American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

On "Ideology and Indian Planning" Author(s): A. Vasudevan Source: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 1968), pp. 214-216 Published by: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3485280 . Accessed: 23/07/2013 01:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Economics and Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 115.119.254.154 on Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:20:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMENT On "Ideology and Indian Planning"

By A. VASUDEVAN I THE ATTEMPT on the part of Professor Ralph B. Price to bring out the ideology in (ratherthan and) Indian planning (AmericanJournalof Economicsand Sociology,Vol. 26, No. 1, January, 1967) could be regardedas remarkable but for some blemishesand misreadingof the Indian situation. The following remarksare intended to promote a better understanding of the subjectin question. Professor Price's opening sentence, "The Congress Party of India is noted for the strong ideologicalposition of its pre- and post-independence leadershipand for its "adoptionof the goal of building a 'socialistpattern of society,'" tempts one to ask two importantquestions,viz., what is the period of pre-independence leadership,and how strong is the ideological position of this leadership. From the article one guesses that Professor Price has probablyin his mind the period betweenthe early 30's and 1947 as the one constituting pre-independenceleadership. But one is not certainaboutthe strengthof the ideology of leadershipduring this period, even if it is grantedthat there was an ideology. A study of national leaders in the struggle for independence would and any show that there were liberals, extremists,middle-of-the-roaders, numberof men with differenttexturesof ideas. It may, however,be said, in fairness to Professor Price, that the word "socialism,"whatever be its meaning or content, was often found in the speeches and writings of differentleaders since the beginning of the 30's. It was M. N. Roy who, seemed to have first introduced,as he himself though not a Congressman, claimedonce, the Marxianlanguageand (probably) thought (too) in the like Jayaprakash Narayan, independencemovement,while revolutionaries Rammanohar and Asoka Mehta Lohia, belonged to the CongressSocialist group (set up in 1934) within the CongressPartyitself. JawaharlalNehru did not belong to this group; nor was he an ardent Gandhianor even a Royist. He seemed to be an amalgamof all thought processesbut was still regardedas a "socialist"who rejected proletarian revolutionand believed in democratic ideals, mixed economy,cooperatives, and a gradualextension of the public sector. On these points there were few differences, exceptof degree,betweenhim and other "socialists." The IndustrialPolicy Resolution of 1948 does not, therefore, seem to be any

This content downloaded from 115.119.254.154 on Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:20:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

On "Ideology and Indian Planning" (Comment)

215

other than a natural consequence, rather than something "devised," as ProfessorPrice would have us believe, by the CongressParty,then facing "the realityof power." After all, with whom should the partydevise such a "compromise" in terms of a resolution? Surely not with the Socialist Party,which did not agree with the Congresson vital policy matters,but which was politically not powerful! Even the IndustrialPolicy Resolution of 1956 does not appear to be a compromise:it was at best a concretizationof one aspectof the Avadi Resolution (1954) of the "Socialist patternof society"that threatenedthe very existenceof the Praja Socialist Partyand the CommunistPartyof India.
II

PROFESSOR PRICE MAY BE FORGIVEN for not giving these details, but one

is somewhatpuzzled to know that the Indian elite and intellectualsbelieved in a concreterealizationof socialismonly via an ideology. One is not inclined to believe that there was, or even is, only one ideology in Indian planning, unless one defines clearly what "ideology" and "planning" mean. The fact that many controversiesexist on different aspects of Indian plans or planning policies goes to prove that different ideas held by differentmen, agencies,and governmentorganscannotbe easilybrought together under a convenient label of ideology. Also there is the undeniable fact that in the planning process, representatives of the business communityare consultedbefore fixing up the physicaland financialtargets in the privatesector. There are also reportsof working groups on private of plan enterprisebefore the Planning Commissionfor final determination targets. It is unfortunatethat ProfessorPrice was unawareof this part of the Planning Commission'sactivity,as his footnote 50 of the articletends to show.1 Moreover,it is difficultto prove that the governmentbureaucracy views the private sector "with suspicion and hostility," especially tend to work for private owing to the fact that most of the bureaucrats their retirement after from governmentservice. enterprises ProfessorPrice views the Mahalanobismodel as ideological, partly because the proportionof investmentin capitalgoods, X,, is fixed arbitrarily as a causatory factor of growth, and also becauseof the socialisticaim of economic independence from foreign imports of capital goods. He shows the technical flaws of the model by referring to Komiya's article. Perhapsone could also add the commentson the model by A. K. Sen, S. S. Tsuru, and a host of others. But none of the criticsconChakravarthy,
1 It may be useful to note that Mr. G. L. Mehta, who was a member of the Planning Commissionin the early fifties, is a prominent businessman-industrialist.

This content downloaded from 115.119.254.154 on Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:20:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

216

The AmericanJournalof Economicsand Sociology

cern themselvesaboutthe relativesize of the public vis-d-visprivatesectors. It is no use saying simply that the model is inspired by Soviet planning without showing clearlythe points of similarity. In this context one wishes that ProfessorPrice had examinedthe logical premisesof the fundamentalassumptionsof the Mahalanobismodel and had inquired into such importantfacts as the marketablesurpluses, the stock of capital,the levels of per capitaconsumption,the foreign exchange reserves,and the marginalpropensitiesto consume,as they existed at the beginning of the Second Five Year Plan. Such an effort would have pointed out the extent of realism in the model, and probably also the ideological moorings, if any. To cite the achievementsof the decade 1956-66 to prove the ideologicalbasis of the plans is to take shelterunder the "hindsight"of history,which indeed is not a convincingthing to do. Also, it is difficultto prove the ideological basis merely by saying that the extension of the public sector would mean slow growth rates, stifling of and imaginaprivate enterprise,and curbing innovation,experimentation, tion. The need of the hour does not seem to lie in experimentation which would often prove to be costly, as the Indian import substitutionschemes show. It is also unlikely that, at the present levels of Indian investment and capital stock, the private sector would be able to experimentand innovate, so as to bring about Wallichian "derived"development.
III

IT WOULD BE USEFULto ask at this juncture whether there should not be

any ideology in developmentplanning. ProfessorPrice seems to say that it should be weeded out, surely in the case of India. But he does not to privateenterstop here; he would go further to suggest encouragement prise as the only way to raise the Indian growth rates. One wonders whether this solution will not be a part of an ideology. Professor Price's treatmentof the Hindu characterand values, based largely on the pessimisticaccountsof N. V. Sovani and D. Narain, does not appearto be relevantto the subject in question. One does not find it happy to mix up "ideology,"Hindu values and character, in an analysis of the developmentaldesign of Indian plans, particularly the Second and the Third Plans, although Professor Price believed that accordingto the Congressleadership,a meaningful relationshipexists between a "socialist pattern of society"and Hindu philosophy. It is doubtful if any attempt has been made in this direction in a concrete manner by any of the Congressleaders,eitherof the past or of the present.
University of Bombay, Bombay,India

This content downloaded from 115.119.254.154 on Tue, 23 Jul 2013 01:20:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions