Planning in Indian Democracy

Indian Political Science Association
PLANNING IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY

Author(s): S. P. Aiyar
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 24, No. 4 (October-December 1963), pp.
337-346
Published by: Indian Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42743551 .
Accessed: 06/09/2014 03:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Indian Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Indian Journal of Political Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 14.139.122.40 on Sat, 6 Sep 2014 03:00:43 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PLANNING IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY
By
S. P. Aiyar*
The
very
mention of
planning
and freedom
brings
to mind the classic
discussion
by
Fredrich von
Hayek
which stated in a sensational form the
thesis that all
planning
must
necessarily
lead to an
infringement
of indivi-
dual liberties and is in fact a 'Road to Serfdom.' It is now too late in the
day
to revive the
controversy
in the form in which it was
presented by
Hayek.
There
undoubtedly are,
elements of truth in
Hayek's warning
so
far as the collectivistic economic
planning
of the Soviet
type
is concerned.
In the late
forties,
The Road to
Serfdom
was a much discussed book in
India but with
Independence
the
Hayek
thesis was
given
a
quiet
burial not
only
in India but in the other countries of South Asia as well. It is
interesting
to recall that at the seminar on Freedom and
Planning
held at
Rangoon
in
February
1955 under the
auspices
of the
Congress
for Cultural
Freedom,
none of the
participants
even mentioned the name of
Hayek.
At the time when India's Five Year Plan was
launched,
both the
inevitability
of
planning
and the
reconcilability
of
planning
and freedom
were taken for
granted.
It was
argued
that the
very
circumstances of an
underdeveloped country-
its low
saving capacity
and
meagre capital
formation
;
its
untapped
natural and human resources
;
the
range
of the
people's
basic
requirements ;
lack of
popular
initiative and the absence of
a
spirited entrepreneurial
class-
compel energetic
action on the
part
of
government
and call for
systematic
economic
planning.
Further,
the
gigantic
task of
collecting
basic data of
every
kind and
formulating
a
reasonable
plan, carrying
out research and
surveys, reconciling
State
demands and national resources and
adjusting competing regional
demands
call for a central
planning agency.
The case for
planning
was thus
indisputable.
It is
curious, however,
that at the time of the
framing
of the
Constitution,
the
centralising
tendencies of
planned development
were not
foreseen,
or even
thought
of. Item 20 in the Concurrent List mentioned
'socjal
and economic
planning.'
In vain does one look into the debates
of the Constituent
Assembly
for
any
coherent discussion of
planning
or of
the
competing principles
of centralisation and decentralisation. Mr.
Santhanam notes that
planning
did not
figure very
much in the
debates,
although
it was not
quite forgotten.1
*
Lecturer in Civics &
Politics, Bombay University.
1
K. Santhanam : UnionState Relations in India
,
Asia
Publishing House, 1960,
p.
44.
337
338 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
The view that
planning
and freedom are not irreconcilable rested on
the belief that while India could turn with
profit
to the Soviet Union and
later to
Yugoslavia,
for some of the lessons in
planning,
there was no need
to
repeat
their errors. India can- and could- evolve a
pattern
of demo-
cratic
planning
and thus
provide
a model for other
underdeveloped
coun-
tries in South and Southeast Asia.
Elaborating
the
implications
of the
Socialistic Pattern of
Society,
the Second Five Year Plan observed:
"It is not rooted in
any
doctrine or
dogma.
Each
country
has to
develop according
to its own
genius
and traditions. Economic
and social
policy
has to be
shaped
from time to time in the
light
of historical circumstances. It is neither
necessary
nor desirable
that the
economy
should become a monolithic
type
of
organisa-
tion
offering
little
play
for
experimentation
either as to forms or
as to modes of
functioning
What is
important
is a clear sense
of
direction,
a consistent
regard
for certain basic values and a
readiness to
adapt
institutions and
organisations
and their rules
of conduct in the
light
of
experience.'* (pp. 23-24)
Speaking
to the first
meeting
of the Panel of Scientists set
up by
the
Planning Commission,
Mr. Nehru
emphasised
the
importance
of the
democratic
approach
in the
implementation
of the Plan and of the need
to secure the enthusiastic
support
of the
peasants, workers,
intellectuals
and the vast masses of the
people
for its successful execution. "You can-
not
expect
the
peasant
in the field or the workers to understand all the
details of
your
Plan" he said.
