After studying this chapter, the learners will

• come to know the goals of India’s five year plans

• know about the development policies in different sectors such asagriculture and industry from 1950-1990

• learn to think about the merits and limitations of a regulated economy.

Indian Economy1950-1990

2

17INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

2.1 INTRODUCTION

On 15 August 1947, India woke to anew dawn of freedom: finally we weremasters of our own destiny aftersome two hundred years of Britishrule; the job of nation building wasnow in our own hands. The leadersof independent India had to decide,among other things, the type ofeconomic system most suitable forour nation, a system which wouldpromote the welfare of all rather thana few. There are different types ofeconomic systems (see Box 2.1) andamong them, socialism appealed toJawaharlal Nehru the most. However,he was not in favour of the kind ofsocialism established in the formerSoviet Union where all the means ofproduction, i.e., all the factories andfarms in the country, were owned bythe government. There was no privateproperty. It is not possible in ademocracy l ike India for thegovernment to change the ownershippattern of land and other propertiesof its citizens in the way that it wasdone in the former Soviet Union.

Nehru, and many other leaders andthinkers of the newly independentIndia, sought an alternative to theextreme versions of capitalism andsocialism. Basically sympathising withthe socialist outlook, they found the

answer in an economic system which,in their view, combined the bestfeatures of socialism without itsdrawbacks. In this view, India wouldbe a ‘socialist’ society with a strongpublic sector but also with privateproperty and democracy; the governmentwould ‘plan’ (see Box 2.2) for the

The central objective of Planning in India... is to initiate a process ofdevelopment which will raise the living standards and open out to the peoplenew opportunities for a richer and more varied life.

First Five Year Plan

Work These Out

Prepare a chart on thedifferent types of economicsystems prevalent in theworld. List out the countriesas capitalist, socialist andmixed economy.

Plan a class trip to anagriculture farm. Divide theclass into seven groups witheach group to plan a specificgoal, for example, thepurpose of the visit, moneyexpenditure involved, timetaken, resources, peopleaccompanying the groupand who need to becontacted, possible placesof visit, possible questionsto be asked etc. Now, withthe help of your teacher,compile these specific goalsand compare with long-termgoals of successful visit toan agricultural farm.

18 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Box 2.1: Types of Economic Systems

Every society has to answer three questionsWhat goods and services should be produced in the country?

How should the goods and services be produced? Should producers usemore human labour or more capital (machines) for producing things?How should the goods and services be distributed among people?

One answer to these questions is to depend on the market forces ofsupply and demand. In a market economy, also called capitalism, only thoseconsumer goods will be produced that are in demand, i.e., goods that canbe sold profitably either in the domestic or in the foreign markets. If carsare in demand, cars will be produced and if bicycles are in demand, bicycleswill be produced. If labour is cheaper than capital, more labour-intensivemethods of production will be used and vice-versa. In a capitalist societythe goods produced are distributed among people not on the basis of whatpeople need but on the basis of what people can afford and are willing topurchase. This means that a sick person will be able to use the requiredmedicine only if he/she can afford to buy it; if they cannot afford the medicinethey will not be able to use it even if they need it urgently. Such a societydid not appeal to Jawaharlal Nehru, our first prime minister, for it meantthat the great majority of people of the country would be left behind withoutthe chance to improve their quality of life.

A socialist society answers the three questions in a totally differentmanner. In a socialist society the government decides what goods are to beproduced in accordance with the needs of society. It is assumed that thegovernment knows what is good for the people of the country and so thedesires of individual consumers are not given much importance. Thegovernment decides how goods are to be produced and how they should bedistributed. In principle, distribution under socialism is supposed to be basedon what people need and not on what they can afford to purchase. Unlikeunder capitalism, for example, a socialist nation provides free health careto the citizens who need it. Strictly, a socialist society has no private propertysince everything is owned by the state. With the collapse of the Soviet systemin the last decades of the twentieth century, socialist economies in the formerSoviet Union and the socialist states in Eastern Europe ceased to exist.

Most economies are mixed economies, i.e., the government and themarket together answer the three questions of what to produce, how toproduce and how to distribute what is produced. In a mixed economy, themarket will provide whatever goods and services it can produce well, andthe government will provide essential goods and services which the marketfails to do.

19INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

economy with the private sector beingencouraged to be part of the plan effort.The ‘Industrial Policy Resolution’ of1948 and the Directive Principles ofthe Indian Constitution reflectedthis outlook. In 1950, the PlanningCommission was set up with thePrime Minister as its Chairperson. Theera of five year plans had begun.

