Planning in Indian Democracy

8/11/2019 Planning in Indian Democracy

1/11

Indian Political Science ssociation

PLANNING IN INDIAN DEMOCRACYAuthor(s): S. P. AiyarSource: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 24, No. 4 (October-December 1963), pp.337-346Published by: Indian Political Science AssociationStable 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 [email protected].

.

Indian Political Science Associationis 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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ipsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/42743551?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/42743551?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ipsa


2/11

PLANNING

IN

INDIAN

DEMOCRACY

By

S.

P.

Aiyar*

The

very

mention

f

planning

nd

freedom

rings

o

mindthe

classic

discussion

by

Fredrich

von

Hayek

which

stated

n a

sensational

form

he

thesis hat ll

planning

must

necessarily

ead to

an

infringement

f

indivi-

dual liberties nd is

in

fact

'Road to Serfdom.' It is now too

late in

the

day to revive the controversyn the form n which t was presented y

Hayek.

There

undoubtedly

re,

elements f

truth

n

Hayek's

warning

o

far s

the collectivistic

conomic

planning

f the Soviet

type

s

concerned.

In the late

forties,

he Road to

Serfdom

was

a

muchdiscussed

book

in

India

but

with

ndependence

he

Hayek

thesis

was

given

quiet

burial

not

only

in India

but

in the

other

countries

of

South Asia as well.

It is

interesting

o recall

thatat the seminar on

Freedom

and

Planning

held

at

Rangoon

in

February

1955 under he

auspices

of

the

Congress

for

Cultural

Freedom,

none

of

the

participants

venmentioned he

name of

Hayek.

At the time when India's Five Year Plan was launched,both the

inevitability

f

planning

and the

reconcilability

f

planning

nd freedom

were

taken

for

granted.

It was

argued

that

the

very

ircumstances

f an

underdeveloped

ountry-

ts

low

saving

capacity

and

meagre

capital

formation its

untapped

natural

nd human

resources

the

range

of

the

people's

basic

requirements

lack

of

popular

nitiative

nd

the

absence of

a

spirited ntrepreneurial

lass-

compel energetic

ction

on

the

part

of

government

nd call

for

systematic

economic

planning.

Further,

he

gigantic

ask of

collecting

basic data

of

every

kind

and

formulating

reasonable

plan,

carrying

out

research and

surveys,

reconciling

tate

demandsand nationalresources nd adjusting ompeting egionaldemands

call

for a central

planning

agency.

The case for

planning

was

thus

indisputable.

It is

curious,

however,

hat

at

the timeof

the

framing

f

the

Constitution,

he

centralising

endencies

f

planned development

were

not

foreseen,

r

even

thought

of. Item 20

in the

Concurrent

ist

mentioned

'socjal

and

economic

planning.'

In

vain

does one

look into the

debates

of

the Constituent

ssembly

or

ny

coherent iscussion

f

planning

r

of

the

competing principles

of

centralisation

nd

decentralisation.

Mr.

Santhanam notes that

planning

did not

figurevery

much

n

the

debates,

although twas notquiteforgotten.1

*

Lecturer

n

Civics

Politics,

ombay niversity.

1

K.

Santhanam

UnionState

elations

n

ndia

Asia

Publishing

ouse,1960,

p.

44.

337

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/11

338

THE

NDIANJOURNAL

F

POLITICAL

CIENCE

The view

that

planning

nd freedom re not

irreconcilable ested

on

the

belief

that

while India could turnwith

profit

o the Soviet

Union and

later o

Yugoslavia,

for ome of the essons n

planning,

herewas no need

to

repeat

heir

rrors.

India

can-

and

could- evolve

a

pattern

of

demo-

cratic

planning

nd thus

provide

model

for

other

underdeveloped

oun-

tries

in

South

and

Southeast

Asia.

Elaborating

the

implications

f the

Socialistic

Pattern

f

Society,

he

Second

Five

Year

Plan

observed:

"It is not

rooted n

any

doctrine

r

dogma.

Each

country

has

to

develop

according

to

its own

genius

and

traditions.

