FILLING UP GAPS IN INDIAN PLANNING
India’s planning commenced in 1951 with lofty objectives has, undoubtedly, achieved success raising higher growth rate and improving living standard. Numerous schemes and programmes initiated for growth with social justice/inclusive growth also became conducive to some extent to achieve the targets yet; mostly the poverty ridden people hardly benefited. There is still widespread poverty and illiteracy prevails particularly in rural areas where about 68 % of our population reside and dependent on rural economy. Simultaneously, gender inequalities are also high in rural areas. Why so much rural-urban, gender inequalities are still there in spite of long period planned development.These larger gaps need to be identified in order to provide reasonably comfortable life to all citizens.
The history of now developed countries shows that they initially developed their agriculture and allied activities i.e; adoption of trickle up strategy of development and, later on demand arising from primary sector gave rise to the growth of manufacturing and services. In First Plan, India followed this strategy but in Second Plan it moved to trickle down strategy according greater emphasis to large scale industries with the objective to build up strong industrial base for Indian economy. while, at that time India was not in a position to meet demand for food stuff and raw materials during gestation period. It caused inflation, unemployment and slow growth turning to stagnant growth. Meanwhile, India’s agriculture sector productivity declined due to inadequate attention. Thanks to green revolution adopted in early sixties that agriculture took upward trend enabling us to become self sufficient with poor rural sector.
In 1991, liberal economic policies opening economy to global market along with rapid growth of ICT sector brought services into prominence. This drew our attention from manufacturing to services and we could neither develop our economy as manufacturing hub not as servicing hub while China developed its economy as manufacturing hub creating employment opportunities as as well capturing world market.
We need to review our economic policies to fill up gaps in India’s strategy of planned development so that there is equitable distribution of income and wealth without compromising to growth. Let the NITI AYOG adopt trickle up approach along with MAKE IN INDIA with emphasis on manufacturing sector and skill development programmes. The pertinent question is where should there be greater emphasis whether on rural sector or urban sector. It is well known fact that our rural people hardly enjoy the amenities of the level of urban areas giving rise to large scale rural-urban migration in search of employment, better education and many other amenities of life. It needs relatively greater attention to rural development locating industries there, opening schools/colleges along residential complexes and world class transport and communication facilities. Development should take place where people live rather than people are compelled to leave their settlements and move to other places overburdening them causing there congestion and many other associated problems.
The trickle up approach is even needed more in a country like ours because of its rural base. Pyramid can not stand with out strong bottom. Moreover, lotus grows in muddy water and all prophetic ideas took place far from the urban centers of their time. Hence, we need to build up strong bottom of India’s economy for avoiding congestion, employment creation and sustainable development.
Dr. Masood Hasan
Professor (Retd.) in Economics
AMU, Aligath, India
919897254371