"Nevertheless,
it is
important
that even the
peasant
in the field should
appreciate
what we are
doing
and welcome it
and tell us in his own
sphere
whether he considers what we do is
right."2
The reconciliation between
planning
and
democracy
was
sought
to
be achieved
by securing
the maximum
support
from the
people
and
by
evoking
mass
participation.
The latter was the main
objective
in the
programme
of
Community Development
which was launched on Gandhi
Jayanti,
1952.
By 1957, however,
the Balvantrai Mehta Committee drew
attention to the fact that the
Community Development Programme
had
become
purely
administrative in character. It outlined a scheme of
Democratic
Decentralisation or
Panchayati Raj
which formed the basis of
legislation
in a
large
number of States. Studies on
Panchayati Raj vary
greatly
in their evaluation of the extent of
participation
as a result of the
new
experiment.
The Seventh
Report
of the
Programme
Evaluation
Organisation
observed :
"Peoples'
attitudes and reactions in most of the
Community
Development
Blocks are not
yet generally
favourable to the
success and
growth
of the
Community Development Programme.
2
Shriman Narayan
:
Principles of
Gandhian
Planning ,
Kitab
Mahal, 1960, p.
208.
PLANNING IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY 339
The
majority
of the
villages
do not
regard
it as their own
pro-
gramme
and seem to
rely mainly
on the Government for
effecting
the
development
of rural areas. The basic
philosophy
and
approach
of the
Community Development Programme are,
there-
fore, inadequately
subscribed to
by
the
people."
In
1961,
Mrs. Kusum Nair
reported
in her Blossoms in the Dust
,
that
in her extensive visits to several
villages
she found the
people
inert and
indifferent and
"paralysed by
limited
aspirations".
The lack of a sense of
participation
on the
part
of the
people
has been one of the
pronounced
strands in the criticism of Indian
planning.
The Liberal Counter-attack
Although
the five
year plans
rested on the
assumption
of some sort
of "mixed
Economy",
the
objective
of the 'socialistic
pattern
of
society'
has come in for considerable criticism. The
Planning
Commission has
claimed that the
plans
have
enlarged
the
scope
for individual initiative as
well as for
cooperative
and
corporative
effort. The Industrial
Policy
Resolution of
April
1956 indicated the
scope
of the
public
and the
private
sector. The Third Five Year Plan observed that while the
private
sector
has a
large
area in which it could
develop
and
expand
it had to function
within the famework of the national
plan
and in
harmony
with the
national
goals.
Businessmen in India however were alarmed at the
scope
of the
public
sector and saw in the 'socialistic
pattern
of
society'
the dismal
signs
of a future in which
they
would have no
place.
With the establishment of
the Forum of Free
Enterprise
in
1956,
the business section has become
articulate. The establishment of the Swatantra
Party
has
provided
a
powerful platform
for the criticism of the Government's economic
policies.
Criticism of the
planning process
and the
problem
of
planning
and free-
dom are
recurring
themes in the literature
put
out
by
the Forum and the
Swatantra
Party.
In much of this literature the economic liberalism of the
west finds
expression.
One often notices a return to the
arguments
of
Hayek.
In
fact,
the Forum in one of its
pamphlets reprinted
two of
Hayek's essays
on Free
"Enterprise.
Criticism has been levelled
against
the
crippling
effects of
government controls, high taxation, government's
monopoly
over the infra- structure of the
economy, particularly, transporta-
tion,
the
licensing system
and
against
the
expansion
of the
bureaucracy.
All
this,
it is
suggested,
is
leading
to a confirmation of the worst fears of
Hayek. Hayek's
later
thesis,
elaborated in his Constitution of
Liberty,
that
the institution of
private property
is
necessary
for the maintenance of a
free
society
is echoed in some of the
speeches
delivered under the
auspices
of the Forum of Free
Enterprise.
