Chapter 3: Political Contestation| Class 12 Political Science Notes

India has faced many important decisions, which are entangled with each other, but is guided by a common motive of economic development. Disagreements did arose with regards to the role of government in achivement of such a goal. There was questioning on the role of government in development, divergence on extent of centralisation and so forth. Let us discuss the political contestations in details!

After Independence, India faced a series of significant decisions, each intertwined with others and guided by a shared vision of economic development. There was widespread consensus that development should encompass both economic growth and social and economic justice. However, disagreements arose regarding the role of the government in achieving this vision.

While it was agreed that the government should play a key role in development, there was divergence on the extent of centralization in planning, the government’s involvement in key industries, and the prioritization of justice over economic growth. These questions sparked ongoing debates and political contestation.

Each decision had political ramifications, requiring consultation among political parties and public approval. Therefore, studying the process of development is essential to understanding the political history of India, as these decisions were intertwined with political judgments and public consultations.

Contestation over the idea of development is common, as it holds different meanings for various segments of society. For instance, an industrialist planning a steel plant, an urban steel consumer, and an Adivasi living in the region would perceive development differently, leading to contradictions and conflicts.

In the early years after Independence, there was considerable debate around development, often referencing the ‘West’ as the benchmark for measuring progress. Development was equated with modernization, mirroring the industrialized countries of the West, which involved the breakdown of traditional social structures and the emergence of capitalism and liberalism. This concept of development emphasized growth, material advancement, and scientific rationality.

India faced two models of modern development at Independence: the liberal-capitalist model predominant in Europe and the US, and the socialist model seen in the USSR. While some were drawn to the Soviet model, including leaders of the Communist Party of India and the Socialist Party, others, like Nehru within the Congress, leaned towards socialist principles. The capitalist model found fewer proponents.

This reflected a consensus forged during the national movement, with nationalist leaders emphasizing that the economic agenda of independent India should diverge from the colonial government’s commercial focus. Poverty alleviation and economic redistribution were viewed as government responsibilities, leading to debates on whether industrialization or rural poverty alleviation should be prioritized.

Despite various differences, there was consensus on one aspect: development couldn’t be left solely to private actors. Instead, there was a recognition of the need for government intervention in designing and planning development initiatives.

The Planning Commission, established by a resolution of the Government of India in March 1950, played a pivotal advisory role. Its recommendations required approval from the Union Cabinet to be effective. The Commission’s scope of work was defined by ensuring social, economic, and political justice, as outlined in the Constitution’s Directive Principles of State Policy.

The Planning Commission’s establishment wasn’t a sudden development but rather a culmination of public support for planning processes, influenced by global events like the Great Depression and the economic growth witnessed in the Soviet Union. Even big industrialists, contrary to assumptions, supported the idea of planning. In 1944, they drafted the Bombay Plan, advocating for state-led initiatives in economic investments.

Thus, from various ideological standpoints, planning for development emerged as the logical choice for post-Independence India. The Planning Commission, chaired by the Prime Minister, became instrumental in determining India’s development path and strategy.

What was the role of the Planning Commission in India?

The Planning Commission, established in 1950 by a resolution of the Government of India, played an advisory role in shaping the country’s development initiatives. It provided recommendations that required approval from the Union Cabinet to be effective.

What were the objectives of the Planning Commission according to its resolution?

The objectives outlined in the resolution included promoting welfare by securing an adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, ensuring equitable distribution of material resources for the common good, and preventing wealth concentration detrimental to society.

Why was the Planning Commission replaced by NITI Aayog?

The Government of India replaced the Planning Commission with NITI Aayog in 2015. NITI Aayog, or the National Institution for Transforming India, was established to provide strategic and technical advice to the government on various aspects of policy and development.