Most
people in the country - and certainly those who have
some opinion in the matter - would probably say that
the Planning Commission of the Government of India has
yet to embark on its work. The formulation of the next
Plan is of course still far distant, but the even mid-term
appraisal of the current Plan has barely begun.
The
more difficult process, of incorporating the declared
aims of the government (as expressed in the National
Common Minimum Programme) into the Plan, is thus still
quite hazy. So far, even the direction of this process
is not very clear, at least from the public pronouncements
made by the Deputy Chairman. Clearly, the real efforts
of the Commission are only just beginning and there
is a great deal to be done.
Yet even before any substantive momentum has been achieved,
the Planning Commission has become embroiled in a controversy
which at first sight may seem like a non-issue, but
has had substantial media and political fallout, and
may reduce its subsequent credibility. It has generated
a debate over whether representatives of multilateral
donor agencies such as the World Bank and employees
of private multinational consultancy agencies should
be included in Committees constituted by the Planning
Commission.
The controversy began when it was announced that some
Consultative Committees set up by the Planning Commission
to provide inputs into the Mid-Term Appraisal would
include not only a range of outside experts, but also
representatives of external donor agencies such as the
World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, along with
employees of consultancy companies such as McKinsey
and Boston Consulting.
It also became evident that such persons had been invited
to be on the Committees not in their personal capacity
(which in any case, would be problematic as long as
they remained representatives of these institutions)
but because they belonged to these agencies, specifically
in order to ascertain the views of these agencies on
programmes and policies in which they have an interest.
This was the first time in the history of the Planning
Commission that such elements were invited to be part
of Committees specially set up by the Commission. The
subsequent outcry focussed on a number of problems with
such inclusion, ranging from the argument that this
reflected not only intellectual subservience to the
feeling that this suggested a bankruptcy of national
talent in this regard.
The initial reply provided by the Deputy Chairman did
little to rectify matters, since the justification provided
was essentially based on the facts that only 4 of the
19 Committees that had been constituted had such members;
that these agencies already gave large loans to India;
and that Mahatma Gandhi's famous remark about ''keeping
doors and windows open'' could be applied to this case.
As the controversy continued, various leaders of the
Left political parties also made statements against
this move, but the Planning Commission remained adamant
on this score. In the process, several things became
apparent, all of which underline the complexity of the
current political economy of the country.
The reaction of the mainstream English-language media
was telling. This was more or less unanimous (with a
few notable exceptions) in supporting the views of the
Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and criticising
the Left for being churlish on the matter. Most of the
commentaries missed the basic point of the objections,
as elaborated below. But in addition, they appeared
to be more obsessed with highlighting differences between
the Left and the government in this matter, and to even
predict collapse of the UPA government. In the process,
they not only presented a misleading picture of the
actual issues at stake, but also used this relatively
minor matter to stoke more fundamental differences.
Let us consider the actual implications of having these
agencies represented in government committees. The Planning
Commission argued that since the World Bank and the
ADB are already actively involved in financing programmes
of the Central and State Governments in several areas,
this would provide an opportunity for them to share
perceptions on programmes and policies in which they
have been involved in an open forum, which would include
others who have a different orientation and could express
their disagreement. But there are several problems with
this argument.
First, it is difficult to believe that these agencies
could provide sound and dispassionate judgement on economic
policies on which they are well-known to have very specific
(and remarkably unchanging) views. Indeed, in the Indian
context, the often injudicious policy advice provided
by these institutions in the recent past is only too
apparent. The former leaders of state governments of
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh (to take
only three examples) should be able to testify to the
adverse role of their advice.
Second, even if these views need to be heard, there
is a substantial difference between requesting them
to provide their opinions formally in a separate context,
and providing them with a different degree of legitimacy
as ‘independent'' outside experts on par with others
who are genuinely independent. This provides these institutions
a platform to present their views in a manner which
bears the imprimatur of the Planning Commission.
The significance of this should not be underestimated.