Economic

and social

policy

has to

be

shaped

from

ime o

time

in

the

light

of historical

ircumstances.

It

is

neither

ecessary

or

desirable

thattheeconomy houldbecomea monolithic ypeof organisa-

tion

offering

ittle

play

for

experimentation

ither

s to

forms

r

as to

modes of

functioning

What is

important

s

a

clear sense

of

direction,

consistent

egard

for

certain

basic values

and a

readiness

o

adapt

institutions

nd

organisations

nd their rules

of

conduct

n the

ight

f

experience.'* (pp. 23-24)

Speaking

o

the

first

meeting

f

the

Panel of

Scientists

et

up

by

the

Planning

Commission,

Mr.

Nehru

emphasised

the

importance

of

the

democratic

pproach

in the

implementation

f the

Plan and of

the

need

to securethe enthusiastic upport of the peasants, workers, ntellectuals

and

the

vast

masses

of

the

people

for ts successful

xecution. "You

can-

not

expect

the

peasant

in the

field or

the

workers

o

understand

ll

the

details

of

your

Plan"

he

said.

"Nevertheless,

t is

important

hat

even the

peasant

n

the

field hould

appreciate

what we

are

doing

and

welcome

t

and

tell

us

in

his

own

sphere

whether

e

considerswhat we do

is

right."2

The

reconciliation

etween

planning

and

democracy

was

sought

o

be achieved

by

securing

the maximum

upport

from

the

people

and

by

evoking

mass

participation.

The

latter was

the main

objective

n

the

programme f Community evelopmentwhichwas launchedon Gandhi

Jayanti,

952.

By

1957, however,

he BalvantraiMehta Committee

drew

attention

o

the

fact that the

Community

Development

Programme

ad

become

purely

administrative

n character. It

outlined

a

scheme of

Democratic

Decentralisation

r

Panchayati

Raj

which

formed he

basis of

legislation

n

a

large

number

of

States.

Studies on

Panchayati

Raj

vary

greatly

n

their

valuation

of the extent f

participation

s

a result

of the

new

experiment.

The Seventh

Report

of the

Programme

Evaluation

Organisation

bserved

"Peoples' attitudesand reactions in most of the Community

Development

Blocks are

not

yet

generally

favourable

to

the

success

and

growth

f the

Community

evelopment

Programme.

2

Shriman

arayan

Principles

f

Gandhian

lanning

Kitab

Mahal,

960,

.

208.



4/11

PLANNING

N INDIAN EMOCRACY

339

The

majority

f the

villages

do

not

regard

t as

their

wn

pro-

gramme

nd

seem

to

rely

mainly

n the

Government

or

ffecting

the

development

of rural areas. The basic

philosophy

and

approach

of

the

Community

evelopment

Programme

re,

there-

fore,

nadequately

ubscribed o

by

the

people."

In

1961,

Mrs.

Kusum Nair

reported

n

her

Blossoms

n the Dust

that

in

her

extensive

visits

to

several

villages

she

found

the

people

inert nd

indifferent

nd

"paralysed

by

imited

spirations".

The lack

of

a sense of

participation

n the

part

of the

people

has

been

one

of the

pronounced

strands n

the criticism

f Indian

planning.

The LiberalCounter-attack

Although

he five

yearplans

rested n the

assumption

of some

sort

of

"mixed

Economy",

the

objective

of the

socialistic

pattern

f

society'

has

come

in

for considerable

criticism.

The

Planning

Commission

has

claimed

that the

plans

have

enlarged

he

scope

for ndividual nitiative

s

well

as for

cooperative

and

corporative

effort.

The Industrial

Policy

Resolution

of

April

1956 indicated

he

scope

of

the

public

and

the

private

sector.

The

Third

Five Year

Plan observed

hat

while

the

private

ector

has a

large

area

in

which

t

could

develop

and

expand

it

had

to

function

withinthe fameworkof the national plan and in harmonywith the

national

goals.

Businessmen

n

India

however

were alarmed at

the

scope

of

the

public

sector nd saw

inthe

socialistic

pattern

f

society'

he

dismal

signs

of

a future

n which

hey

would

have no

place.

