Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The National Development Council (NDC), established in 1952, served as the apex body for formulating India’s Five-Year Plans. It aimed to secure coordination between the Centre and States in the process of development. Simultaneously, the Planning Commission, established in 1950, was the principal formulating body. The question posits that the NDC’s ability to represent state demands hinged on the Planning Commission’s subservience. This argument stems from the inherent tension between centralized planning and the federal structure of India. While the NDC included Chief Ministers, its effectiveness in truly resonating state demands was often debated, particularly concerning the Planning Commission’s dominant role in plan formulation and resource allocation.
Historical Context and Constitutional Basis
The Indian Constitution, while establishing a federal structure, leans towards a centralized model, particularly in financial matters. The Planning Commission, initially conceived by Jawaharlal Nehru, held significant power in shaping economic policy and allocating resources. The NDC, comprising the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, and Chief Ministers of all states, was intended to provide a platform for consensus-building. However, the Planning Commission often presented pre-formulated plans to the NDC, limiting the scope for genuine state input.
The Dynamics of Power: NDC vs. Planning Commission
The argument that the NDC could effectively represent state demands only if the Planning Commission was subservient rests on several points:
- Resource Allocation: The Planning Commission controlled the bulk of central assistance to states. If it operated independently, it could prioritize national objectives over state-specific needs, diminishing the NDC’s influence.
- Plan Formulation: The Commission drafted the Five-Year Plans, and the NDC largely ratified them. A subservient Planning Commission would be more receptive to state priorities during plan formulation.
- State Representation: While the NDC included Chief Ministers, their influence was often limited by the technical expertise and bureaucratic weight of the Planning Commission.
Evidence Supporting the View
Several instances demonstrate the Planning Commission’s dominance. During the early decades, states often voiced concerns about the allocation of funds and the prioritization of projects. The NDC, despite having state representation, struggled to significantly alter the Commission’s decisions. For example, in the 1960s, several southern states protested against the criteria used for allocating central funds, arguing they disadvantaged states with better social indicators. The NDC could not effectively address these concerns due to the Planning Commission’s firm control over resource allocation.
Counterarguments and Limitations
However, the claim of complete subservience is an oversimplification. The NDC did play a role in influencing the Planning Commission, albeit limited.
- Political Pressure: Chief Ministers, as heads of their state governments, could exert political pressure on the central government to address their concerns through the NDC.
- Consensus Building: The NDC served as a forum for dialogue and negotiation, fostering a degree of consensus on national development goals.
- State Plans: States were also responsible for formulating their own plans, which were then integrated into the national plan. This provided some avenue for state input.
The Dismantling of the Planning Commission and the Rise of NITI Aayog
In 2014, the Planning Commission was replaced by NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India). This decision was partly driven by the perception that the Planning Commission had become rigid and unresponsive to the changing needs of the country. NITI Aayog adopts a more collaborative approach, emphasizing cooperative federalism and state-led development. The Governing Council of NITI Aayog, comprising the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers, is intended to be a more effective platform for coordinating development efforts. The shift reflects a recognition that a centralized planning model is no longer suitable for a diverse and dynamic economy.
Critical Assessment
While the NDC’s effectiveness was undoubtedly constrained by the Planning Commission’s power, attributing its limitations solely to the Commission’s lack of subservience is an overstatement. The inherent structural imbalances within the Indian federal system, coupled with the centralized nature of economic policymaking, played a significant role. The NDC, despite its composition, lacked the institutional capacity and political leverage to consistently override the Planning Commission’s decisions. The transition to NITI Aayog represents an attempt to address these shortcomings by fostering a more collaborative and decentralized approach to development planning.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the view that the NDC could resonate state demands only if the Planning Commission was subservient holds some merit, particularly concerning resource allocation and plan formulation. However, it’s a simplification of a complex dynamic. The NDC’s limitations stemmed from broader structural issues within the Indian federal system and the centralized nature of economic planning. The dismantling of the Planning Commission and the establishment of NITI Aayog signify a move towards greater state participation and cooperative federalism, aiming to address the historical imbalances and enhance the effectiveness of national development efforts.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.