Strategy of Development in India in Early Years of Independence - A Critique

Yesterday I went to a seminar conducted by a localmodel.i. Communism as an ideology lies in revolution.
club wherein the topic of discussion was IndianHere the economic reforms are preceded by a social
economic model. The speakers were vociferous inrevolution that breaks up the social order and ushers
criticizing Nehruvian model of economy. This is nota new model. So basically, such a model is
the first time that I see somebody vomiting venomendogenous that is change from within. But an
against Nehru. Many times Nehru has been criticizedexogenous application of communist ethos would
for his strategy of planning during the formativeresult in mere redistribution of wealth but won't usher
years of independence. Most importantly thesea revolutionary life (: said by Che Guevara). One
criticisms come from highly educated people whocannot have true communist economy through policy
have seen interest in the economic development ofmaking. USSR and China were successful in having a
the nation. Their main point of criticism is based oncommunist economy because they were followed by
the fundamental incongruence of the high growtha revolution and hence total usurpation of the
rate of the globalized economic model post 1991 andexisting economy by the communist philosophy. In
the low growth rate of 1960s controlled economy. In1950s India and for that matter Nehru could not have
this short essay I am not going to compare theapproved of a social revolution through strict
benefits or short comings of the two economiccommunist planning or otherwise. So a strict
models; because comparisons as they say alwayscommunist economy was out of question.ii. Secondly,
tend to be odious. I will only point to some subtleNehru also wanted a balanced growth of market.
points which might have influenced the planningState intervention in the heavy projects were
process during the post independence period.necessary because of lack of capital but agriculture
When India gained freedom the immediateand service sectors did not need heavy gestation so
consideration of our leaders was to restructure aprivate investment was possible. Hence these sectors
broken economy. The major problems that they hadremained on private control. And heavy industries
faced were:-were under state control. Some criticize Nehru of
1. lack of capitalneglecting agriculture. Perhaps their point of criticism is
2. lack of financial institutionstowards the Congressional inability to implement
3. lack of infrastructureconcept of co-operative farming. Nehru did talked
4. lack of secondary (industry) or tertiary(service)about co-operative farming, but it did not materialize
sector and hence over dependence on primarybecause of political reasons. Nehru because of his
(agricultural) sectorastounding majority in the Loksabha could have his
At that time there were two models ofwill carried away with little opposition, but he did not
development open for the policy makers. The firstthink it was prudent to start a political crisis during
one is the famous Gandhian model of developmentthe early years of polity. As an alternate to the
which was aimed at minimization of wants to meetco-operative farming he introduced the concept of
the lesser supply and second was the Nehruviancommunity development project, which aimed at
model which was aimed at the maximization ofwholesome development of the rural India.
supplies to meet the increasing wants of people. YouSo India adopted a model of economy which had
can see the diametrical opposition between theseplace for both the private player and the state. It
two models of development. Today, we may laughwas like a variable sum approach to power wherein
at the Gandhian model for its naivety but at thatno body holds power in exclusion of the other party,
point of time it was a major theoretical concept.though some may say that the model favoured the
However the untimely demise of Gandhi, had put anpublic sectors or state controlled enterprises more.
end to his concept of development and NehruvianThis is called mixed economic model because of the
model remained the only alternate available for theparticipation of both private sector as the provider of
policy makers. Here we need to consider the lowerconsumer goods and the public sector as the
level of maturity and low experience of our policycommanding heights of economy dictating the
makers, including Nehru, because it was the first timeinfrastructural development of the country.
they were doing these kind of things and theNow before having a conclusion about the pros and
enthusiasm had over powered any pragmatic thinkingcons of Nehruvian model which is called Fabian
for an alternate, though there were small voices ofsocialism we can put our attention to two brief
left blocks could be heard here and there. Now, weeconomic models. They are:a. redistribution firstb.
would see what might have influenced Nehru'sproduction first
conception of the economic plan which later came toRedistribution first has similarity with communist
be known as mixed economy.economic models. Here the wealth is first
We will discuss why this model is called a mixedredistributed among the various sections and after
economic model later; we will first see what preparedthat the development and progress is though of. So
for the ground work of this model. At that time twothe cost of development, as in high capital
models were prevalent in the world:investment, is borne by both the present generation
1. capitalist economy: characterized by free economicand the future generation. On the other hand the
forcesproduction first model aims at increasing the
2. communist economy: state controlled economyproduction first and then thinking about redistribution
There was enormous international pressure on Nehruof the production among the people. In this case the
to adopt any of these two models. But he waspressure of high capital investment has to be born by
aware of the pros and cons of these two models.a.the present generation. Nehru as an ideological policy
why India could not have adopted a capitalist model:-adopted the second one, perhaps influenced by the
Indian market was not evolved at that time. Thereage old Indian tradition of paternal care towards the
was lack of capitals. If privatization were free then itchildren.
would have two serious consequences:i. there wouldMany criticize Nehru that this ideology means not
have been monopoly of a few private houses whicheradicating the economic inequality. Nehru's logic in this
would have ked to heavyinflationii. Secondly, therecase was also equally appreciative. According to his
would have been complete neglect of heavymodel, a slight degree of inequality was acceptable
enterprises.for the rapid development. And secondly, if
The reason for this was, infrastructure and heavyredistribution was done first, then the poor who had
industrial projects have high gestation periods thatbeen the victim of poverty would have squandered
means the profit would come only after a couple oftheir wealth on goods of immediate gratification. This
decades. So the private players would not bewould not have helped for saving of the country.
expected to invest money on such kind of projects.So as an ideological model the mixed economic model
This would have led India to a country with nowas the best suited model at that point of time.
infrastructure at all. So the only alternate left wasEven though the evil repercussions of the model was
state investment in such heavy projects. So capitalistseen in the late 198s in terms of heavy credit crunch,
economic model with dependence on market wasbut it was more because of misuse than the model
struck down.b. Why India could not have adopted aitself. Besides we should not forget the benefits of
communist model?this model which has manifested in SAIL, GAIL, BHEL,
The ardent leftist critics of Nehru say why Nehru didIITs, RECs, Dams, Ports and other infrastructural
not make build India on the lines of Russia. I think themarvels and also green revolution. So before criticizing
following factors would have prevented Nehru fromNehruvian model one has to understand the temporal
adopting a strict communist pattern of economicdimensions of his policies also.