Politics of planned developmentClass 12 Politics in India Since Independence NCERT Solutions
7 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 7
Q1Exercises
Which of these statements about the Bombay Plan is incorrect?
(a)
It was a blueprint for India's economic future.
(b)
It supported state-ownership of industry.
(c)
It was made by some leading industrialists.
(d)
It supported strongly the idea of planning.
Solution
(b) It supported state-ownership of industry.
This statement is incorrect. The Bombay Plan was a proposal drafted by leading industrialists in 1944. While it strongly supported the idea of a planned economy and wanted the state to take major initiatives in industrial and other economic investments, it did not advocate for complete state ownership of industry. The plan envisioned a significant role for the state in guiding the economy and investing in key sectors, but it was created by private entrepreneurs who would naturally favour a system that also allowed for private enterprise to flourish. The other statements are correct as the plan was a blueprint for economic development made by industrialists who supported the idea of planning.
Q2Exercises
Which of the following ideas did not form part of the early phase of India's development policy?
(a)
Planning
(b)
Liberalisation
(c)
Cooperative Farming
(d)
Self sufficiency
Solution
(b) Liberalisation
Liberalisation was not a part of the early phase of India's development policy. The post-independence economic model was based on principles of planning, state intervention, and self-sufficiency.
- Planning: The establishment of the Planning Commission and the adoption of Five Year Plans were central to the economic strategy.
- Self-sufficiency: The government imposed heavy tariffs on imports to protect and encourage domestic industries.
- Cooperative Farming: This was part of the broader agenda of land reforms and agricultural development, especially during the First Five Year Plan.
Liberalisation, which involves reducing state control, opening up the economy to private and foreign investment, and promoting a market-based economy, was a policy adopted much later in India's history.
Q3Exercises
The idea of planning in India was drawn from
(a)
the Bombay plan
(c)
Gandhian vision of society
(b)
experiences of the Soviet bloc countries
(d)
Demand by peasant organisations
i. b and d only
ii. d and c only
iii. a and b only
iv. all the above
Solution
iii. a and b only
The idea of planning in India was primarily drawn from two key sources mentioned in the chapter:
- (a) The Bombay Plan: In 1944, a group of leading industrialists drafted the Bombay Plan, which proposed a planned economy for the country and advocated for major state initiatives in economic investment.
- (b) Experiences of the Soviet bloc countries: Many Indian leaders, including Jawaharlal Nehru, were deeply impressed by the Soviet model of development, which demonstrated rapid economic growth through centralised Five Year Plans. The structure of India's Planning Commission and the adoption of Five Year Plans were directly inspired by the USSR.
Q4Exercises
Match the following.
(a)
Charan Singh
i. Industrialisation
(b)
P C Mahalanobis
ii. Zoning
(c)
Bihar Famine
iii. Farmers
(d)
Verghese Kurien
iv. Milk Cooperatives
Solution
The correct matches are as follows:
- (a) Charan Singh - (iii) Farmers: Charan Singh was a prominent political leader who articulated the interests of farmers and championed agricultural and rural development.
- (b) P C Mahalanobis - (i) Industrialisation: As the architect of the Second Five Year Plan, P. C. Mahalanobis was a key proponent of rapid industrialisation, particularly the development of heavy industries in the public sector.
- (c) Bihar Famine - (ii) Zoning: The policy of 'zoning' created zones and restricted the interstate movement of food grains. This policy was widely criticised for creating artificial food shortages in some regions and is often linked to the severity of events like the Bihar Famine.
- (d) Verghese Kurien - (iv) Milk Cooperatives: Verghese Kurien is known as the 'Father of the White Revolution' in India and was the architect of the cooperative dairy movement, exemplified by the success of Amul.
Q5Exercises
What were the major differences in the approach towards development at the time of Independence? Has the debate been resolved?
Solution
At the time of Independence, there was a broad consensus that development should be guided by the government to achieve both economic growth and social justice. However, there were major differences and debates on the specific approach.
Major differences in approach:
- Industrialisation vs. Agriculture: One of the central debates was about the priority sector. Some leaders and planners believed that rapid industrialisation was the key to modernity and economic growth. Others argued that agricultural development and alleviation of rural poverty should be the primary focus, as a majority of the population depended on it.
- Role of the State: While everyone agreed on a key role for the government, there were disagreements on the extent of its intervention. The questions debated were whether the government should run key industries itself, how much it should regulate the economy, and if a centralised planning institution was necessary for the entire country.
- Growth vs. Justice: There was a conflict on how to balance the requirements of economic growth with the needs of social and economic justice. It was unclear how much importance should be given to justice if it slowed down the pace of economic growth.