With

the

establishmentf

the

Forum

of

Free

Enterprise

n

1956,

the business

sectionhas

become

articulate.

The

establishment

f

the Swatantra

Party

has

provided

a

powerful

latform

or

the

criticism

f the Government's

conomic

policies.

Criticism

f the

planning

process

and

the

problem

of

planning

and

free-

dom are recurring hemes n the iterature utoutbytheForumand the

Swatantra

Party.

In much

of this iterature

he economic iberalism

f

the

west

finds

expression.

One often notices

a return

o

the

arguments

of

Hayek.

In

fact,

the

Forum

in

one of its

pamphletsreprinted

wo

of

Hayek's

essays

on Free

"Enterprise.

riticism

as been levelled

against

the

crippling

effects

f

government

ontrols,

high

taxation,

government's

monopoly

over

the nfra-

tructure

f

the

economy,

articularly,

ransporta-

tion,

the

licensing

ystem

nd

against

the

expansion

of

the

bureaucracy.

All

this,

t is

suggested,

s

leading

to

a

confirmation

f the

worst

fears

of

Hayek. Hayek's later hesis, laborated n hisConstitution

f

Liberty,hat

the nstitution

f

private

property

s

necessary

or the

maintenance

f a

free

ociety

s echoed

in

some

of

the

speeches

deliveredunder

the

auspices

of the Forum of

Free

Enterprise.

Thus

in

his

speech

on

Planning

or

Prosperity

Mr.

M.

R.

Masani,

General

Secretary

f

the

Swatantra

Party,

dealt

with

he

ncompatibility

f a

controlled

conomy

nd

the

maintenance



5/11

340 THE NDIAN

JOURNALF

POLITICAL CIENCE

of

a free

society.

Analysing

he

Soviet

experiment,

r.

Masani

warned

against

the

implications

f the

Soviet-type lanning, which,

he

alleged,

India had

adopted.

The

Planning

Commission,

e

asserted,

ad becomea

non-responsible

uper-government.

n

any

system

of

planning

or

pros-

perity

here

would

be no

place

for

Planning

Commission

"A

National

Planning

Commission

making

policy

can

obtain

only

n

the

Soviet-type

f

planning

nd

not in

a

democratic

ype

of

planning.

It has no

place

in a

free

society,

because

what it

logically attemps

to

do is to

establish

command

economy."3

In

a

later talk

arranged

y

the

Forum,

in

1961,

Mr.

Masani

argued

more

explicitly,

hat

the

system

f free

enterprise

was

essential

or

democracy.

He

put

forward

he

nteresting

nd

very

aluable

thesis that in a country ike India, a freeand effectivepposition s only

possible by

encouraging

autonomous

social forces".

These

forces

re

re-

presented

by

the

businessmen,

he

factory

wners,

the

shopkeepers,

he

peasants

who

own

the

land,

self-employed

eople

like

lawyers,

octors,

auditors,

rchitects

nd their ike

people

who

can standon their

wn

legs

and

do

not have to

depend

on

the

government

or

their

bread

and butter.

These are

the

people

who

constitute

ffective

pposition,

ncourage

nd

maintain free

press

and can

form

voluntary

ssociations to

criticise

he

government.

"Abolish

these

classes",

he

said,

"by

nationalisation

of

private

property

nd

land

and

industry

nd

you

will

destroy

very

utono-

mous social force. Theneveryones at the mercyof the State. That is

why

a

command

economy

replaces

not

only

the

ballot box

of the

market

place

but a

totalitarian

Government

eplaces

a

democratic

government

providedby

the

Constitution."4

Thus

after more

than a

decade

of

planning

the

Hayek

thesis

has

returned

o India with

new

vigour.

A

variation

f the

iberal

counter-attack

s

found in

the

writings

f

Professor

B.

R.

Shenoy,

one

of

India's

leading

economists.

Shenoy

has

argued hat ndia has turnednwrongdirections or nspiration.Planning

for the

free

market,

he

says,

has

yielded

blinding

economic

and

social

dividends

wherever

t has

been

tried

"In

the

post-war world,

it

produced

the

firstmiracle

in

West

Germany.