2.2 THE GOALS OF FIVE YEAR PLANS

A plan should have some clearlyspecified goals. The goals of the fiveyear plans are: growth, modernisation,self-reliance and equity. This does notmean that all the plans have givenequal importance to all these goals.Due to limited resources, a choice hasto be made in each plan about which

of the goals is to be given primaryimportance. Nevertheless, the plannershave to ensure that, as far as possible,the policies of the plans do notcontradict these four goals. Let us nowlearn about the goals of planning insome detail.

Growth: It refers to increase in thecountry’s capacity to produce theoutput of goods and services withinthe country. It implies either alarger stock of productive capital,or a larger s ize of support ingserv i ces l ike t ranspor t andbanking, or an increase in theefficiency of productive capital andservices. A good indicator ofeconomic growth, in the language of

Box 2.2: What is a Plan?

A plan spells out how the resources of a nation should be put to use. Itshould have some general goals as well as specific objectives which are tobe achieved within a specified period of time; in India plans are of five yearsduration and are called five year plans (we borrowed this from the formerSoviet Union, the pioneer in national planning). Our plan documents notonly specify the objectives to be attained in the five years of a plan but alsowhat is to be achieved over a period of twenty years. This long-term plan iscalled ‘perspective plan’. The five year plans are supposed to provide thebasis for the perspective plan.

It will be unrealistic to expect all the goals of a plan to be given equalimportance in all the plans. In fact the goals may actually be in conflict. Forexample, the goal of introducing modern technology may be in conflict withthe goal of increasing employment if the technology reduces the need forlabour. The planners have to balance the goals, a very difficult job indeed.We find different goals being emphasised in different plans in India.

Our five year plans do not spell out how much of each and every goodand service is to be produced. This is neither possible nor necessary (theformer Soviet Union tried to do this and failed). It is enough if the plan isspecific about the sectors where it plays a commanding role, for instance,power generation and irrigation, while leaving the rest to the market.

20 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Box 2.3: Mahalanobis: the Architect of Indian Planning

Many distinguished thinkers contributed to the formulation of our five yearplans. Among them, the name of the statistician, Prasanta ChandraMahalanobis, stands out.

Planning, in the real sense of the term, began with the Second Five YearPlan. The Second Plan, a landmark contribution to development planningin general, laid down the basic ideas regardinggoals of Indian planning; this plan was basedon the ideas of Mahalanobis. In that sense, hecan be regarded as the architect of Indianplanning.

Mahalanobis was born in 1893 in Calcutta.He was educated at the Presidency College inCalcutta and at Cambridge University inEngland. His contributions to the subject ofstatistics brought him international fame. In1946 he was made a Fellow (member) ofBritain’s Royal Society, one of the mostprestigious organisations of scientists; only themost outstanding scientists are mademembers of this Society.

Mahalanobis established the IndianStatistical Institute (ISI) in Calcutta andstarted a journal, Sankhya, which still servesas a respected forum for statisticians todiscuss their ideas. Both, the ISI and Sankhya, are highly regarded bystatisticians and economists all over the world to this day.

During the second plan period, Mahalanobis invited manydistinguished economists from India and abroad to advise him on India’seconomic development. Some of these economists became Nobel Prize winnerslater, which shows that he could identify individuals with talent. Amongthe economists invited by Mahalanobis were those who were very critical ofthe socialist principles of the second plan. In other words, he was willing tolisten to what his critics had to say, the mark of a great scholar.

Many economists today reject the approach to planning formulated byMahalanobis but he will always be remembered for playing a vital role inputting India on the road to economic progress, and statisticians continueto profit from his contribution to statistical theory.

Source: Sukhamoy Chakravarty, ‘Mahalanobis, Prasanta Chandra’ in JohnEatwell et.al, (Eds.) The New Palgrave Dictionary: EconomicDevelopment, W.W. Norton, New York and London.

21INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

economics, is steady increase in theGross Domestic Product (GDP). TheGDP is the market value of all thegoods and services produced in thecountry during a year. You can thinkof the GDP as a cake: growth isincrease in the size of the cake. If thecake is larger, more people can enjoyit. It is necessary to produce moregoods and services if the people ofIndia are to enjoy (in the words of theFirst Five Year Plan) a more rich andvaried life.

The GDP of a country is derivedfrom the different sector’s of theeconomy, namely the agriculturalsector, the industrial sector and theservice sector. The contributionmade by each of these sectors makesup the structural composition ofthe economy. In some countries,growth in agriculture contributesmore to the GDP growth, while insome countries the growth in theservice sector contributes more toGDP growth (see Box 2.4).

