Planning a privilege of the state
Six decades is not a small period to experiment with an institution that is responsible for socio-economic development of the nation, which has abundance of both human and natural resources. The Planning Commission came into existence in 1950 and it is solely responsible for finalising 12 Five-Year Plans for the country. If not pathetic, then the state of economy is at least unsatisfactory as the majority of people are still fighting for their basic needs.
No less than 27 per cent of Indians are below the poverty line. The BPL is flexibly drawn which addresses merely people’s existential condition; health facilities still remain a distant dream for the majority of Indians. The state has no viable plan to resolve the problem of unemployment. In short, we can say that the Planning Commission failed to achieve the goal of an egalitarian society. Poverty exists in abundance. This has been a developmental dilemma of Nehruvian paradigm. Therefore, the radical change in the nature of perspective of planning is required to cope with emerging problems and challenges on socio-economic life of the nation.
When Narendra Modi declared its dissolution on August 15, he or no other person can deny the Planning Commission’s contribution in the early phase after Independence. We all know it was Balwant Rai Mehta and later Ashok Mehta Committee constituted by the Planning Commission that paved the way for economic and political decentralisation. It also suggested land reforms and innovated many schemes including public distribution system for tackling poverty. We require a debate on nature and philosophy of development itself. Therefore, the new institution should come into existence with wider discussion giving opportunities to all segments of the society. Planning Commission itself was not born merely through executive order but almost a decade of discussion led to its formation in 1950.
With the change in the ecology of economic life, the role of the private sector has increased. India is open to FDI. Therefore, new discourse needs to give requisite space to both FDI factor and private capital. The new proposed institution will be more participatory and its horizon will be larger than that of the Planning Commission.
Rakesh Sinha is director, India Policy Foundation
Scrapping it is a knee-jerk decision
Whilst addressing the nation from the Red Fort on Independence Day, Narendra Modi formally announced his long held view of doing away with the Planning Commission. His argument that the Planning Commission was an “old house” incapable of being repaired and hence should be replaced by a “new house” strikes me as an ominous precursor to the “demolition” of many an institution that have helped shape India into a plural, federal democracy. I just hope that in their enthusiasm to become “architects of their narrow idea of Hindustan”, Mr Modi and his team don’t end up damaging the sacrosanct “basic foundation” etched in our Constitution, on which the edifice of this great nation rests.
Those sounding the death knell for the Planning Commission must ask themselves: Doesn’t India owe its thriving public sector with massive investments in basic and heavy industries to the plan panel? Hasn’t it continued to serve India as a strategic body that makes assessment of all resources, augments deficient resources, formulates plans for their effective and balanced utilisation and determines priorities? Hasn’t it been a forum for objective allocation of resources between the Centre and states in an era of competitive coalition politics? Didn’t the 12th Plan script a new note in as far as the participatory process goes, by including almost 1,000 civil society organisations, scores of business associations and dozens of think tanks?
Nobody for a moment can argue against the idea of institutions evolving with time. But in making an arbitrary announcement to scrap the body without putting in place an alternative model first, Mr Modi has taken a knee-jerk and half-baked decision. As for supporters of a man who held dozens of portfolios as Gujarat chief minister, any talk of promoting decentralisation would smack of sheer hypocrisy. Clearly,
Mr Modi’s aim here seems to be the replacement of the Nehruvian welfare state by his Gujarat model of crony capitalism Thank heavens that the Election Commission matches up to these subjective standards Mr Modi has in mind or else there could very well have been an “old house” justification to do away with it too!
Shehzad Poonawalla is a lawyer and activist and has served in the ministry of parliamentary affairs during the UPA government
