Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Post-independence India adopted centralized planning as a key instrument for socio-economic development, deeply influenced by the Soviet model. A core tenet of this planning was the belief that state intervention, through resource allocation and industrial location, could actively mitigate existing regional inequalities. The idea was to move away from the colonial legacy of uneven development, where certain regions were deliberately underdeveloped to serve British economic interests. However, the extent to which planning truly succeeded in removing regional disparities remains a complex and debated issue, marked by both successes and significant failures.
Early Phase of Planning (First Three Five-Year Plans: 1951-1967)
The initial phase of planning (First to Third Five-Year Plans) prioritized rapid industrialization and focused on building a strong public sector. While these plans achieved significant growth in overall national income, the benefits were largely concentrated in a few industrially advanced states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu. This led to the widening of regional disparities. The emphasis on heavy industries, often located in these states due to existing infrastructure and skilled labor, inadvertently neglected the needs of agrarian states like Bihar, Odisha, and Madhya Pradesh.
- Industrial Licensing Policy: The stringent industrial licensing policy, intended to channel investment into priority sectors, often favored established industrial houses and regions, reinforcing existing inequalities.
- Location of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs): The location of large PSUs, like steel plants and refineries, was often driven by technical feasibility rather than regional balance, further concentrating development.
Mid-Phase & Attempts at Regional Balance (Fourth & Fifth Five-Year Plans: 1969-1980)
Recognizing the growing regional imbalances, the Fourth and Fifth Five-Year Plans attempted to address the issue more directly. The concept of ‘Area Planning’ was introduced, focusing on identifying backward areas and implementing targeted programs.
- Gadgil Formula (1969): This formula aimed to distribute central assistance to states based on a weighted average of population, per capita income, and tax effort. It was a significant step towards recognizing the differentiated needs of states.
- Target Group Approach (Fifth Plan): This approach focused on identifying vulnerable sections of the population in backward areas and providing them with targeted assistance.
- Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDPs): Launched in 1973, these projects aimed to improve the socio-economic conditions of tribal communities in designated backward areas.
However, these efforts were often hampered by administrative inefficiencies, lack of local participation, and political considerations. The implementation of area planning was often top-down, failing to address the specific needs and priorities of local communities.
Liberalization & Decentralization (Post-1991)
The economic liberalization of 1991 brought about a significant shift in the planning paradigm. The role of the state was reduced, and the private sector was given greater freedom. While liberalization led to faster economic growth, it also exacerbated regional inequalities. States with a more favorable investment climate and better infrastructure attracted greater private investment, while backward states were left behind.
- Decentralization & 73rd & 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992-93): These amendments aimed to empower local self-governments (Panchayats and Municipalities) and promote decentralized planning. However, the effectiveness of these amendments has been limited by factors such as inadequate financial resources, lack of capacity building, and political interference.
- Special Category Status (SCS): Some states were granted SCS, entitling them to preferential treatment in central assistance and tax concessions. However, the criteria for granting SCS have been controversial, and the benefits have not always been effectively utilized.
- Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF): Launched in 2006, this fund provided financial assistance to 256 backward districts across the country. However, its impact was limited by issues of implementation and monitoring.
Recent Trends & Challenges
Despite various initiatives, significant regional disparities persist in India. States like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Odisha continue to lag behind in terms of economic development, infrastructure, and human development indicators. The rise of globalization and the increasing importance of knowledge-based industries have further widened the gap between advanced and backward regions. The NITI Aayog’s efforts to promote competitive federalism and encourage states to adopt best practices have shown some promise, but a more concerted and sustained effort is needed to address the issue of regional inequality.
| Indicator | Most Developed States (e.g., Maharashtra) | Least Developed States (e.g., Bihar) |
|---|---|---|
| Per Capita Income (2022-23) | ₹3.5 Lakh+ | ₹75,000 - ₹1.5 Lakh |
| Literacy Rate (2011 Census) | 89% + | 63% - 70% |
| Infant Mortality Rate (2020) | 10-15 per 1000 live births | 30-40 per 1000 live births |
Conclusion
Planning in India, while initially conceived as a tool for equitable development, has had a mixed record in removing regional inequality. While early plans laid the foundation for industrial growth, they inadvertently exacerbated regional disparities. Subsequent attempts at area planning and decentralization faced implementation challenges. The liberalization era, while boosting overall growth, further widened the gap. A more holistic approach, combining targeted interventions, decentralized planning, and investments in human capital, is crucial to achieve truly inclusive and balanced regional development. The focus needs to shift from merely allocating resources to building the capacity of backward regions to attract investment and create sustainable livelihoods.
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.