Resolution of the debate:
This debate has not been fully resolved and continues to this day. The chapter highlights this through the example of the proposed POSCO steel plant in Orissa. This case shows the ongoing conflict between the interests of industrialists (who promise investment and jobs), the tribal population (who fear displacement), and environmentalists (who fear pollution). Questions about 'whose development' and 'what kind of development' a region needs are still central to India's political discourse. The shift in economic policy in later years from a state-controlled model to a more market-oriented one shows that the debate evolves, but the fundamental contestation between different visions of development persists.
Q6Exercises
What was the major thrust of the First Five Year Plan? In which ways did the Second Plan differ from the first one?
Solution
The First and Second Five Year Plans had significantly different priorities and approaches towards development.
Major Thrust of the First Five Year Plan (1951-1956):
The major thrust of the First Five Year Plan was on the agrarian sector. Its primary aim was to pull the country's economy out of the cycle of poverty that was exacerbated by the Partition. The plan advocated a strategy to 'hasten slowly' to ensure that rapid development did not endanger democracy. Key features included:
- Huge investments in large-scale irrigation projects like the Bhakhra Nangal Dam.
- A focus on land reforms as a key to agricultural growth.
- An emphasis on increasing national income by encouraging savings.
Differences between the First and Second Plans:
The Second Five Year Plan (1956-1961) marked a major shift in strategy from the first plan.
- Focus Area: The First Plan prioritised agriculture and irrigation. In contrast, the Second Plan's main thrust was on heavy industries and rapid industrialisation.
- Pace and Strategy: The First Plan, guided by K.N. Raj, preached patience and a gradual approach ('hasten slowly'). The Second Plan, under the leadership of P.C. Mahalanobis, aimed for a 'quick structural transformation' by making simultaneous changes in all possible directions.
- Role of the Public Sector: While the First Plan laid the groundwork, the Second Plan decisively pushed for the development of a large public sector. Industries like electricity, railways, steel, and machinery were developed under government control.
- Trade Policy: The Second Plan introduced a policy of protectionism by imposing substantial tariffs on imports to shield domestic industries from foreign competition, a feature that was not as pronounced in the first plan.
Q7Exercises
Read the following passage and answer the questions below: "In the early years of Independence, two contradictory tendencies were already well advanced inside the Congress party. On the one hand, the national party executive endorsed socialist principles of state ownership, regulation and control over key sectors of the economy in order to improve productivity and at the same time curb economic concentration. On the other hand, the national Congress government pursued liberal economic policies and incentives to private investment that was justified in terms of the sole criterion of achieving maximum increase in production. "- Francine Frankel
(a)
What is the contradiction that the author is talking about? What would be the political implications of a contradiction like this?
(b)
If the author is correct, why is it that the Congress was pursuing this policy? Was it related to the nature of the opposition parties?
(c)
Was there also a contradiction between the central leadership of the Congress party and its Sate level leaders?
Solution
(a) The contradiction and its political implications:
The contradiction that the author points out is between the stated ideology and the actual policies of the Congress party.
- The Contradiction: The party's national executive officially endorsed socialist principles like state ownership, regulation, and control over the economy. However, the Congress government, in practice, implemented liberal economic policies that provided incentives to the private sector to maximise production. In essence, there was a gap between its socialist rhetoric and its more pragmatic, pro-private investment actions.
- Political Implications: This contradiction could have several political implications. It could lead to internal factionalism within the Congress party between its left-leaning and right-leaning members. For opposition parties, it provided an opportunity to criticise the Congress for its hypocrisy or lack of a clear ideological direction. It could also create policy uncertainty and confuse different sections of society, such as industrialists and workers, about the government's long-term economic vision.
(b) Reasons for the dual policy:
The Congress likely pursued this dual policy for pragmatic political and economic reasons.
- Maintaining a Broad Coalition: The Congress party was a broad-based movement that included people with different ideological leanings. The socialist rhetoric helped to appease its left-wing members and the masses who saw it as a path to social justice and poverty alleviation. Simultaneously, providing incentives to the private sector was seen as a practical necessity to achieve rapid economic growth and industrialisation.
- Relation to Opposition Parties: This policy was also a strategic response to the nature of the opposition. By adopting a socialist posture, the Congress could counter the political challenge from the Left parties like the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. At the same time, by encouraging private investment, it kept the business class and industrialists from aligning with any potential right-wing opposition.
(c) Contradiction between central and state leadership:
Based on the provided chapter text and the passage by Francine Frankel, there is no direct information to confirm or deny a contradiction between the central leadership of the Congress party and its state-level leaders on this specific matter. The passage focuses on the contradiction between the national party organisation and the national government. While it is plausible that such differences existed, as state leaders often have different regional priorities (some states being more agrarian, others more industrial), the given source material does not provide evidence to support this conclusion.