Indian Economy, 5th edition (20 page)

1.
J.K. Galbraith,
A History of Economics,
Penguin Books, London, 1991, p. 187.

2.
Bipan Chandra,
The Colonial Legacy
in Bimal Jalan edited
The Indian Economy: Problems and Prospects,
op. cit, p. 30.

3.
Arjun Sengupta,
The
p
lanning Regime since 1951
in N.N. Vohra and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya edited
Looking Back: India in the Twentieth Century,
NBT, N. Delhi, 2001, p. 121.

4.
Seventh Five Year Plan (1985–90),
Planning Commission, GoI, 1985.

5.
The 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Plans,
Planning Commission, GoI, N. Delhi.

6.
Sumit Sarkar,
Modern India: 1855–1947,
Macmillan, N. Delhi, 1983, pp. 360–361.

7.
Bipan Chandra et.al,
India After Independence, 1947–2000,
Penguin Books, N. Delhi, 2000, p. 341.

8.
A. Vaidyanathan.
The Indian Economy Since Independence (1947–70),
in Dharma Kumar edited The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol.II, Cambridge University Press, England, 1983, p. 949.

9.
Sumit Sarkar,
Modern India
,
op. cit, p. 360.

10.
The Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
Publications, Division, GoI, N. Delhi, 1975, p. 2.

11.
The Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
op.cit, p. 2–3.

12.
There was a popular view in favour of rapid industrialisation among the important nationalists, economists and the business class of that time.

13.
The Board was set up by the Interim Government formed in 1946 itself.

14.
Dharma Kumar (ed.),
The
c
ambridge Economic History of India, Vol.II
op. cit, p. 950.

15.
Dr. Kalikinkar Datta,
An Advanced History of India,
4th Edition, Macmillan, N. Delhi, 2006, pp. 955–56.

16.
S.N. Jha and P.C. Mathur (eds.),
Decentralisation and
l
ocal Politics,
Sage Publications, N. Delhi, 2002, pp. 28–33.

17.
A. H. Hanson,
The Process of Planning: A
s
tudy of India’s Five-Year Plans, 1950–1964,
Oxford University Press, London, 1966, pp. 152–55.

18.
Bipan Chandra,
The Colonial Legacy
in Bimal Jalan edited,
Indian Economy Problems and Prospects,
op.cit, p. 23.

19.
Partha Chatterjee,
Devolepment Planning and the Indian Planning
in Partha
c
hatterjee edited
State and Politics in India,
Oxford University Press, N. Delhi, 1997, p. 273.

20.
Rakesh Mohan,
Industrial Policy and Controls
in Bimal Jalan edited
Indian Economy: Problems and Prospects,
1992, p. 100.

21.
Bipan Chandra in Bimal Jalan edited, op.cit, pp. 23–31.

22.
Dharma Kumar, 1983, op.cit, p. 949.

23.
Partha Chatterjee, op.cit, p. 275.

24.
S. K. Ray,
Indian Economy,
Prentice-Hall, N. Delhi, 1987, p. 369.

25.
A.H. Hanson, 1966, op.cit, p. 175.

26.
George Mathew,
Power to the People
in M.K. Santhanam edited,
50
Years of Indian Republic,
Publications Division, GoI, N. Delhi, 2000, p. 32.

27.
L.C. Jain, et al.,
Grass
w
ithout Roots,
Sage Publications, N. Delhi, 1985.

28.
A. H. Hanson, 1966, op. cit, p. 180.

29.
Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
op.cit, p. 5.

30.
Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
op.cit, p. 5.

31.
Gazetter of India, Vol.3,
op.cit, p. 5.

32.
Gazetter of India, Vol.3,
op.cit, pp. 7–10

33.
Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
op.cit, pp. 7–10.

34.
Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, May 1999. It is interesting to note here that the composition of the polity in Centre was dominated by the BJP while the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission was K.C. Pant (an old congress man) – continuity in the basic ideas and objectives of planning being maintained.

35.
India,
various years taken together, Publications Division, GoI, N. Delhi.

36.
Duely discussed by the NPC as well as the Constituent Assembly.

37.
National Planning Committee Report;
Also Nehru in
The Discovery of India.

38.
The Preamble was declared by the Supreme Court as an
integral part of the Constitution
and any amendments amounting to a change in its meaning and spirit amounted to the violation of the ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution (Keshvanand Barti, 1973 and S.R. Bommai, 1994 cases). This further magnified the objectives and role of Planning in India.

39.
As the different Articles of the Directive Principles got interpreted being complementary parts of the Fundamental Rights, their enforcement became obligatory for the Governments in coming times-still broadening the objectives of planning in the country.

40.
Distribution of
l
egislative
p
ower, List-III, Entry 20.

41.
Though formal planning commenced in the fiscal 1951–52, the planning has already commenced with the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1948. More so, the Prime Minister of India who headed the NPC had already taken firm decision that India would be a planned economy by August 1937 (Congress Working Committee, Wardha) itself. Thus, the economy takes its first wink in the planned era!

42.
Alan W. Evans,
Economics and Planning,
in Jean Forbes (ed.)
s
tudies in Social Science and Planning,
Scottish Academy Press, Edinburgh, 1972, p. 121.

43.
Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
p.10, op. cit. The confusion regarding the time of setting up the PC needs to be settled. According to Bipon Chandra et al. (
India After Independence, p. 343, op. cit.
) the PC was set up in January 1950. Kalikinkar Datta (
An Advanced History of India, p. 956, op. cit.
) and S.R. Maheshwari (
Indian Administration, Orient Longman, N. Delh, 2002, p.121
) support the
Gazetteer of India
view. While A. Vaidya nathan (Dharma Kumar edited,
The Cambridge Economic History of India, p. 949, op. cit.
) considers the PC to be set up in January 1950.

44.
He was later given a
c
abinet rank in the Union Council of Minister.

45.
Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
p.11, op. cit.

46.
India 2008,
Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, GoI, N. Delhi, p. 676.

47.
There was a provision of only
three
Cabinet Ministers as its
ex-officio
members namely the finance, Human Resource Development and Defence upto July 2004 when the United Progressive Alliance Government increased it to include the other
three
cabinet Ministers-the Railways, Agriculture and Information Technology. It has been only once in the history of the PC that it had
six
Cabinet Ministers as its ex-officio members i.e. in the final years of the Rajiv Gandhi regime (
The Economic Times, 16 July 2004, N. Delhi Edition
).

48.
Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
p.11, op.cit.

49.
Prima facie a body should be either constitutional or statutory to wield the executive powers but as a number of Cabinet Ministers as well as the PM himself are directly involved with the PC it wields execudive powers for all practical purposes.

50.
Report of the Fourth
f
inance Commission
(with P.J. Rajamannar as its
c
hairman), GoI, N. Delhi, 1965, pp. 88–90.

51.
By 1950s it was a general criticism of the PC which looked highly logical. But through the entire period of planning the Governments never did think to convert the PC into a constitutional body. Practically enough, the Union cabinet and the whole Government is accountable to the Parliament for the functions of the PC as it has complete mandate and support of the Governments of the time.

52.
Appleby,
Public Administration in India: Report of A Survey
, Ford Foundation, 1953, p. 22.

53.
As quoted in D.D. Basu,
An Introduction to the Constitution of India,
Wadhwa & Company, N. Delhi, 1999, p. 330.

54.
Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
pp. 10–11, op.cit.

55.
It is not uselessly that the Government decides to call in Montek Singh Ahluwalia, an economist of international repute to officiate as the Deputy chairman of the PC. Every idea and opinion of Mr. Ahluwalia is today understood by the coalition partners of the Central Government as a thing the Government is necessarily going to implement in future. One can imagine the increased role of the office and the PC, both, by this. There is always a hue and cry every time the Deputy Chairman articulates an idea or opinion. Though the PC is chaired by the PM, it seems that the Deputy Chairman has started availing enough autonomy to speak his mind.