Modernisation: To increase theproduction of goods and services

the producers have to adopt newtechnology. For example, a farmer canincrease the output on the farm byusing new seed varieties instead ofusing the old ones. Similarly, a factorycan increase output by using a newtype of machine. Adoption of newtechnology is called modernisation.

However, modernisation does notrefer only to the use of new technologybut also to changes in social outlooksuch as the recognition that womenshould have the same rights as men.In a traditional society, women aresupposed to remain at home whilemen work. A modern society makesuse of the talents of women in thework place — in banks, factories,schools etc. — and such a society willbe more civilised and prosperous.

Self-reliance: A nation can promoteeconomic growth and modernisationby using its own resources or byusing resources imported from othernations. The first seven five year plansgave importance to self-reliancewhich means avoiding importsof those goods which could be

Box 2.4: The Service Sector

As a country develops, it undergoes ‘structural change’. In the case of India,the structural change is peculiar. Usually, with development, the share ofagriculture declines and the share of industry becomes dominant. At higherlevels of development, the service sector contributes more to the GDP than theother two sectors. In India, the share of agriculture in the GDP was more than50 per cent—as we would expect for a poor country. But by 1990 the share ofthe service sector was 40.59 per cent, more than that of agriculture or industry,like what we find in developed nations. This phenomenon of growing share ofthe service sector was accelerated in the post 1991 period (this marked theonset of globalisation in the country which will be discussed in a subsequentchapter).

22 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

produced in India itself. This policywas considered a necessity in orderto reduce our dependence on foreigncountries, especially for food. It isunderstandable that people whowere recently freed from foreigndomination should give importanceto self-reliance. Further, it was fearedthat dependence on imported foodsupplies, foreign technology andforeign capital may make India’ssovereignty vulnerable to foreigninterference in our policies.

Equity: Now growth, modernisationand self-reliance, by themselves, maynot improve the kind of life whichpeople are living. A country can havehigh growth, the most moderntechnology developed in the countryitself, and also have most of its peopleliving in poverty. It is important toensure that the benefits of economicprosperity reach the poor sections aswell instead of being enjoyed only bythe rich. So, in addition to growth,modernisation and self-reliance,equity is also important: every Indianshould be able to meet his or her basic

needs such as food, a decent house,education and health care andinequality in the distribution of wealthshould be reduced.

Let us now see how the first sevenfive year plans, covering the period1950-1990, attempted to attain thesefour goals and the extent to whichthey succeeded in doing so, withreference to agriculture, industryand trade. You will study the policiesand developmental issues taken upafter 1991 in Chapter 3.

2.3 AGRICULTURE

You have learnt in Chapter 1 thatduring the colonial rule there wasneither growth nor equity in theagricultural sector. The policy makersof independent India had to addressthese issues which they did throughland reforms and promoting the useof ‘miracle seeds’ which ushered in arevolution in Indian agriculture.

Land Reforms: At the time ofindependence, the land tenure systemwas characterised by intermediaries

Work These Out

Discuss in your class the changes in technology used for(a) Production of food grains(b) Packaging of products(c) Mass communication.

Find out and prepare a list of items that India used to import and exportduring 1950-51 and 1990-91.

(a) Observe the difference(b) Do you see the impact of self-reliance? Discuss.

For getting these details you may refer to Economic Survey of the latest year.

23INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

(variously called zamindars, jagirdarsetc.) who merely collected rent from theactual tillers of the soil withoutcontributing towards improvementson the farm. The low productivity ofthe agricultural sector forced India toimport food from the United States ofAmerica (U.S.A.). Equity in agriculturecalled for land reforms which primarilyrefer to change in the ownership oflandholdings. Just a year afterindependence, steps were taken toabolish intermediaries and to make thetillers the owners of land. The ideabehind this move was that ownershipof land would give incentives (see Box2.5) to the tillers to invest in makingimprovements provided sufficientcapital was made available to them.

Land ceiling was another policy topromote equity in the agriculturalsector. This means fixing the maximumsize of land which could be owned byan individual. The purpose of landceiling was to reduce the concentrationof land ownership in a few hands.