It

then

spread,

with

s

good

or better

esults,

o

the

E.E.C,

countries,

srael,

Japan,

Hong

Kong, Spain

and

latterly

the

Philippines...

ews

from

this

powerful

reaction

away

from

statism has not

reached

Delhi

yet

nor

the Indian universities

generally,

where

economists still

fondly

cherish outmoded

dirigiste octrines, ancyinghem o be thetenets of the nuclearera. The

Galbraiths,

Millikans,

Rostows,

Wards,

not to mention

3

M.

R.

Masani

Planning

or

rosperity

Forum

fFree

nterprise,

ct.

1960,

.

5.

4

M. R.

Masani

The

uture

f

Free

nterprise

n

ndia

Forum

f

Free

nterprise,

June

961,

.

8.



6/11

PLANNING

N

INDIAN

EMOCRACY

341

the

pronounced

eft

wingers

ike the

Baloghs,

Bettieheims,

anges

and

Robinsons

all

sincere riends

f ndia

and

hot

favourites

f

our Government

through

heir

expositions,

probably

stand in

the

way

of

our

properly

ppreciating

he

tremendous

otentialities

of

planning

for

the

free maiket

under

the

aegis

of consumer

sovereignty.

The illicitbeneficiaries f

planning,

now the

power

behind

the

throne,

who

too,

are

champions

of

mass

prosperity,

are another

great

hurdle o overcome.

But neither conomic

nor

social

salvation

is

possible except

throughpolicies

of

economic

and

social

reform."5

Although

there

s

much

that

is relevant

n the

arguments

f

this

liberal

school,

there s a natural

endency

o

exaggerate

nd

argue

out the

Road to Serfdom

thesis.

There

is

hardly

any

collectivistic

conomic

planning

n India

as

yet.

ProfessorD.

R.

Gadgil rightly

oints

out

that

the

public

sector

in India

is

still

very

small and

thatthe

apparatus

of

controls,

llocations

etc.

is

still

verymeagre

nd

inefficient. he

power

of

the

State

to

regulate

the

economic

activity

s

much

less

than in

the

countries

f Western

urope

which re said to have

unplanned

conomies.6

It

is

also

necessary

o

point

out

that

the

business

ommunity

n

India

has

yet

to

develop

a

standard

f

ethics nd

a

coherent

ublic

philosophy.

It

is

interestingo notethatone ofthe mportant hingsdonebytheForumof

Free

Enterprise

as

been

the

drawing

p

of a

code of

conduct.

The

Bureaucracy

n

Planned

Development

An

interesting

ine

of criticism

s taken

by

Professor

Joseph

La

Palombara

who

argues

that

in

many

of the

developing

countries

he

predominant

ole

of

the

bureaucracy

has

been

accepted

as

inevitable

nd

that

the

expansion

of

the

bureaucracy

prevents

he

development

f an

effective

nfra-structure

f

democracy.

The

situation

s

worsened

nd

is

rendered

ven

more

vulnerable

y

the dominance

f a

single

party

nd

the

failure o revitaliseocal-levelforms fpolitical participation nd involve-

ment.

He

points

out

to

the

difficulty

f

concentrating

n

both

the

economic

development

f

the

country

nd on

the

growth

f

democratic

political

nstitutions.

In the

event f a conflict

etween

hese

goals

(which

are

probably

incompatible)

when

the nation

s

in

a

dilemma

as

to

the

choice

of

competing

goals,

the decision

is

inevitably

n

favour

of

the

economic

at

the

expense

of

the

political.

Professor

a

Palombara

suggests

a de-

mphasis

on

the

economic

programme

nd

greater

ttention

being

paid

to

individual

nd

local

level

economic

change

which

might

volve

on

5

B.

R.

Shenoy

'Consumer

overeignty

eads o

Rapid

Economic

evelopment".

Article

ritten

or

yndication

y

he

ndian

ews nd

Feature

lliance

INFA)

and

reprinted

y

he

orum

f

Free

Enterprise,

uly

962.

6

D.

R.

Gadgil

Planning

nd

Economi

olicy

n

India

Asia

Publishing

ouse,

J961?

