N. (2006). Indian Economy: Problems of Development and Planning. New Delhi: Wilney Eastern Limited.

Birth Rate in India. (2001). Maps of India: Indias No.1Maps Site. Retrieved from

Bruce, J. (2011). Why has Economic Growth been more anti-poor in some states of India than Others? Journal of Development, 68, 381-400.

Census Data Summary. (2011). Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. Retrieved from

Dankedar, V. M. (2006). The Indian Economy, 1947-2004: Population, Poverty and Employment. Vol. 2. New Delhi: Sage Publications Pvt. LTD.

Dasgupta, S. & Mohan, R. (2004). Urban Development in India in the 21st Century: Policies for Accelerating Urban Growth. SCID Working Paper 231. Stanford Center for International Development.

Datt, G. & Ravallion, M. (2002). Has Indias Post-Reform Economic Growth Left the Poor Behind. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 89-108.

DCosta, A. P. (2011). Geography, uneven development and distributive justice: the political economy of IT growth in India. Cambridge Journal of Region, Economy and Society, 4, 237-251.

Deaton, A. & Dreze, J. (2010). Poverty and Inequality in India: A Re-Examination. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(36), 3729-3748.

Dutt, A. K. (1992). The Origins of Uneven Development: The Indian Subcontinent. The American Economic Review, 82.2, 146-150.

Ghosh, M. (2006). Economic Reform, Growth and Regional Divergence in India. India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kar, S. & Sakthive, S. (2004). Uneven Economic Development in India. Working Paper Series No.E/242/2004. New Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth.

Lall, S. & Chakravorty, S. (2005). Industrial Location and Spatial Inequality: Theory and Evidence from India. Review of Development Economics 9(1), 47-68.

Mainwaring, L. (1991). Dynamics of uneven development. Aldershot, Hants, England Brookfield, Vt., USA: Edward Elgar Pub.

Manikandan, K. (2011). Uneven development has left rural pockets in the lurch. The Hindu. Retrieved from < http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/10/stories/2011041062650300.htm>

Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in India. (2005). Unicef: India. Retrieved from < http://www.unicef.org/india/about_unicef_3696.htm>

Rao, G. M. (2000). Economic Development in India: New Perspectives on Progress and Change. Asia-Pacific Development Journal, 7( 2), 59-74.

Ravallion, M. (2005). Employment Guarantee in Urban India: What would it cost and how much would it help rural? Economic and Political weekly, 2, 3450-3455.

Rural Development in India. (1999). Government of Tamil Nadu, State Planning Commission. Chennai.

What is Development? (2011). The World Bank: working for a world free poverty. Retrieved from

Zaidi, N. A. & Salam, M. A. (2008). Human Development in India; A regional Comparison. Indian Journal of Economics, LXXVIII (311), 447-460.

Page | 1