Politics of planned development - Class 12 Political Science - Chapter 3 - Notes, NCERT Solutions & Extra Questions
Renews every month. Cancel anytime
Your personal doubt-solving assistant
Chatterbot AI gives you 100% accurate answers to your questions in an instant.
Extra Questions - Politics of planned development | Politics in India Since Independence | Political Science | Class 12
💡 Have more questions?
Ask Chatterbot AINCERT Solutions - Politics of planned development | Politics in India Since Independence | Political Science | Class 12
Which of these statements about the Bombay Plan is incorrect?
(a) It was a blueprint for India’s economic future.
(b) It supported state-ownership of industry.
(c) It was made by some leading industrialists.
(d) It supported strongly the idea of planning.n
The incorrect statement about the Bombay Plan is:
(b) It supported state-ownership of industry.
The Bombay Plan supported significant state intervention in and planning of the economy but did not advocate for state ownership of industries. Instead, it represented a blend of public and private initiatives to drive economic growth.
Which of the following ideas did not form part of the early phase of India’s development policy?
(a) Planning
(b) Liberalisation
(c) Cooperative Farming
(d) Self sufficiency
(b) Liberalisation
Liberalisation did not form part of the early phase of India’s development policy. The early development policy focused on planning, cooperative farming, and achieving self-sufficiency through import substitution and promotion of domestic industries, rather than embracing market liberalization which involves reducing state controls and allowing free market forces to operate.
The idea of planning in India was drawn from
(a) the Bombay plan
(b) experiences of the Soviet
(c) Gandhian vision of society
(d) Demand by peasant bloc countries organisations
i. b and d only
ii. d and c only
iii. a and b only
iv. all the above
The correct option is (iii. a and b only). The idea of planning in India was influenced by both the experiences of the Soviet Union and the Bombay Plan, which was a proposal by Indian industrialists in 1944 advocating for state-led industrial and economic investments.
Match the following.
(a) Charan Singh | i. Industrialisation |
(b) P C Mahalanobis | ii. Zoning |
(c) Bihar Famine | iii. Farmers |
(d) Verghese Kurien | iv. Milk Cooperatives |
(a) Charan Singh - iii. Farmers
Charan Singh was notably concerned with the interests of farmers and implemented policies aimed at their welfare.
(b) P C Mahalanobis - i. Industrialisation
P. C. Mahalanobis was instrumental in setting the strategy for rapid industrialization, particularly through the Second Five Year Plan.
(c) Bihar Famine - ii. Zoning
In the context of natural disasters like famines, strategies like zoning are crucial for effective management and support.
(d) Verghese Kurien - iv. Milk Cooperatives
Verghese Kurien is famously associated with the White Revolution in India and the establishment of milk cooperatives.
What were the major differences in the approach towards development at the time of Independence? Has the debate been resolved?
At the time of Independence, India faced differing perspectives on development that were informed by two international models: the liberal-capitalist model prevalent in Western countries like the US and much of Europe, and the socialist model adopted by the USSR. Leaders within India were deeply impressed by the Soviet model, including members of the Communist Party, Socialist Party, and influential leaders like Nehru within the Congress. This perspective prioritized government involvement in economic development and social justice alongside economic growth.
The debate on these approaches has not been fully resolved. While there was a consensus on the need for a planned economy (leading to the establishment of the Planning Commission and the adoption of five-year plans), there continued to be disagreements on the extent of government intervention and the balance between industrial and agricultural development. Over time, economic crises and global trends have shifted policies but the core debate concerning the role of the state in economic development and the prioritization of industries remains pertinent.
What was the major thrust of the First Five Year Plan? In which ways did the Second Plan differ from the first one?
The major thrust of the First Five Year Plan focused primarily on the agricultural sector, which included significant investments in dams and irrigation projects. This plan aimed to address the immediate needs of the agrarian economy, particularly in light of the challenges posed by Partition. Land reforms were also emphasized as vital for agricultural growth and overall economic development.
In contrast, the Second Five Year Plan differed by prioritizing rapid industrialization, particularly through the development of heavy industries. Spearheaded by P.C. Mahalanobis, this plan sought a structural transformation of the economy towards a socialist pattern of society, as endorsed by the Congress party. It implemented significant import tariffs to protect domestic industries, focusing on expanding the public sector in domains like steel, railways, and communications. This shift represented a move from the predominantly agricultural focus of the first plan to a more industrial and urban development approach.
Read the following passage and answer the questions below:
“In the early years of Independence, two contradictory tendencies were already well advanced inside the Congress party. On the one hand, the national party executive endorsed socialist principles of state ownership, regulation and control over key sectors of the economy in order to improve productivity and at the same time curb economic concentration. On the other hand, the national Congress government pursued liberal economic policies and incentives to private investment that was justified in terms of the sole criterion of achieving maximum increase in production. “ — Francine Frankel
(a) What is the contradiction that the author is talking about? What would be the political implications of a contradiction like this?
(b) If the author is correct, why is it that the Congress was pursuing this policy? Was it related to the nature of the opposition parties?
(c) Was there also a contradiction between the central leadership of the Congress party and its Sate level leaders?
(a) The contradiction the author mentions arises from the Congress party's simultaneous endorsement of socialist principles (such as state ownership and economic regulation) and its pursuit of liberal economic policies that encourage private investment. These are contradictory because socialist principles typically involve restricting private sector roles in the economy, while liberal policies promote it. Political implications could include confusion among voters and party members, potential internal conflicts within the party, and challenges in presenting a coherent policy platform.