The abolition of intermediariesmeant that some 200 lakh tenantscame into direct contact with thegovernment — they were thusfreed from being exploited by thezamindars. The ownership conferredon tenants gave them the incentive toincrease output and this contributedto growth in agriculture. However, thegoal of equity was not fully servedby abolition of intermediaries. Insome areas the former zamindars

Box 2.5: Ownership and Incentives

The policy of ‘land to the tiller’ is based on the idea that the cultivators willtake more interest — they will have more incentive — in increasing output ifthey are the owners of the land. This is because ownership of land enables thetiller to make profit from the increased output. Tenants do not have the incentiveto make improvements on land since it is the landowner who would benefitmore from higher output. The importance of ownership in providing incentivesis well illustrated by the carelessness with which farmers in the former SovietUnion used to pack fruits for sale. It was not uncommon to see farmers packingrotten fruits along with fresh fruits in the same box. Now, every farmer knowsthat the rotten fruits will spoil the fresh fruits if they are packed together. Thiswill be a loss to the farmer since the fruits cannot be sold. So why did theSoviet farmers do something which would so obviously result in loss for them?The answer lies in the incentives facing the farmers. Since farmers in theformer Soviet Union did not own any land, they neither enjoyed the profits norsuffered the losses. In the absence of ownership, there was no incentive onthe part of farmers to be efficient, which also explains the poor performance ofthe agricultural sector in the Soviet Union despite availability of vast areas ofhighly fertile land.

Source: Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy,New York: Basic Books, 2004, Second Edition.

24 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

continued to own large areas of landby making use of some loopholes inthe legislation; there were cases wheretenants were evicted and thelandowners claimed to be self-cultivators (the actual tillers), claimingownership of the land; and even whenthe tillers got ownership of land, thepoorest of the agricultural labourers(such as sharecroppers and landlesslabourers) did not benefit from landreforms.

The land ceiling legislation alsofaced hurdles. The big landlordschallenged the legislation in thecourts, delaying its implementation.They used this delay to register theirlands in the name of close relatives,thereby escaping from the legislation.The legislation also had a lot ofloopholes which were exploited bythe big landholders to retain theirland. Land reforms were successfulin Kerala and West Bengal becausethese states had governmentscommitted to the policy of land to thetiller. Unfortunately other states didnot have the same level ofcommitment and vast inequality inlandholding continues to this day.

The Green Revolution: At independence,about 75 per cent of the country’spopulation was dependent onagriculture. Productivity in theagricultural sector was very lowbecause of the use of old technologyand the absence of requiredinfrastructure for the vast majority offarmers. India’s agriculture vitallydepends on the monsoon and if themonsoon fell short the farmers were

in trouble unless they had access toirrigation facilities which very fewhad. The stagnation in agricultureduring the colonial rule waspermanently broken by the greenrevolution: this refers to the largeincrease in production of food grainsresulting from the use of highyielding variety (HYV) seedsespecially for wheat and rice. The useof these seeds required the use offertiliser and pesticide in the correctquantities as well as regular supplyof water; the need for these inputs incorrect proportions is vital. Thefarmers who could benefit from HYVseeds required reliable irrigationfacilities as well as the financialresources to purchase fertiliser andpesticide. As a result, in the first phaseof the green revolution (approximatelymid 1960s upto mid 1970s), the useof HYV seeds was restricted to themore affluent states such as Punjab,Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.Further, the use of HYV seedsprimarily benefited the wheat-growing regions only. In the secondphase of the green revolution(mid-1970s to mid-1980s), the HYVtechnology spread to a larger numberof states and benefited more varietyof crops. The spread of greenrevolution technology enabled Indiato achieve self-sufficiency in foodgrains; we no longer had to be at themercy of America, or any other nation,for meeting our nation’s foodrequirements.

Growth in agricultural output isimportant but it is not enough: if alarge proportion of this increase is

25INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

consumed by the farmers themselvesinstead of being sold in the market,the higher output will not makemuch of a difference to the economyas a whole. If, on the other hand, asubstantial amount of agriculturalproduce is sold in the market by thefarmers, the higher output can makea difference to the economy. Theportion of agricultural producewhich is sold in the market by thefarmers is called marketed surplus.Fortunately, as pointed out by thefamous economist C.H. HanumanthaRao, a good proportion of the riceand wheat produced during thegreen revolution period (available asmarketed surplus) was sold by thefarmers in the market. As a result,the price of food grains declinedrelative to other items of consumption.The low-income groups, who spend a

large percentage of their income onfood, benefited from this decline inrelative prices. The green revolutionenabled the government to procuresufficient amount of food grains tobuild a stock which could be usedin times of food shortage.

While the nation had immenselybenefited from the green revolution,the technology involved was not freefrom risks. One such risk was thepossibility that it would increase thedisparities between small and bigfarmers — since only the big farmerscould afford the required inputs,thereby reaping most of the benefitsof the green revolution. Moreover,the HYV crops were also more proneto attack by pests and the smallfarmers who adopted th istechnology could lose everything ina pest attack.

26 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Fortunately, these fears did notcome true because of the steps takenby the government. The governmentprovided loans at a low interest rateto small farmers and subsidisedfertilisers so that small farmers couldalso have access to the neededinputs. Since the small farmers couldobtain the required inputs, theoutput on small farms equalled theoutput on large farms in the courseof time. As a result, the greenrevolution benefited the small as wellas rich farmers. The risk of the smallfarmers being ruined when pestsattack their crops was considerablyreduced by the services rendered byresearch institutes established by thegovernment. You should note thatthe green revolution would havefavoured the rich farmers only if thestate did not play an extensive rolein ensuring that the small farmer alsogains from the new technology.

The Debate Over Subsidies: Theeconomic justification of subsidies inagriculture is, at present, a hotlydebated question. It is generallyagreed that it was necessary to usesubsidies to provide an incentive foradoption of the new HYV technologyby farmers in general and smallfarmers in particular. Any newtechnology will be looked upon asbeing risky by farmers. Subsidieswere, therefore, needed to encouragefarmers to test the new technology.Some economists believe that oncethe technology is found profitableand is widely adopted, subsidies

should be phased out since theirpurpose has been served. Further,subsidies are meant to benefit thefarmers but a substantial amount offertiliser subsidy also benefits thefert i l iser industry; and amongfarmers, the subsidy largely benefitsthe farmers in the more prosperousregions. Therefore, it is argued thatthere is no case for continuing withfertiliser subsidies; it does not benefitthe target group and it is a hugeburden on the government’s finances(see also Box 2.6).

On the other hand, some believethat the government should continuewith agricultural subsidies becausefarming in India continues to be arisky business. Most farmers are verypoor and they will not be able toafford the required inputs withoutsubsidies. Eliminating subsidies willincrease the inequality between richand poor farmers and violate the goalof equity. These experts argue that ifsubsidies are largely benefiting thefertiliser industry and big farmers,the correct policy is not to abolishsubsidies but to take steps to ensurethat only the poor farmers enjoy thebenefits.

Thus, by the late 1960s, Indianagricultural productivity had increasedsufficiently to enable the country to beself-sufficient in food grains. This is anachievement to be proud of. On thenegative side, some 65 per cent of thecountry’s population continued to beemployed in agriculture even as late as1990. Economists have found that as

27INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

a nation becomes more prosperous, theproportion of GDP contributed byagriculture as well as the proportion ofpopulation working in the sectordeclines considerably. In India,between 1950 and 1990, theproportion of GDP contributed byagriculture declined significantly butnot the population depending on it(67.5 per cent in 1950 to 64.9 per centby 1990). Why was such a largeproportion of the population engagedin agriculture although agriculturaloutput could have grown with muchless people working in the sector? Theanswer is that the industrial sector andthe service sector did not absorb thepeople working in the agricultural

sector. Many economists call this animportant failure of our policiesfollowed during 1950-1990.

2.4 INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Economists have found that poornations can progress only if they havea good industrial sector. Industryprovides employment which is morestable than the employment inagriculture; it promotes modernisationand overall prosperity. It is for thisreason that the five year plans placea lot of emphasis on industrialdevelopment. You might havestudied in the previous chapter that,at the time of independence, thevariety of industries was very narrow

Box 2.6: Prices as Signals

You would have learnt in an earlier class about how prices of goods aredetermined in the market. It is important to understand that prices are signalsabout the availability of goods. If a good becomes scarce, its price will rise andthose who use this good will have the incentive to make efficient decisionsabout its use based on the price. If the price of water goes up because of lowersupply, people will have the incentive to use it with greater care; for example,they may stop watering the garden to conserve water. We complain wheneverthe price of petrol increases and blame it on the government. But the increasein petrol price reflects greater scarcity and the price rise is a signal that lesspetrol is available—this provides an incentive to use less petrol or look foralternate fuels.

Some economists point out that subsidies do not allow prices to indicatethe supply of a good. When electricity and water are provided at a subsidisedrate or free, they will be used wastefully without any concern for their scarcity.Farmers will cultivate water intensive crops if water is supplied free, althoughthe water resources in that region may be scarce and such crops will furtherdeplete the already scarce resources. If water is priced to reflect scarcity,farmers will cultivate crops suitable to the region. Fertiliser and pesticidesubsidies result in overuse of resources which can be harmful to theenvironment. Subsidies provide an incentive for wasteful use of resources.Think about subsidies in terms of incentives and ask yourself whether it iswise from the economic viewpoint to provide free electricity to farmers.

28 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

— largely confined to cotton textilesand jute. There were two well-managed iron and steel firms — onein Jamshedpur and the other inKolkata — but, obviously, we neededto expand the industrial base with avariety of industries if the economywas to grow.

Market and State in IndianIndustrial Development: The bigquestion facing the policy makers was— what should be the role of thegovernment and the private sector inindustrial development? At the time ofindependence, Indian industrialists didnot have the capital to undertake

Work These Out

A group of students may visit an agricultural farm, prepare a case study onthe method of farming used, that is, types of seeds, fertilisers, machines,means of irrigation, cost involved, marketable surplus and income earned.It will be beneficial if the changes in cultivation methods could be collectedfrom an elderly member of the farming family

(a) Discuss the findings in your class.

(b) The different groups can then prepare a chart showing variations incost of production, productivity, use of seeds, fertilisers, means ofirrigation, time taken, marketable surplus and income of the family.

Collect newspaper cuttings related to the World Bank, InternationalMonetary Fund, World Trade Organisation (and meets of G7, G8, G10countries). Discuss the views shared by the developed and developingcountries on farm subsidies.

Prepare pie charts on the occupational structure of the Indian economyavailable in the following table.

Sector 1950–51 1990–91Agriculture 72.1 66.8Industry 10.7 12.7Services 17.2 20.5

Study the arguments for and against agricultural subsidies. What is yourview on this issue?Some economists argue that farmers in other countries, particularlydeveloped countries, are provided with high amount of subsidies and areencouraged to export their produce to other countries. Do you think ourfarmers will be able to compete with farmers from developed countries?Discuss.

29INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

investment in industrial venturesrequired for the development of oureconomy; nor was the market bigenough to encourage industrialists toundertake major projects even if theyhad the capital to do so. It is principallyfor these reasons that the state had toplay an extensive role in promoting theindustrial sector. In addition, thedecision to develop the Indian economyon socialist lines led to the policy of thestate controlling the commandingheights of the economy, as the SecondFive Year plan put it. This meant thatthe state would have complete controlof those industries that were vital forthe economy. The policies of the privatesector would have to be complimentaryto those of the public sector, with thepublic sector leading the way.

Industrial Policy Resolution 1956(IPR 1956): In accordance with thegoal of the state controlling thecommanding heights of the economy,the Industrial Policy Resolution of1956 was adopted. This resolutionformed the basis of the Second FiveYear Plan, the plan which tried tobuild the basis for a socialist patternof society. This resolution classifiedindustries into three categories. Thefirst category comprised industrieswhich would be exclusively owned bythe state; the second categoryconsisted of industries in which theprivate sector could supplement theefforts of the state sector, with thestate taking the sole responsibility forstarting new units; the third categoryconsisted of the remaining industrieswhich were to be in the private sector.

Although there was a category ofindustries left to the private sector,the sector was kept under statecontrol through a system of licenses.No new industry was allowed unlessa license was obtained from thegovernment. This policy was used forpromoting industry in backwardregions; it was easier to obtain alicense if the industrial unit wasestablished in an economicallybackward area. In addition, suchunits were given certain concessionssuch as tax benefits and electricityat a lower tariff. The purpose of thispolicy was to promote regionalequality.

Even an existing industry had toobtain a l icense for expandingoutput or for diversifying production(producing a new variety of goods).This was meant to ensure that thequantity of goods produced was notmore than what the economyrequired. L icense to expandproduction was given only if thegovernment was convinced that theeconomy required the largerquantity of goods.

Small-scale Industry: In 1955, theVillage and Small-scale IndustriesCommittee, also called the KarveCommittee, noted the possibility ofusing small-scale industries forpromoting rural development. A‘small-scale industry’ is defined withreference to the maximum invest-ment allowed on the assets of a unit.This limit has changed over a periodof time. In 1950 a small-scaleindustrial unit was one which invested

30 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

a maximum of rupees five lakh; atpresent the maximum investmentallowed is rupees one crore.

It was believed that small-scaleindustries are more ‘labour intensive’i.e., they use more labour than thelarge-scale industries and, therefore,generate more employment. But theseindustries cannot compete with thebig industrial firms; it is obvious thatdevelopment of small-scale industryrequires them to be shielded from thelarge firms. For this purpose, theproduction of a number of productswas reserved for the small-scaleindustry; the criterion of reservationbeing the ability of these units tomanufacture the goods. They werealso given concessions such as lowerexcise duty and bank loans at lowerinterest rates.

2.5 TRADE POLICY: IMPORT SUBSTITUTION

The industrial policy that we adoptedwas closely related to the tradepolicy. In the first seven plans,trade was characterised by whatis commonly called an inwardlooking trade strategy. Technically,this strategy is cal led importsubstitution. This policy aimed atreplacing or substituting importswith domestic production. Forexample, instead of importingvehicles made in a foreign country,industries would be encouraged toproduce them in India itself. In thispolicy the government protected thedomestic industries from foreigncompetition. Protection from importstook two forms: tariffs and quotas.

Tariffs are a tax on imported goods;they make imported goods moreexpensive and discourage their use.Quotas specify the quantity of goodswhich can be imported. The effect oftariffs and quotas is that they restrictimports and, therefore, protect thedomestic f irms from foreigncompetition.

The policy of protection is basedon the notion that industries ofdeveloping countries are not in aposition to compete against thegoods produced by more developedeconomies. It is assumed that if thedomestic industries are protectedthey will learn to compete in thecourse of time. Our planners alsofeared the possibility of foreignexchange being spent on import ofluxury goods if no restrictions wereplaced on imports. Nor was anyserious thought given to promoteexports until the mid-1980s.

Effect of Policies on IndustrialDevelopment: The achievements ofIndia’s industrial sector during thefirst seven plans are impressiveindeed. The proport ion of GDPcontr ibuted by the industr ia lsector increased in the period from11.8 per cent in 1950-51 to 24.6 percent in 1990-91. The rise in theindustry ’s share of GDP is animportant indicator of development.The six per cent annual growth rateof the industrial sector during theperiod is commendable. No longerwas Indian industry restricted largelyto cotton textiles and jute; in fact, theindustrial sector became well

31INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

diversified by 1990, largely due tothe public sector. The promotionof small-scale industries gaveopportunities to those people who didnot have the capital to start largefirms to get into business. Protectionfrom foreign competition enabled thedevelopment of indigenous industriesin the areas of electronics andautomobile sectors which otherwisecould not have developed.

In spite of the contribution madeby the public sector to the growth ofthe Indian economy, some economistsare critical of the performance ofmany public sector enterprises. Itwas proposed at the beginning of this

chapter that initially public sectorwas required in a big way. It is nowwidely held that state enterprisescontinued to produce certain goodsand services (often monopolisingthem) although this was no longerrequired. An example is the provisionof telecommunication service. Thegovernment had the monopoly of thisservice even after private sector firmscould also provide it. Due to theabsence of competition, even till thelate 1990s, one had to wait for a longtime to get a telephone connection.Another instance could be theestablishment of Modern Bread, abread-manufacturing firm, as if the

Work These Out

Construct a pie chart for the following table on sectoral contribution to GDPand discuss the difference in the contribution of the sectors in the light ofeffects of development during 1950-91.

Sector 1950-51 1990-91

Agriculture 59.0 34.9

Industry 13.0 24.6

Services 28.0 40.5

Conduct a debate in your classroom on the usefulness of Public SectorUndertakings (PSUs) by dividing the class into two groups. One group mayspeak in favour of PSUs and the other group against the motion (involve asmany students as possible and encourage them to give examples).

32 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

private sector could not manufacturebread! In 2001 this firm was sold tothe private sector. The point is thatno distinction was made between (i)what the public sector alone can doand (ii) what the private sector canalso do. For example, even now onlythe public sector can supply nationaldefense and free medical treatmentfor poor patients. And even thoughthe private sector can manage hotelswell, yet, the government also runshotels. This has led some scholars toargue that the state should get outof areas which the private sector canmanage and the government mayconcentrate its resources onimportant services which the privatesector cannot provide.

Many public sector firms incurredhuge losses but continued tofunction because it is very difficult,almost impossible, to close agovernment undertaking even if it isa drain on the nation’s limitedresources. This does not mean thatprivate firms are always profitable(indeed, quite a few of the publicsector firms were originally privatefirms which were on the verge ofclosure due to losses; they were thennationalised to protect the jobs of theworkers). However, a loss-makingprivate firm will not waste resourcesby being kept running despite thelosses.

The need to obtain a license to startan industry was misused byindustrial houses; a big industrialistwould get a license not for starting anew firm but to prevent competitorsfrom starting new firms. The excessive

regulation of what came to be calledthe permit license raj preventedcertain firms from becoming moreefficient. More time was spent byindustrialists in trying to obtain alicense or lobby with the concernedministries rather than on thinkingabout how to improve their products.

The protection from foreigncompetition is also being criticised onthe ground that it continued evenafter it proved to do more harm thangood. Due to restrictions on imports,the Indian consumers had topurchase whatever the Indianproducers produced. The producerswere aware that they had a captivemarket; so they had no incentive toimprove the quality of their goods.Why should they think of improvingquality when they could sell lowquality i tems at a high price?Competition from imports forces ourproducers to be more efficient.

