Opinion Unravelling the plan
Why and how the Planning Commission will always be with us...
When I went to college,there was a book by a fellow called Durbin called Why Plan,and it had to be read to get a degree. These days they say that knowledge is a source of growth and actually reading a book here and a book there and getting things done well,may in fact not be as bad an idea as one of our ministers makes it out to be.
More seriously,the itch to abolish the Planning Commission emerges ever so often,at times ideologically and at other times by the Spartans,who presumably never like the Athenians. This question was raised when the Janata government came to power in 1977 and again with the NDA,and both times the PM had to clarify that economic planning as both Morarjibhai and Vajpayeeji called it,was on. But the hope continues Chandrababu Naidu is one,and our own PC,pun on initials unintended,is not far behind.
In a large country still on the make,with a federal set-up and everyone following their own dreams,it is unlikely that the ideological abolitionists will make it. But the Spartans are another story,for the powers of the Planning Commission are another vexed matter. Those who wield the power like to avoid the question,for keeping power by quoting values is their best bet. I have been there myself and was with the angels,but in honesty would say the question remains.
The best reason why the planners must shed some of their powers is actually detailed by the Planning Commission itself in some of its good books,which our minister doesnt want us to read. In the early 80s,I think it was the Seventh Plan,the commission said the ministries must make more detailed sectoral plans and that was not the job of the Planning Commission. Ditto for the states. In fact the commission put muscle in a scheme to provide the resources to do it. That kind of planning we gave up in 1992.
The Planning Commission should have come to an end by then,but it continues to flourish and the questions before Yojana Bhavan are longer. The Bhavan itself gets its powers from the PM; if public resources are less,those who have a say become more powerful: for there is less to go around. In that case ministries or states would hardly ever say they failed to get their due and the commission also becomes a good scapegoat. If quarrels inevitably start,then the planners are the guys to blame and of course they love that attention. When the Plan says that formula-based assistance has gone down and the formula was the Gadgil-Mukherjee formula,two honourable deputy chairmen of the commission,they actually become more powerful,for now they dont have to stick to a formula.
The other reason was more powerful. Direct allocations from the commission went down,which is what liberalisation was all about. But now the private sector was to do our bit. Nobody knew how. This is where the commission stepped in and developed the rules to make it happen MCAs,RFQs,reverse bidding,viability gaps and you name it. But we dont like rules. If you are a Spartan,the rule is for the other guy. We are not China. The government of India is a house of glass. There is the CAG,Parliament,and the press. The same guys who berate you for delay can crucify you for shielding corruption.
Finally the great question. Arun Maira has reportedly written an essay on the Planning Commission as a think tank,but it is not yet up on the Planning Commission website,but I can say that it will never be a think tank like JNU or the Delhi School of Economics. I am sure Arun knows that and will build up its scenario role at an operative level,whether or not Kamal Nath likes a book here or there. This is where the big questions are going to be. What is the difference between the viability gap between the expressway and that road to the back of the beyond? Can the principles behind an RFQ be different? Do strategies matter in an uncertain world?
My problem is that they dont read,here and there,as much as they should any more. Otherwise there would have been a strategic perspective chapter in the Eleventh Plan,in which the chapter on perspectives was dropped. Lets hope Maira makes it up and the real debate begins.
The writer,a former Union minister,is chairman,Institute of Rural Management,Anand
express@expressindia.com
Share