There is no question that the Planning Commission must
listen to a range of views, but this should not involve
simple replication of the patterns of the debating societies
of the undergraduate colleges that produced both some
of the current incumbents of this Commission as well
as some of its critics. The Planning Commission is,
above all, an organ of the Indian state - and within
that, an institution with a long and proud history of
nationalist endeavour. It must therefore preserve the
essential identity of the Indian state: to represent
and be seen to represent the Indian people.
It was within a nationalist umbrella that the Planning
Commission under Nehru and Mahalanobis invited foreign
economists and statisticians to assist in the process
of nascent Indian planning. They were chosen not because
they were representatives of donor agencies but because
of their established individual expertise. All of them
were eminent economists usually based in universities
abroad. The issue therefore is not of ''foreignness''
per se but of preventing the intrusion into the Indian
state of elements which are effectively controlled by
foreign states (and particularly the US).
It is in this context that the argument that such donor
agencies in any case make inputs into the decision-making
process ''informally'' and that therefore it is better
to induct them formally into Committees, makes little
sense. Of course, governments have to deal routinely
with international donor agencies and even foreign-based
consultancies with very different interests. But doing
business is quite different from legitimising their
inclusion into officially constituted bodies of the
Indian State.
The inability to see this basic distinction reflects
a blurring of vision which has come about not because
of some abstract ''globalisation'' but because of a blurring
of interests of a section of the Indian elite with the
interests of imperialism, and a consequent lack of recognition
that this does not necessarily contribute to the well-being
or even reflect the desires of the majority of the Indian
population.
The real significance of this debate therefore has less
to do with the immediate and relatively less critical
matter of the number of such elements included in these
committees and the like. It is ultimately about the
control over the Indian state, and the official recognition
that the organs of the state must represent the Indian
people.
The blurring of interests among the section of the domestic
elite and imperialism is a matter of serious concern.
It is important not only in a general structural sense,
but at this historical moment in particular, because
it affects government policy at a critical conjuncture.
There was a political and economic policy message of
the recent elections - on which the very existence of
this government is based - that cannot be ignored.
The previous government had used the advice of agencies
such as the World Bank and foreign consultants, even
though they were not incorporated into bodies constituted
by the government, to intensify a programme of neo-liberal
economic policies. This was rejected decisively by the
electorate. The new UPA government officially declared
its intention to change course, to reverse or mitigate
the effects of several of these policies and to provide
material relief to the people by addressing the problems
of agrarian crisis and unemployment in particular.
A basic mandate of the present Planning Commission is
therefore to re-examine past policy. But this cannot
be done if the official attitude appears to institutionalise
and internalise the status of the same foreign policy
advice that needs to be re-examined. Perhaps the insistence
on having such people remain in Committees despite all
the protests is an unwilling recognition of the changed
politico-economic reality, reflecting a feeling of insecurity
that without such people involved, the previous arguments
will not be expressed with much force. But that is essentially
tilting against a political windmill.
Perhaps the most glaring evidence of this comes from
Andhra Pradesh, which until recently had a state government
that was following every neo-liberal tenet to the letter
and completely adhering to the policy advice dispensed
by the World Bank and other donor agencies. This state
experienced a political earthquake, comprehensively
defeating that government. As a result, Andhra Pradesh
has contributed more MPs to the Congress Party at the
centre, than any other state. Without this earthquake,
there would be no UPA government.
The new Congress government in Andhra Pradesh has squarely
laid the blame for the enormous agrarian crisis in the
state on the World Bank-inspired policies which continue
to cause so much damage to ordinary people. In order
to arrest the appalling trend of farmers' suicides and
generalised rural distress, it has called for major
reversal of these policies.
It would be laughable if, in this context, the state
government of Andhra Pradesh had approached representatives
of the World Bank for further advice on how to undo
the damage caused. But in fact it should be an equally
laughable notion for the central government, for which
many of the basic realities are similar. The fact that
this still not realised, is an indication of the extent
of political ignorance of some of the current leadership.
|