Thus in his
speech
on
Planning for
Prosperity ,
Mr. M. R.
Masani,
General
Secretary
of the Swatantra
Party,
dealt with
the
incompatibility
of a controlled
economy
and the maintenance
of a free
society. Analysing
the Soviet
experiment,
Mr. Masani
warned
against
the
implications
of the
Soviet-type planning, which,
he
alleged,
India had
adopted.
The
Planning Commission,
he
asserted,
had become a
non-responsible super-government.
In
any system
of
planning
for
pros-
perity
there would be no
place
for a
Planning
Commission : "A National
Planning
Commission
making policy
can obtain
only
in the
Soviet-type
of
planning
and not in a democratic
type
of
planning.
It has no
place
in a
free
society,
because what it
logically attemps
to do is to establish a
command
economy."3
In a later talk
arranged by
the
Forum,
in
1961,
Mr. Masani
argued
more
explicitly,
that the
system
of free
enterprise
was
essential for
democracy.
He
put
forward the
interesting
and
very
valuable
thesis that in a
country
like
India,
a free and effective
opposition
is
only
possible by encouraging
"autonomous social forces". These forces are re-
presented by
the
businessmen,
the
factory owners,
the
shopkeepers,
the
peasants
who own the
land, self-employed people
like
lawyers, doctors,
auditors,
architects and their like
-
people
who can stand on their own
legs
and do not have to
depend
on the
government
for their bread and butter.
These are the
people
who constitute effective
opposition, encourage
and
maintain a free
press
and can form
voluntary
associations to criticise the
government.
"Abolish these
classes",
he
said, "by
nationalisation of
private property
and land and
industry
and
you
will
destroy every
autono-
mous social force. Then
everyone
is at the
mercy
of the State. That is
why
a command
economy replaces
not
only
the ballot box of the market
place
but a totalitarian Government
replaces
a democratic
government
provided by
the Constitution."4
Thus after more than a decade of
planning
the
Hayek
thesis has
returned to India with new
vigour.
A variation of the liberal counter-attack is found in the
writings
of
Professor B. R.
Shenoy,
one of India's
leading
economists.
Shenoy
has
argued
that India has turned in
wrong
directions for
inspiration. Planning
for the free
market,
he
says,
has
yielded blinding
economic and social
dividends wherever it has been tried :
"In the
post-war world,
it
produced
the first miracle in West
Germany.
It then
spread,
with as
good
or better
results,
to the
E.E.C,
countries, Israel, Japan, Hong Kong, Spain
and
latterly
the
Philippines...
News from this
powerful
reaction
away
from
statism has not reached Delhi
yet ;
nor the Indian universities
generally,
where economists still
fondly
cherish outmoded
dirigiste doctrines, fancying
them to be the tenets of the nuclear
era. The
Galbraiths, Millikans, Rostows, Wards,
not to mention
3
M. R. Masani :
Planning for Prosperity ,
Forum of Free
Enterprise,
Oct.
1960, p.
5.
4
M. R. Masani : The Future
of
Free
Enterprise
in India
,
Forum of Free
Enterprise,
June
1961,
p.
8.
the
pronounced
left
wingers
like the
Baloghs, Bettieheims, Langes
and Robinsons
-
all sincere friends of India and hot favourites of
our Government
-
through
their
expositions, probably
stand in
the
way
of our
properly appreciating
the tremendous
potentialities
of
planning
for the free maiket under the
aegis
of consumer
sovereignty.
The illicit beneficiaries of
planning,
now the
power
behind the
throne,
who
too,
are
champions
of mass
prosperity,
are another
great
hurdle to overcome. But neither economic nor
social salvation is
possible except through policies
of economic
and social reform."5
Although
there is much that is relevant in the
arguments
of this
liberal
school,
there is a natural
tendency
to
exaggerate
and
argue
out the
Road to Serfdom thesis. There is
hardly any
collectivistic economic
planning
in India as
yet.
