By TFL Mawlong
Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping once said, “It doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice”. It is not ‘ideology’ but ‘utility’ that matters. The same can be said of a government agency. Whether or not the Planning Commission should be scrapped has become a vexed question. Much has been debated about our Prime minister’s desire to dismantle the Planning Commission. In his interaction with the Chief Ministers at his residence in Delhi last Sunday, Modi pushed for a replacement of the Planning Commission panel with a new planning body which he called a ‘Team India’. As expected it was strongly opposed by Congress Chief Ministers, including Dr Mukul Sangma. Arunachal Pradesh CM, Nabam Tuki, in particular, pressed for the continuation of the Planning Commission on ‘ideological’ grounds, calling it a ‘national spirit’, a spirit of accommodation for all as envisioned by Nehru.
Among the public too we have the ‘no-changers’ and the ‘pro-changers.’ The ‘no-changers’ (those who are against scrapping of the Planning Commission) are sceptical. They see the move as unwise and even more as a political move against the hegemony of a dominant party for many decades now. The ‘pro-changers’ (those who advocate doing away with the Commission or at least restructuring it) on the other hand consider this as a rational move and an absolute need of the hour. Circumstances and the situation in India call for replacement of the redundant Planning Commission. This has been argued and thoroughly analyzed by the learned for years now.
So what is it with the no-changers? Is there any element of political prejudice in their status quo-ism? Or is it pure concern for development? It is hard to say anything with certitude. But then again, perhaps it is just that people are sceptically wondering about a kind of new planning body that NDA envisages to replace the Planning Commission. And perhaps people also wonder if there really would be ‘new wine in a new bottle’ as deliberated by the Prime Minister, or would it turn out to be the ‘same old wine in a new bottle’? Well surely that is an important question to ask.
Personally I believe with certitude that the Planning Commission (PC) has become redundant. Formed in 1951 to optimize scarce resources of a new born India, PC has been instrumental in making India a food sufficient and a decently industrialized nation. But presently, conditions have changed. In this era of globalization the role of a planning body needs to be re-evaluated. Today, the need to have a planning agency working on the globally accepted approaches is strongly felt in India. More power and planning should be devolved to the states. The BJP manifesto talks about building 100 smart cities, introduction of bullet trains, industrial corridors across the length and breadth of the country, and building inland waterways to connect NE region with the mainland among many others. To achieve these infrastructural feats, the current planning process needs a rethink. India needs more creativity and innovation.
It has been said that in a complex and diverse country like India, a highly centralized planning is a mockery to the planning process itself and a blow to governance. Every state in India is different and has its own priorities and issues. The Commission designed to go by the central government policies and preferences cannot accommodate the diversities of the elected state governments, thereby hampering development and creating a wide regional imbalance in development. And despite our impressive economic growth, we still have millions of ‘street Arabs.’ 70 % of our population is poor, uneducated and starving. We need to relook at what went wrong with our planning process. It is unwise to not give a fig about the lost charm of the planning commission.
Various committees, commissions and academicians have analyzed the failure of the Planning Commission on varying grounds. The Administrative Reforms Commission observed that over the years the Commission has evolved into a parallel cabinet, a super body of sorts. Gadgil, the former Deputy Chairman of PC, critically said that right from its composition to implementation, the PC has failed. Indeed, the PC which was initially set up as a think tank of experts from every field has today become highly bureaucratic. From the last few decades the implementation of Five Year Plans has not been timely and has been costly. The ‘one size fits all’ approach of the Commission has resulted in inappropriate schemes imposed on states. P V Rajamannar, Chairman of the fourth Finance Commission (FC) highlighted the unhealthy overlapping of functions between the FC and the PC which has strained the centre-state relations. Concerns are being raised and resonated against the parallel role of PC vis-a-vis FC.
Academicians are also among the fierce critics of the PC. Professor Rajni Kothari, a political scientist, while criticizing the PC said, “It has reduced the operational autonomy of states which consequently has changed the shape of Indian federalism. The PC was expected to come out with scientific approach to make plans but the database it used is more unscientific than scientific”. Thus, for instance, we see the unrealistic portrayal of poverty by the PC and the hegemony over states in allocating resources. This has raised the brows of stake holders from states and several other quarters. The departure of the PC from its original designate functions and the role which it was intended to lay was also criticised by Dr. Deepak Nayyar, a JNU Economics professor and former member of PC. He argued that after the third Five Year Plan, the PC has been largely occupied with crisis management than focussing on long term planning. In a nutshell, while planning is always relevant the PC as an institution has become redundant.
So there is a strong case in favour of a change. The pro-changers score on many counts. Thus, writing an obituary for the PC. PM Modi, in his maiden independence speech, announced that a new planning body would be created. This new body will lead the country based on creative thinking, private-public-partnership (PPP), utilization of Indian youth power and promote the aspirations of the state governments for empowerment of the federal structure. Modi aptly called this body, ‘Team India’. I feel that apart from the growth in areas of health, education, life expectancy, employment, environmental issues, infrastructural and industrial development etc, the new institution should also involve planning in areas like checking corruption, ensuring gender equity and security for women in this country etc. It should be remembered that economic problems of a nation do not always have economic solutions. Economy of a nation is conditioned in a large way by its policy framework, social and political set up. A new planning body should therefore be so structured so as to enable it to plan and tackle the problems in a holistic and comprehensive manner..
The epitome of all debates and discussions is to have a realistic, innovative, efficient, educative, and a need based agency (agencies) for socio-economic planning. Experts believe that India needs an institution that can define the strategies and formulate a path to tackle the fundamental problems of the country such as poverty, inequality and corruption etc. Whether that be the PC or a new institution, it is imperative that the body remains free from political influences. Further, as spelled out by the opening lines of this write up, ‘utility is all that matters’. The ideological, physical and practical make up of the body must not be just a decoration but must add to its utility. That is what people would expect from the ‘Team India’ that Modi envisaged.
In conclusion, we have all heard the cliché that ‘the only constant thing is change’. History itself testifies that change is a continuum everywhere and at all times. Given the enormous ‘inertia’ of our massive democracy, changes are bound to be slow. It requires a herculean effort to push for change. But one should understand it is high time that India either restructures the PC or replaces it with a new institution altogether. Thus in the ultimate analysis, either by introducing a ‘new wine in an old bottle’ or a ‘new wine in a brand new bottle’, one way or the other, change must come if the economy and society is to be radically improved. India will do well not to miss the beat. Every quarter must work hand in glove with the government and must stop the habit of looking at everything with a jaundiced eye. This is imperative if we want to keep the wolf from the door of the millions of poor people.