56.
It is not uselessly that the Government decides to call in Montek Singh Ahluwalia, an economist of international repute to officiate as the Deputy chairman of the PC. Every idea and opinion of Mr. Ahluwalia is today understood by the coalition partners of the Central Government as a thing the Government is necessarily going to implement in future. One can imagine the increased role of the office and the PC, both, by this. There is always a hue and cry every time the Deputy Chairman articulates an idea or opinion. Though the PC is chaired by the PM, it seems that the Deputy Chairman has started availing enough autonomy to speak his mind.

57.
As per the original mandate the PC was supposed to formulate the state plans also. By 1960s, with the decision to follow the multi-level planning (MLP) in the country the states started having their own state planning boards (SPBs).

58.
In setting these targets the concerned states were consulted approach of planning was followed.

59.
Resolution No. 62/CF/50
(06.08.1952), Cabinet Secretariat, GoI, N. Delhi.

60.
First Five Year Plan: A Draft Outline,
PC, GoI, N. Delhi, July 1951, p. 253.

61.
Gazetteer of India, Vol.3,
p. 10 op.cit.

62.
The Advisory Planning Board (1946) set up by the Interim Government had suggested for such a consultative body with the representatives from the provinces, the princely states and some other interests to advise the Planning Commission for the success of planning in India.

63.
Other than the
Cabinet Resolution,
it is also quoted is the
Gazetteer of India, Vol. 3,
p. 15, op.cit.

64.
The
italicised
words are here highlighting the level of the Government’s consciousness about the concerned issues of decentralised planning, regional and individual inequalities to which the planning was to be specially attentive.

65.
George Mathew, undoubtedly among the legendary commentator on the Panchayat Raj/democratic decentralisation calls J.L. Nehru as “its most eminent champion at the national level” (
Power to the
p
eople
in M.K. Santhanam edited
50
y
ears of Indian Republic,
Pub. Div., GoI, 2000, p. 31). Similarly, the reputed historians Bipan Chandra et al. call Nehru as “the greatest champion of planned economic development”– for Nehru the process of planning is the country was to be democratic about which seems very clear, as his writings support (
India After Independence,
Bipan Chandra et.al., p. 341, op.cit.).

66.
Sukhomoy Chakravarti,
Development Planning: The Indian Experience,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1989, pp. 9–11.

67.
C. Rangarajan,
Indian Economy: Essays on Money and Finance,
UBSPD, N. Delhi,
1998, p. 272.

68.
It should be noted here that as per the official version of the Government of India, the planning has been a
continuous process
in the country and there is no term like the ‘Plan Holiday’ in Its official documents. The term was given by the critics and popularised by the contemporary media.

69.
Experts believe this Plan to be somewhat based on the ideas of D.P. Dhar, the Minister for Planning at that time.

70.
As N.N. Vohra remarks.

71.
It should be noted here that there is nothing like the ‘Rolling Plan’ in the official documents of planning in India. Basically, the origin of the concept of the ‘Rolling Plan’ goes back to the period when India went for the Annual Plans (1966–69) for the first time and the critics noted it as a
discontinuity
in the planning process calling it a period of the ‘plan holiday’. The basic trait of the ‘Rolling Plan’ was its
continuity
while the congress commenced its
s
ixth Plan (1980–85) the idea of the ‘Rolling Plan’ was cancelled as for the new Government the element of ‘rolling’ (continuity) was already in the Indian Planning – India was following the approach of the ‘perspective planning’. A separate Division of Perspective Planning was already functioning in the Yojana Bhavan since the mid-1970s. The two elements which make a plan a ‘perspective plan’ are – firstly, the ‘continuity’ and secondly, ‘evaluation - based’ planning. For the Congress Government, logically, the planning in India was not only ‘rolling’ but more than that – evaluation-based, too.