Professor D. R.
Gadgil rightly points
out that
the
public
sector in India is still
very
small and that the
apparatus
of
controls,
allocations etc. is still
very meagre
and inefficient. The
power
of
the State to
regulate
the economic
activity
is much less than in the
countries of Western
Europe
which are said to have
unplanned
economies.6
It is also
necessary
to
point
out that the business
community
in India has
yet
to
develop
a standard of ethics and a coherent
public philosophy.
It is
interesting
to note that one of the
important things
done
by
the Forum of
Free
Enterprise
has been the
drawing up
of a code of conduct.
The
Bureaucracy
in Planned
Development
An
interesting
line of criticism is taken
by
Professor
Joseph
La
Palombara who
argues
that in
many
of the
developing
countries the
predominant
role of the
bureaucracy
has been
accepted
as inevitable and
that the
expansion
of the
bureaucracy prevents
the
development
of an
effective infra-structure of
democracy.
The situation is worsened and is
rendered even more vulnerable
by
the dominance of a
single party
and the
failure to revitalise local-level forms of
political participation
and involve-
ment. He
points
out to the
difficulty
of
concentrating
on both the
economic
development
of the
country
and on the
growth
of
democratic
political
institutions. In the event of a conflict between these
goals (which
are
probably incompatible)
when the nation is in a dilemma as to the
choice of
competing goals,
the decision is
inevitably
in favour of
the
economic at the
expense
of the
political.
Professor La Palombara
suggests
a de-
emphasis
on the economic
programme
and
greater
attention
being
paid
to individual and local level economic
change
which
might
evolve on
5
B. R. Shenoy
:

'Consumer
Sovereignty
leads to
Rapid
Economic
Development".
Article written for
Syndication by
the Indian News and Feature Alliance
(INFA)
and
reprinted by
the Forum of Free
Enterprise, July
1962.
6
D. R.
Gadgil
:
Planning
and
Economi
Policy
in India
,
Asia
Publishing
House,
J961? p.
xii.
a more
sporadic, piece-meal
basis. He even
argues
the
possibility
of deve-
loping "important
attitudes
concerning
the freedom and the
dignity
of the
individual in the
developing
countries"
by encouraging
"the kind of
economic
enterprise
that is
individually
rather than
collectively oriented,
that exalts the
place
of the
private entrepreneur
rather than that of an all-
embracing collectivity symbolised by gigantic, unwieldy,
and
unbending
government."
This
policy
of
developing
a national
bourgeoisie
will
require,
he
admits,
"the
genuine integration
and assimilation into the
social
system
of the now
harassed, bedeviled,
and
persecuted pariah
entrepreneurial groups."7
Although
Professor La Palombara's
suggestion
of
de-emphasising
the
economic
goals
is
hardly likely
to command assent
(as
he himself
admits),
it must be conceded that there is substance in his
charge
that the bureau-
cracy prevents
the
growth
of the infra-structure of
democracy.
In
the
developing
countries, voluntary
associations tend to become
passive
instruments of the
public
administrator rather than checks on the bureau-
cracy.
I would like to illustrate this in one area of which I have first-hand
experience.
In
Bombay's large housing colonies, managed by
the Maha-
rashtra
Housing Board,
the tenants have constituted themselves into
associations which are
supposed
to constitute the links between themselves
and the officials of the
Housing
Board.
Formally, they
are free and
voluntary
associations but in their actual
working they display
a
pathetic
dependence
on the officials of the
Housing
Board.
Many factors,
undoub-
tedly,
contribute to this state of affairs. The tenants entered into a one-
sided
agreement
with the Board in which the latter can evict them on a
large
number of reasons. The tenants for the most
part
were
compelled
to
accept
these
agreements
for
they
had no real alternative.
They
were in fact
grateful
to the Government for the humble accommodation which it had
provided
for them. Officials have even rubbed in this fact when com-
plaints
were made to them : "You came here with
open eyes ;
we did not
compel you
; you signed
the
agreement
on
your
own. You have therefore
no cause to
complain."
The tenants are
dependent
on the Board's
officials for all the basic necessities and are therefore inhibited in
pressing
their demands for
improvements,
lest
they antagonise
the officials.
Complaints
are often taken as a reflection on the
efficiency
of the Board
and of its officials.
Complaints
are
hardly
attended to
seriously.
The
working
of these tenants associations well illustrates the threat to
personal
liberties involved in the
expansion
of an inefficient
bureaucracy
which is
insufficiently positive
in its
approach.
Another
aspect
of the
working
of these associations needs to be
7
Joseph
La Palombara :
"Bureaucracy
and Political
Development
: Notes, Queries,
and Dilemmas" in
Bureaucracy
and Political
Development ,
Princeton
University
Press, 1963, pp.
57-58,
mentioned if
only
because
they
are
symptomatic
of a
general malady
in
Indian social and
political
life.
The officials often interfere in the
voluntary
activities of the association. In one situation which the writer
can
vividly recall,
an official of the
Housing
Board came to the
colony
a
few
days
before
Independence Day
to
inquire
into the
arrangements
which
were
being
made for the
flag-hoisting ceremony
and for the
reception
of
the minister who had been invited for the occasion. The official not
only
made the
inquiries
-
which is reasonable
-
but went on to
suggest
all the
details,
as to who should be
invited,
how the
seating arrangements
were to
be made for the little tea which was to be
given,
and so on. At the same
time he was
interjecting
the observation : "This is
really your function,
we
are
only
the invitees !" On occasions like
this,
one
gets
the
impression
that
the tenants association functions more for the convenience of the
Housing
Board than for the welfare of the tenants.
To be fair to the
officials, however,
it needs to be
pointed
out that
for this state of
affairs,
the tenants are themselves
largely responsible.
They
can
hardly
ever think of
any
function without
making
efforts to
invite a minister or the Board's officials. In one
instance,
the Minister for
Housing
had been invited to throw
open
a
garden
which
hardly
existed.
A few flower
pots
were hired to mark the
spot
and the minister
presided
over the farce.
Inquiry
has revealed that this is done as
part
of a
strategy
which the tenants have evolved in their
all-too-helpless
condition. Since
officials will not listen to their
grievances,
the
slightest pretext
for
inviting
the Minister is seized
upon.
On one
occasion,
the Board's official
having
sensed such a motive warned the tenants that the
flag-hoisting ceremony
ought
not to be used for
lodging complaints
!
Whatever the reason for this
practice,
the habit of
inviting
officials
or ministers for
every
function seems to have become a national trait. No
less than the officials of the
Housing
Board succeeded on one occasion to
invite the President of India to throw
open
a
Community
Hall
put up by
the
Housing
Board. The habit of
inviting representatives
of the
bureaucracy
or
politicians
has the effect of
keeping Big
Government
perpetually
before the
eyes
of the
people.
No association is considered
important
or
worthy
of
support
unless the Governor of the State is the
patron
and the Chief Minister its chairman. Even research bodies set
up
to
carry
out
independent
research on their own often load their executive
committees with officials with the result that it colours the
quality
of the
research which
emerges
from such institutions. At student functions and
college
associations and even at seminars and conferences of learned
bodies,
it is the
politician
and the official who must be invited to
inaugu-
rate them. A certain
magnified conception
of the "sarkar" has become
part
and
parcel
of the mental
make-up
of the Indian mind
-
of the
intellectuals as well as of the masses. The
expansion
of
government
due
to
planning
has accentuated this element.
Planning
and Freedom
The conflict between
planning
and freedom is often
regarded
as a
matter of academic interest and in recent
years
it is
only
the business
community
which has raised the
problem.
The intellectuals have for the
most
part accepted
the
inevitability
of
planning
and have no
sympathy
for
the
point
of view of the businessman. There are several reasons for this
attitude. A few of them
may
be indicated. In India the businessman has
traditionally
been
regarded
as anti-social in his activities
;
for this
image
of
the businessman he is himself
largely responsible.