.

xii.



7/11

342

THE

NDIAN

JOURNAL

F

POLITICAL CIENCE

a more

sporadic,

piece-meal

basis. He

even

argues

the

possibility

f

deve-

loping

"important

ttitudes

oncerning

he freedom nd

the

dignity

f the

individual in the

developing

countries"

by

encouraging

the kind of

economic

enterprise

hat is

individually

ather han

collectively

riented,

thatexalts

the

place

of

the

private

ntrepreneur

ather

han that

of an

all-

embracing

ollectivity

ymbolised

by

gigantic, nwieldy,

nd

unbending

government."

This

policy

of

developing

a national

bourgeoisie

will

require,

he

admits,

"the

genuine integration

nd assimilation

nto

the

social

system

of the

now

harassed,

bedeviled,

and

persecuted pariah

entrepreneurial

roups."7

Although rofessor a Palombara's suggestionfde-emphasisinghe

economic

goals

is

hardly ikely

o

command ssent

(as

he

himself

dmits),

it mustbe

conceded

that

there

s

substance n his

charge

that

the

bureau-

cracy prevents

the

growth

of

the

infra-structure

f

democracy.

In

the

developing

countries,

voluntary

ssociations

tend to become

passive

instruments

f the

public

administratorather

han checkson the

bureau-

cracy.

I would

like

to illustrate

his n one

area

of

which have

first-hand

experience.

In

Bombay's

arge

housing

olonies,

managed

by

the

Maha-

rashtra

Housing

Board,

the tenants have

constituted hemselves

nto

associations

which

re

supposed

to

constitute he

inks

between hemselves

and the officials f the Housing Board. Formally,theyare free and

voluntary

ssociations

but

n

their ctual

working

hey

display

a

pathetic

dependence

n

the

officials

f

the

Housing

Board.

Many

factors,

ndoub-

tedly,

contribute

o

this state

of

affairs. The

tenants ntered nto

a

one-

sided

agreement

with

he Board

in which

the

lattercan evict

them

on

a

large

number

f

reasons.

The tenants

or

the

most

part

were

compelled

o

accept

these

greements

or

they

had no

real

alternative.

hey

were

n fact

grateful

o

the

Government

or

the

humble

accommodationwhich

t

had

provided

for

them.

Officials

ave even

rubbed

n this

fact

when

com-

plaints

were

made

to them

"You came herewith

open eyes

we

did

not

compel

you

you

signed

the

agreement

n

your

own.

You

have therefore

no cause

to

complain."

The tenants are

dependent

on the

Board's

officials

or

all

the basic

necessities

nd are

therefore

nhibited

n

pressing

their

demands

for

improvements,

est

they

antagonise

the

officials.

Complaints

re

often

taken

as

a

reflection

n

the

efficiency

f

the

Board

and

of

its

officials.

Complaints

are

hardly

ttended

to

seriously.

The

working

f

these

tenants

ssociations

well

llustrates he

threat

o

personal

liberties

nvolved

n

the

expansion

of an

inefficient

ureaucracy

which s

insufficientlyositive

n its

approach.

Another

aspect

of

the

working

of

these

associations

needs

to be

7

Joseph

a Palombara

"Bureaucracy

nd

Political

evelopment

Notes,

ueries,

and

Dilemmas"

n

Bureaucracy

nd

Political

evelopment

Princeton

niversity

Press,

963,

p.

57-58,



8/11

PLANNING

N INDIAN

DEMOCRACY

343

mentioned

f

only

because

they

are

symptomatic

f a

generalmalady

n

Indian social

and

political

life.

The

officials

often

interfere

n the

voluntary

ctivities f the association. In one situationwhich he writer

can

vividly

ecall,

an

official f

the

Housing

Board

came

to the

colony

a

few

days

before

ndependence

Day

to

inquire

nto

the

arrangements

hich

were

being

made

for the

flag-hoisting

eremony

nd

for

the

reception

f

the

minister

who

had

been

invited

or

the

occasion.