Nevertheless, scholars point outthat the public sector is not meantfor earning profits but to promote thewelfare of the nation. The publicsector firms, on this view, should beevaluated on the basis of the extentto which they contribute to the welfareof people and not on the profits theyearn. Regarding protection, someeconomists hold that we shouldprotect our producers from foreigncompetition as long as the richnations continue to do so. Owing toall these conflicts, economists calledfor a change in our policy. This,alongwith other problems, led thegovernment to introduce a neweconomic policy in 1991.

33INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

2.6 CONCLUSION

The progress of the Indian economyduring the first seven plans wasimpressive indeed. Our industriesbecame far more diversified comparedto the situation at independence.India became self- sufficient in foodproduction thanks to the greenrevolution. Land reforms resulted inabolition of the hated zamindarisystem. However, many economistsbecame dissatisfied with theperformance of many public sectorenterprises. Excessive governmentregulation prevented growth of

entrepreneurship. In the name of self-reliance, our producers wereprotected against foreign competitionand this did not give them theincentive to improve the quality ofgoods that they produced. Ourpolicies were ‘inward oriented’ and sowe failed to develop a strong exportsector. The need for reform ofeconomic policy was widely felt in thecontext of changing global economicscenario, and the new economic policywas initiated in 1991 to make oureconomy more efficient. This is thesubject of the next chapter.

Recap

After independence, India envisaged an economic system which combinesthe best features of socialism and capitalism—this culminated in the mixedeconomy model.

All the economic planning has been formulated through five year plans.

Common goals of five year plans are growth, modernisation, self-sufficiencyand equity.

The major policy initiatives in agriculture sector were land reforms andgreen revolution. These initiatives helped India to become self-sufficient infood grains production.

The proportion of people depending on agriculture did not decline as expected.

Policy initiatives in the industrial sector raised its contribution to GDP.

One of the major drawbacks in the industrial sector was the inefficientfunctioning of the public sector as it started incurring losses leading todrain on the nation’s limited resources.

34 INDIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1. Define a plan.

2. Why did India opt for planning?

3. Why should plans have goals?

4. What are miracle seeds?

5. What is marketable surplus?

6. Explain the need and type of land reforms implemented in theagriculture sector.

7. What is Green Revolution? Why was it implemented and how didit benefit the farmers? Explain in brief.

8. Explain ‘growth with equity’ as a planning objective.

9. Does modernisation as a planning objective create contradictionin the light of employment generation? Explain.

10. Why was it necessary for a developing country like India to followself-reliance as a planning objective?

11. What is sectoral composition of an economy? Is it necessary thatthe service sector should contribute maximum to GDP of aneconomy? Comment.

12. Why was public sector given a leading role in industrialdevelopment during the planning period?

13. Explain the statement that green revolution enabled thegovernment to procure sufficient food grains to build its stocksthat could be used during times of shortage.

14. While subsidies encourage farmers to use new technology, they area huge burden on government finances. Discuss the usefulness ofsubsidies in the light of this fact.

15. Why, despite the implementation of green revolution, 65 per centof our population continued to be engaged in the agriculture sectortill 1990?

16. Though public sector is very essential for industries, many publicsector undertakings incur huge losses and are a drain on theeconomy’s resources. Discuss the usefulness of public sectorundertakings in the light of this fact.

EXERCISES

35INDIAN ECONOMY 1950-1990

17. Explain how import substitution can protect domestic industry.

18. Why and how was private sector regulated under the IPR 1956?

19. Match the following:

1. Prime Minister A. Seeds that give large proportion of output

2. Gross Domestic B. Quantity of goods that can be imported

Product

3. Quota C. Chairperson of the planning commission

4. Land Reforms D. The money value of all the final goodsand services produced within the economyin one year

5. HYV Seeds E. Improvements in the field of agricultureto increase its productivity

6. Subsidy F. The monetary assistance given bygovernment for productionact iv i t ies .

BHAGWATI, J. 1993. India in T ransition: Freeing the Economy. OxfordUniversity Press, Delhi.

DANDEKAR, V.M. 2004. Forty Years After Independence, in Bimal Jalan,(Ed.). The Indian Economy: Problems and Prospects. Penguin, Delhi.

JOSHI, VIJAY. and I.M.D. LITTLE. 1996. India’s Economic Reforms 1991-2001.Oxford University Press, Delhi.

MOHAN, RAKESH. 2004. Industrial Policy and Controls, in Bimal Jalan(Ed.). The Indian Economy: Problems and Prospects. Penguin, Delhi.

RAO, C.H. HANUMANTHA. 2004. Agriculture: Policy and Performance, in BimalJalan, (Ed.). The Indian Economy: Problems and Prospects. Penguin,Delhi.

REFERENCES