A
survey
conducted in
1956
by
the Indian Institute of Public
Opinion
in West
Bengal
and Delhi
revealed a
general antagonism
towards the
private
sector. The
greatest
hostility
came from those in the
professions e.g., clerical,
from students
and urban workers. It was also found that
hostility
increased with
education
-
university graduates being
more hostile than illiterate
people.8
Henry
Schloss
points
out further that
during
the British
period
much of
the business was in the hands of the British or of the
highly
westernized
Indian elite. Thus
during
the
struggle
era an anti-British and an anti-
business attitude became
one.9
The
dangers
"of
planning
in India come from the
expansion
of an
outmoded
bureaucracy
whose traditional methods of work are
likely
to
produce
frustrations and frictions as
government
activities
begin
to touch
the lives of the
people
at a
larger
number of
points.
The
multiplication
of
annoying regulations
are
justly
condemned
by
the several critics of the
Indian Government. The
growth
of
delegated legislation
does
present
an
area which conceals the threat to freedom. The New
Despotism
of Lord
Hewart is still with us. What
happened
in the Critchel Down Case can
happen
with
greater frequency
in India.
Parliamentary supervision
of
subordinate
legislation
is formal and
inadequate. Fortunately, however,
there are indications of a desire to
carry
out a
comprehensive
examination
of the administrative
system.
There is also
beginning
to
emerge
the
awareness of the need to
appoint
officials on the
pattern
of the
Ombudsman to receive
complaints
from the common citizen.
Indeed,
it is
refreshing
to note that the Government of
Rajasthan
has
seriously thought
of this device.
But more serious is the threat to freedom from a
society
which is
by
and
large
authoritarian in its undertones and which has not
developed
either
conceptions
of individual freedom or of
public
interest. The
proliferation
of rules and
regulations
is related to the low state of
public
morale in the
country.
No sooner is a law made than the
people
have
8
Myron
Weiner : The Politics
of Scarcity ,
Asia
Publishing House, 1962, p.
135.
9
Henry
H. Schloss : "The Role of the Private Sector in the Indian
Economy"
in
Studies on
Asia,
1962
(edited by
S. D.
Brown), University
of Nebraska
Press,
1962, p.
78.
discovered devices for
breaking it,
or found
loop-holes
which
they
can
make use of to their own
advantage.
The
bureaucracy
in its
anxiety
to
close these
gaps,
makes further rules. One can notice this interaction in
several areas of administration. The result of this is that the honest
citizen suffers at the hands of the
bureaucracy
and
generally
finds no
means of redress. As India's authoritarian
society gets
more and more
politicised
thanks to the introduction of universal
suffrage
and the devices
of liberal
democracy,
it will learn to
manipulate
the
agencies
of
government.
In a
corrupt society,
the
bureaucracy
must
necessarily get
corrupt.
Indeed as
Myron
Weiner
notes,
some forms of
corruption
are
part
of the Indian administrative
system
and are needed as a lubricant.
The
dangers
from
planning
seem to
emerge
from the social realities of our
society
and not so much from
planning per
se. In
fact,
there is little of
planning
in
spite
of the size of the five
year plans.
India
is,
to use the
expressive phrase
of
Galbraith,
a
"functioning anarchy".
Some built-in checks on the
dangers
from
planning
I have
argued
that the
dangers
to freedom in India come not from
planning
as such but from the authoritarian
society
in which it
operates.
But as
already noted,
there are influential sections of
people
in the
country
who feel that the
planning process
will lead to the
twilight
of
liberty ;
that India is
already
on the inclined
plane
to such a disaster. It is
therefore
necessary
to consider some of the built-in checks.
1. India's administration is still dominated
by
the
generalist
administrators who are anxious to
get
as much
support
for their actions
as
possible.
The Indian Civil Service has left behind some traditions
which still serve the
country usefully.
India's
planners
have endeavoured
to secure the
greatest agreement
for the economic
programme.