The official ot

only

made

the

inquiries

which

is

reasonable

but went

on

to

suggest

ll

the

details,

s

to

who should

be

invited,

ow

the

seating rrangements

ere

to

be made forthe ittle

ea which

was

to be

given,

nd so

on.

At

the

same

time

he

was

interjecting

he observation "This is

really

your

function,

we

are onlythe nvitees " On occasions ikethis,one getsthe mpressionhat

the

tenants

ssociation

functionsmore

for

the convenience

f

the

Housing

Board

than

for

the

welfare f the tenants.

To be

fair

to the

officials, owever,

t needs

to be

pointed

out

that

for

this

state of

affairs,

he tenants

re

themselves

argelyresponsible.

They

can

hardly

ever thinkof

any

function without

making

efforts

o

invite

minister

r

the

Board's officials.

In

one

instance,

he

Minister

or

Housing

had been invitedto

throw

open

a

garden

which

hardly

xisted.

A

few

flower

ots

were

hired

to

mark the

spot

and

the

minister

resided

over the farce. Inquiryhas revealed hatthis s done as partofa strategy

whichthe

tenants ave evolved

in

their

ll-too-helpless

ondition.

Since

officials ill

not listen o their

grievances,

he

lightest retext

for

inviting

the

Minister

s seized

upon.

On

one

occasion,

the

Board's

official

aving

sensed

uch

a

motive

warned the

tenants

that the

flag-hoisting

eremony

ought

not to be

used for

odging

omplaints

Whatever he

reason

for

this

practice,

he

habit of

inviting

fficials

or ministers

or

every

unction

eems to

have become

a national

trait.

No

less

than

the officials

f

the

Housing

Board succeeded

on

one

occasion

to

invite the President f India to throw pen a Community all put up by

the

Housing

Board.

The

habit of

inviting representatives

of

the

bureaucracy

or

politicians

has the effect

of

keeping Big

Government

perpetually

efore

the

eyes

of

the

people.

No association

s

considered

important

r

worthy

f

support

unless the Governor of the

State

is

the

patron

and

the

Chief

Minister ts

chairman.

Even

research odies

set

up

to

carry

ut

independent

esearch

n

their

wn

often oad

their

executive

committeeswith

officialswith the

result hat

t colours the

quality

of the

research

which

merges

rom

uch

nstitutions.

At

student

functions

nd

college associations and even at seminars

and

conferences f learned

bodies,

it

is

the

politician

and the

officialwho must

be invited o

inaugu-

rate

them.

A

certain

magnified

onception

of

the

"sarkar" has

become

part

and

parcel

of

the

mental

make-up

of

the Indian

mind

of

the

intellectuals

s well

as

of the

masses. The

expansion

of

government

ue

to

planning

has

accentuated

his

lement.



9/11

344

THE

NDIANJOURNAL

F

POLITICAL CIENCE

Planning

nd

Freedom

The conflict etweenplanning and freedom s oftenregarded s a

matter

of

academic

interest nd in

recent

years

it is

only

the business

community

which has

raised the

problem.

The

intellectuals ave

for

the

most

part

accepted

the

nevitability

f

planning

nd have

no

sympathy

or

the

point

of

view

of the

businessman. There

are

severalreasons

for

this

attitude.

A

fewof

them

may

be

indicated. In India the

businessman

as

traditionally

een

regarded

s

anti-social

n his

activities

for his

mage

of

the

businessman

e is

himself

argely esponsible.

A

survey

conducted

in

1956

by

the Indian

Institute

f

Public

Opinion

n West

Bengal

and

Delhi

revealed

a

general

antagonism

owards the

private

sector.

The

greatest

hostilityamefromthose in the professions .g., clerical,fromstudents

and urban

workers. It was

also found

that

hostility

ncreased

with

education

university

raduates

being

more hostile than illiterate

people.8

Henry

Schloss

points

out

further

hat

during

he

British

eriod

much

of

the

businesswas in

the hands

of

the British

or of the

highly

westernized

Indian

elite.

Thus

during

the

struggle

ra

an anti-British nd

an anti-

business

ttitude ecame

one.9

The

dangers

of

planning

n

India

come from the

expansion

of

an

outmoded

bureaucracy

whose

traditional

methods of work

are

likely

to

producefrustrationsnd frictionss

government

ctivities

egin

to touch

the

ives

of

the

people

at

a

larger

number f

points.

