One of the most significant economic decisions of the present
government was to replace the Planning Commission with a new institution. Accordingly
NITI Aayog, which would serve as a Think Tank of the Government, was announced on
Jan. 1, 2015.
During the last sixty five years after the formation
of the Planning Commission in 1950, lots of economic developments have taken
place. As a result, the replacement has become a necessity.
The economic discourse has been dominated by the Western
ideologies for a long time. The capitalist ideology was put forth during the
late eighteenth century in Europe when there was large scale discontent in the
society. The industrial revolution too could not fulfill the expectations of
people; it rather created more problems for the working classes. In response to
this the communist ideology was placed as the alternative during the second
half of the nineteenth century.
After about seven decades of experiments, communism
collapsed in Soviet Russia during the late 1980s. The other bastion of the
communist ideology namely China, had already abandoned it during the previous
decade. As a result, the United States claimed that its market centric ideology
was the most suitable one for progress. But the countries that followed the
policies advanced by the US have been failing in different places. Soon the global
economic crisis in 2008 proved that the US model would no longer work in its
own place.
As a result, many economists including those from the
US admitted that their theories have failed to capture the realities and the
‘one size fits for all approach’ would not be suitable to all the countries. Even
the multilateral agencies accept that different models might be suitable for
different countries. Meanwhile, the performance of different economies during
the recent years show that China and India have been growing faster than the others.
Meanwhile studies undertaken by western scholars
during the last three decades point out the predominant role of India and China
during the earlier centuries. Angus Maddison notes that India was dominating
the global economy with a share of 32.9 per cent during 0 CE, followed by China.
India and China continued to dominate the world economy for the next eighteen
centuries, with India remaining at the top, most of the time. India lost her
position and ultimately became a poor country due to the colonial policies.
India and China could not have become the two most
prosperous nations without their own native economic models. Besides,
they remained the most sustainable economies for the longest period in the
history. Such a performance would not have been possible without
well-functioning systems in place.
Even before Independence, Gandhiji wanted to have
wider discussions on the right kind of approach in free India, but the Congress
leadership did not listen to him. After independence, the policy makers opted
for the socialistic ideas to guide them in decision making. It was during that
time that the Planning Commission was established based on the Soviet
experience.
After more than three decades of socialistic experiments,
the Government went in for a change in approach during the early 1990s. It
chose to follow the western market ideology, again without much discussion. The
consequences have been severe with the domestic markets being opened up without
the required preparations and the basic sectors facing serious difficulties.
It is unfortunate that India, with a very long history
of superior economic performance, has been guided by one or the other of western
ideologies during all these years. Hence we have not been able to realize our
full potential, based on our strengths. But in spite of confusions and
contradictions at the policy making levels, the nation continues to move
forward due to the strong fundamentals and the innate abilities of our
people.
John Kenneth Galbraith, an economist, was the US
Ambassador to India during the early 1960s. When he visited India during 2001,
he noted: “I wanted to emphasize the point, which would be widely accepted,
that the success of India did not depend on the government. … We have seen many
years of Indian progress, and that is attributable to the energy and genius of
the Indian people and Indian culture.”
Field level studies in different parts of the country
indicate that India has her own unique models functioning at different levels.
It is these models that are pushing the economy to continuously move forward,
despite the lack of clarity at the top levels. Hence there is little use of
adopting the models of other countries.
In
this connection, the Cabinet resolution passed to establish NITI Aayog notes
that “ ….. the
institution must adhere to the tenet that while incorporating positive
influences from world, no single model can be transplanted from outside into
India.” Besides, the resolution states: “We need to find our own strategy for growth.
The new institution has to zero in on what will work in and for India.”
The
resolution is very clear when it mentions: “It will be a Bharatiya approach to
development.” This is a historic
statement for all of us, as the functioning India has been longing for
nation-centric approaches. It has taken six and half decades for the Government
to state boldly that we would follow our own native approaches. Only a truly nationalistic
and self-confident Government can do this.
Family base, higher savings, social capital, high
level of entrepreneurship, non-corporate sector, native pool of local resources
and the cultural backgrounds of our age-old civilization remain the fundamental
strengths of our economy. The Government has for the first time identified the core
strengths of our society and initiated steps to nurture and utilize them for
economic development.
Social capital is recognized as a critical asset for
economic progress and is given the required importance in many countries.
Studies show that we have high social capital due to our cultural ethos and that
is helping our economy as a major factor. The Government acknowledges its significance
and notes that it “needs to be leveraged through appropriate policy initiatives.”
The non-corporate sector remains the backbone of our
economy, contributing the highest share to the GDP and providing 92 per cent of
employment. There are more than 50 million small businesses, playing a very
important role in the economy. Most of them are promoted by the ordinary
sections of the society through their own initiatives, in distant parts of the
country.
They have a huge potential and the ability to
transform the lives of large sections of people, yet they are unable to perform
to the full extent as they remain neglected. The cabinet resolution notes that
“policy making must focus on providing necessary support to this sector in
terms of skill and knowledge upgrades and access to financial capital and
relevant technology.”
The modern discourse has contempt for villages and
neglects them in the policy making process. The resolution notes that “villages
continue to be the bedrock of our ethos, culture and sustenance”. Hence they
“need to be integrated in the development process so that we draw from their
vitality and energy.” So the think tank
would “develop mechanisms to formulate credible plans to the village levels and
aggregate these progressively at higher levels of government.”
In the centralized policy making system, there was
only one way of flow of policy from the centre to the states. It is “sought to
be replaced by a genuine and continuing partnership of states”. It is made clear that only strong states
could make a strong India. Hence the new institution is “designed to evolve a shared
vision of national development priorities, and foster cooperative federalism.”
NITI Aayog
would enable the country to face challenges by leveraging India’s demographic
dividend and realizing the potential of the youth. Besides, it would “provide chance
to every Indian to live a life of dignity and self-respect”.
India is a unique country with diverse backgrounds and
hence a uniform model will not be suitable to all the states. The new body is
expected to “embrace the specific demands of states, regions and localities”. A
resource centre is planned as a repository of research on good governance and
best practices for dissemination to all those who require it. So far India did not
have much of a role to play in the deliberations at the global level. The new
body is expected to change it.
NITI Aayog aims to make India well developed economy utilizing
all our potential with the involvement of different sections of the society
through Bharatiya approaches. We hope that India would regain her glory and
emerge as an economic powerhouse at the global level.
( The Nationalist, Issue:2, Feb.16, 2015, New Delhi)
1 comment:
Thanks for this nice summary on the NITI Aayog 'mision statement'. Much cearer that what one sees in the mainstream media.
Post a Comment