(b) The policy of pursuing liberal economic policies alongside socialist endorsements has been adopted by Congress due to the practical requirements of economic growth and development. Attracting private investment could have been seen as essential for technological advancement and immediate production increases, even if it conflicted with socialist ideals. This policy was likely influenced by the global economic environment more than by the nature of opposition parties, though the pressure to deliver economic success quickly might have been a factor.
(c) Such ideological contradictions at the national level potentially reflect differing economic priorities and approaches at the state level. This can lead to varied implementation of policies depending on regional economic contexts and the personal inclinations of state-level leaders.
💡 Have more questions?
Ask Chatterbot AINotes - Politics of planned development | Class 12 Politics in India Since Independence | Political Science
Class 12 Notes: Politics of Planned Development in India
Understanding the Politics of Planned Development
In the aftermath of gaining independence, India faced the monumental task of ensuring economic development. This challenge entailed making pivotal decisions and often required balancing social and economic justice with the need for rapid industrial growth. The structuring of planned development and the politics around it have shaped India's trajectory for decades.
Introduction to Planned Development in India
India's path to planned development was fraught with several key economic challenges:
- Alleviating poverty
- Boosting industrialisation
- Ensuring social justice
- Balancing agricultural and industrial needs
The leaders of independent India adopted a distinct approach that combined elements from both capitalist and socialist models.
Early Development Strategies and Debates
In the initial decades following independence, development strategies centred around extensive state intervention and planning. There was significant debate on the extent and form of this intervention, with differing views on whether to prioritise industry or agriculture and how to ensure equitable growth.
Key Questions:
- Should the government directly run key industries?
- What balance should be struck between economic growth and social justice?
Role of the Planning Commission
Formation and Functions
The Planning Commission was established in March 1950 through a simple resolution of the Government of India, not a constitutional mandate. The Prime Minister served as its Chairperson. Its primary function was to formulate nation-wide Five Year Plans (FYPs) to guide economic development.
Objectives:
- Promote welfare by ensuring social, economic, and political justice.
- Distribute material resources for common good.
- Prevent the concentration of wealth.
Impact
The Planning Commission centralised decision-making in India’s developmental planning and became the core institution guiding economic policies.
The Five Year Plans
The First Five Year Plan (1951–1956)
The First FYP aimed at addressing the agrarian sector, focusing on land reforms and the construction of major irrigation projects like the Bhakhra Nangal Dam.
The Second Five Year Plan (1956–1961)
Led by economist P.C. Mahalanobis, the Second Plan aimed at rapid industrialisation, stressing heavy industries. This plan had the goal of structural transformation through simultaneous changes across sectors.
Subsequent Plans and Challenges
With each plan, new strategies and priorities emerged, but the task of balancing industrial growth with agricultural needs continued to be a challenge.
Criticisms:
- Urban Bias: Critics pointed out the plans' preference for urban industrial development over rural agricultural needs.
- Technological Lags: Investments were often delayed due to India's technological backwardness.
The Shift in Development Strategies
By the 1960s, several economic crises and an acute food shortage led to questioning the early strategies. The novelty of the Planning Commission waned, leading to the introduction of the NITI Aayog in 2015, which marked a shift towards a more decentralised planning approach.
Political Ideologies and Development
Left vs Right
The politics of the era can broadly be understood along ideological lines:
- Left: Advocated for government intervention and supported policies benefiting the poor and marginalised.
- Right: Preferred free competition and minimal government interference in the economy.
The Congress Party's Stance
The Congress Party, which led India during these formative years, largely leaned towards a mixed economy with significant state planning, influenced by socialist ideals.
Social and Economic Justice in Planning
One of the standout aims of Indian planning was to ensure social and economic justice. Initiatives in land reforms, poverty alleviation, and infrastructure development aimed at reducing societal inequities.
Balancing Acts:
- While promoting industrialisation, ensuring that it doesn’t come at the cost of rural livelihoods.
- Integrating the needs of marginalised communities into national development agendas.
Case Study: The Orissa Steel Plant Controversy
The Orissa case exemplifies the multifaceted conflicts in developmental politics. While the state government aimed at attracting investment to boost the regional economy, the tribal population and environmentalists raised concerns about displacement and ecological damage.
Interests and Conflicts:
- State Government: Sought economic growth and employment opportunities.
- Local Tribes: Feared loss of their homes and livelihoods.
- Environmentalists: Concerned about environmental degradation.
- Central Government: Aimed at setting a pro-investment precedent.
Conclusion
Understanding the politics behind India's planned development provides valuable insights into the nation’s economic and social fabric. The journey from centralised planning under the Planning Commission to more decentralised approaches under NITI Aayog underscores the dynamic nature of development politics in India.
Summary:
- Post-independence India focused on planned development to address economic challenges.
- Several strategies were debated and implemented, leading to mixed results.
- The role of the Planning Commission and the Five Year Plans was pivotal in shaping early economic policies.
- Ideological influences and conflicts of interest continue to impact developmental politics.
Key Takeaway:
Planned development in India has always been about balancing rapid economic growth with social and economic justice. This balance, influenced by changing political ideologies and practical challenges, continues to shape the nation’s development trajectory.
🚀 Learn more about Notes with Chatterbot AI