The

multiplication

f

annoyingregulations

re

justly

condemned

by

the several

critics

of

the

Indian

Government.

The

growth

f

delegated

egislation

oes

present

n

area

which

onceals

the threat

o

freedom.

The New

Despotism

of

Lord

Hewart

s

still

withus. What

happened

in

the

Critchel

Down

Case

can

happen

with

greater

frequency

n

India.

Parliamentary

upervision

f

subordinate

egislation

s formal

nd

inadequate.

Fortunately,

owever,

there re

indications

f

a

desire

o

carry

out

a

comprehensive

xamination

of the administrativeystem. There is also beginningto emerge the

awareness of the

need to

appoint

officials

on

the

pattern

of the

Ombudsman o receive

omplaints

rom he common

citizen.

Indeed,

it is

refreshing

o

note that

the

Government

f

Rajasthan

has

seriously

hought

of

this

device.

But more serious

s the

threat

o

freedom

rom

society

which

s

by

and

large

authoritarian

n

its

undertones

nd which has

not

developed

either

conceptions

of

individual

freedom

or

of

public

interest.

The

proliferation

f rules

and

regulations

s

related

o

the low

state of

public

morale in the country. No sooner is a law made than thepeople have

8

Myron

Weiner

The olitics

f

carcity

Asia

Publishing

ouse,

962,

.

135.

9

Henry

. Schloss

"The

Role of

the Private

ector

nthe

ndian

conomy"

n

Studies

n

Asia,

1962

(edited

y

.

D.

Brown),

University

f

Nebraska

ress,

1962, .

78.



10/11

PLANNING

N

INDIAN

DEMOCRACY

345

discovered

devices

for

breaking

t,

or

found

loop-holes

which

they

can

make

use

of

to their own

advantage.

The

bureaucracy

n

its

anxiety

o

close these

gaps,

makes further ules. One can notice this interactionn

several

areas of administration.

The result of this

is that

the

honest

citizen suffers

t the hands

of the

bureaucracy

and

generally

finds no

means of redress.

As

India's

authoritarian

ociety gets

more

and

more

politicised

hanks o the ntroduction

f universal

uffrage

nd the

devices

of

liberal

democracy,

it

will learn to

manipulate

the

agencies

of

government.

In a

corrupt society,

he

bureaucracy

must

necessarily

et

corrupt.

Indeed as

Myron

Weiner

notes,

some

formsof

corruption

re

part

of

the ndian

administrative

ystem

nd

are needed

as

a lubricant.

The dangersfromplanning eem to emerge rom he social realities four

society

nd

not

so

much

from

lanning

per

se. In

fact,

there

s

little

of

planning

n

spite

of the

size

of the five

year

plans.

India

is,

to use

the

expressive

hrase

of

Galbraith,

"functioning

narchy".

Some

built-in hecks

on

the

dangers

rom

lanning

I

have

argued

hat

the

dangers

o

freedom n

India come

not from

planning

as such

but from the

authoritarian

ociety

n which

t

operates.

But as

already

noted,

there

re influential

ections

f

people

in

the

country

who feel

that

the

planning

process

will lead

to the

twilight

f

liberty

that India is already on the inclinedplane to such a disaster. It is

therefore

ecessary

o

consider

ome of the

built-in

hecks.

1.

India's

administrations

still

dominated

by

the

generalist

administrators

ho

are

anxious to

get

as

much

support

or

their

ctions

as

possible.

The Indian

Civil Service has left behind some traditions

which till

erve

the

country sefully.

India's

planners

have endeavoured

to

securethe

greatest greement

or

the

economic

programme.

The actual

dynamics

f the

planningprocess

makes

this evident. In

the

preparation

of the

Plan for

instance,

help

was

sought

from

every

uarter.

Leading

publicmen nd scholars,professionalssociations nd independentxperts

gave

the

benefits f their

experience.

The

Commission

sought

advice

from ts various

panels

on Land

Reform,

Agriculture,

ducation,

Health

and

Housing

and

the Panel

of

Economists,

nd the

Panel

of Scientists.

The

Commission

ought

o

prepareplans

at the

district,

lock

and

village

levels.

As

a

result

of

Panchayati

Raj

attempts

re

made to

decentralise

the

planning rocess.

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

nd

of

India's

generalist

dministrators

o

get

mass

support

for

their

work

cannot

seriously

e

doubted.10

2.

Collectivistic

economic

planning

is

hindered,

paradoxically

enough,

by

the

very

nefficiency

f

the

administrative

ystem.

Adminis-

10

CfMichael

recher

Nehru

A

Political

iography

Oxford

niversity

ress,

1959,

.

522.



11/11

346

THE NDIAN

JOURNAL

F

POLITICAL

CIENCE

tratorsfind

obstacles all

over

and

red-tapism

would

frustrate he

most

ardent

and

vigorous

administrator.

Further,

he federal

system

n

spiteof ts

highly

entralised

ower

system,

makes the Centre

greatly

ependent

on

the

States

for

ts

developmental

rogrammes.

"Perhaps

nowhere

lse",

Appleby

has

observed,

have

so

many

ystematic

arriers

been erected

to

prevent

he

accomplishment

f

that which it has

determined hould

be

done."

In

the case

of the

CompulsoryDeposit

Scheme,

he

States

were

far from

enthusiastic

n

implementing

what

was

by

any

standard,

n

unpopular

measure. It

is

possible

thatone

of the several reasons

for

the

modification

f the

Scheme

was

the

difficulty

f

implementation.

3.

Finally,

the

implementation

f

the

plan

like

its

formulation

s

a

part

of the

political

process.

Opposition

parties

have become articulate

in recent

years

about

their

grievances

nd their

riticism

f

government

policies.

One

notes

the

vociferous

riticism

y

the Swatantra

arty

nd

the

business sections.

The conflicts

within

the

Congress

Party

itself

prevent

n all-out

unified

ffort

owards

ollectivism.

Thanks

to

PanchayatiRaj,

the

rural

elite

s also

becomingpolitically

conscious

although

n

varying egrees

n

different

tates.

As

Government

policies

begin

to

touch

different

ections f

people,

the atter

will

acquire

a

deeperunderstanding

f

the

politicalprocess

and

will

organise

themselves.

In

1959,

the

All India

Agriculturists

ederationwas

holdingmeetings

n

different

arts

of

the

country

o

awaken the

peasants

to

the

dangers

of

cooperative

arming

nd

Mr.

Masani

reports

hat

when

he

presided

ver

a

peasants'

conference

n

Sonepat

n

the

Punjab

in

1959,

he was

encouraged

to

find

thousands

of

peasants

shouting

he

slogan

:

Sanghi

Kheti

Nahin

Karenge (We

will

not

do

cooperative

farming).11

More

recently,

he

goldsmiths

n

the

country

ut up

a

spirited

pposition

o the

Government's

Gold Control

Order.

They

were

particularly

ctive

in

Rajkot

where

Mr.

Masani

won

a

splendid

victory

ver

the

Congress

candidate.

The

latterexplaining o hisParty hereasons forhis failurementionedhe un-

popularity

f

the

Gold Control

Order.

These

are

encouraging

igns

for

a

society

which

for

centuries

dopted

a

docilely

ubmissive

ttitude

owards

the Government

nd

regarded

t

as

ma-bap.

As

many

of the

organised

pressures

re

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

f

planning

more difficult.

New

techniques

of

political

action

and new attitudes

may

have

to

be

evolved

but

it

will

render

he

threat o

liberty

rom

collectivistic

conomic

planning

ven

ess

likely.

i1

M.

R.

Masani

"Nagpur

ndAfter"

n For

FreedomFarm

nd

Family.

Forum

of

Free

nterprise,

959.

12

Myron

Weiner

In

his

The

olitics

f

carcity

Weiner

as

rgued

hat

he

ndian

Government

as

hitherto

ttempted

o

control,

estrain

nd

repressrganised

demands.

Documents

Planning in Indian Democracy