The actual
dynamics
of the
planning process
makes this evident. In the
preparation
of the Plan for
instance, help
was
sought
from
every quarter. Leading
public
men and
scholars, professional
associations and
independent experts
gave
the benefits of their
experience.
The Commission
sought
advice
from its various
panels
on Land
Reform, Agriculture, Education,
Health
and
Housing
and the Panel of
Economists,
and the Panel of Scientists.
The Commission
sought
to
prepare plans
at the
district,
block and
village
levels. As a result of
Panchayati Raj attempts
are made to decentralise
the
planning process.
It is of course
possible
to
argue
that a
good
deal
of all this talk of decentralised
planning
does not work out in
practice.
But the desire of the
planners
and of India's
generalist
administrators to
get
mass
support
for their work cannot
seriously
be doubted.10
2. Collectivistic economic
planning
is
hindered, paradoxically
enough, by
the
very inefficiency
of the administrative
system.
Adminis-
10
Cf Michael Brecher : Nehru : A Political
Biography ,
Oxford
University Press,
1959, p.
522.
trators find obstacles all over and
red-tapism
would frustrate the most
ardent and
vigorous
administrator.
Further,
the federal
system
in
spite
of its
highly
centralised
power system,
makes the Centre
greatly dependent
on the States for its
developmental programmes. "Perhaps
nowhere
else",
Appleby
has
observed,
"have so
many systematic
barriers been erected to
prevent
the
accomplishment
of that which it has determined should be
done." In the case of the
Compulsory Deposit Scheme,
the States were
far from enthusiastic in
implementing
what was
by any standard,
an
unpopular
measure. It is
possible
that one of the several reasons for the
modification of the Scheme was the
difficulty
of
implementation.
3.
Finally,
the
implementation
of the
plan
like its formulation is a
part
of the
political process. Opposition parties
have become articulate
in recent
years
about their
grievances
and their criticism of
government
policies.
One notes the vociferous criticism
by
the Swatantra
Party
and
the business sections. The conflicts within the
Congress Party
itself
prevent
an all-out unified effort towards collectivism.
Thanks to
Panchayati Raj,
the rural elite is also
becoming politically
conscious
-
although
in
varying degrees
in different States. As Government
policies begin
to touch different sections of
people,
the latter will
acquire
a
deeper understanding
of the
political process
and will
organise
themselves.
In
1959,
the All India
Agriculturists
Federation was
holding meetings
in
different
parts
of the
country
to awaken the
peasants
to the
dangers
of
cooperative farming
and Mr. Masani
reports
that when he
presided
over a
peasants'
conference in
Sonepat
in the
Punjab
in
1959,
he was
encouraged
to find thousands of
peasants shouting
the
slogan
:
Sanghi
Kheti Nahin
Karenge
"
(We
will not do
cooperative farming).11
More
recently,
the
goldsmiths
in the
country put up
a
spirited opposition
to the Government's
Gold Control Order.
They
were
particularly
active in
Rajkot
where
Mr. Masani won a
splendid victory
over the
Congress
candidate. The
latter
explaining
to his
Party
the reasons for his failure mentioned the un-
popularity
of the Gold Control Order. These are
encouraging signs
for a
society
which for centuries
adopted
a
docilely
submissive attitude towards
the Government and
regarded
it as
ma-bap.
As
many
of the
organised
pressures
are exerted at the State
level,
the
compulsions
of ballot box
democracy
will make the State
politicians
more
responsive
to local
pressures.12
But it will also make the
problems
of
planning
more difficult.
New
techniques
of
political
action and new attitudes
may
have to be
evolved but it will render the threat to
liberty
from collectivistic economic
planning
even less
likely.
i1
M. R. Masani :
"Nagpur
and After" in For Freedom
,
Farm and
Family.
Forum
of Free
Enterprise,
1959.
12
Myron
Weiner : In his The Politics
of Scarcity ,
Weiner has
argued
that the Indian
Government has hitherto
attempted
to
control,
restrain and
repress organised
demands.

Planning in Indian Democracy

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Planning in Indian Democracy

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Indian Political Science Association

PLANNING IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen