Ten years is a long time for any tenure. It is, therefore, logical to ask what imprint Ahluwalia has left on the working style of the Planning Commission. Or, for that matter, what difference he has made in the Planning Commission's role in governance and overall approach to policy-making. For such an assessment, it is important to understand the context in which the Planning Commission was set up.
Often described as the government's think tank, the Planning Commission was set up through a special resolution adopted by the Union Cabinet headed by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru in 1950. In a federal structure that followed the planned development model, the Commission, thus, not only helped allocate resources to the desired sectors of the economy for the Centre and the states but also became the forum for resolution of Centre-state issues. Apart from deciding on the plan size of the Centre and states every year after consultations, the Commission would also formulate five-year plans for the entire country - the 12th Five-year Plan, adopted last year, is currently in progress.
More From This Section
Admittedly, the role of the Planning Commission has evolved in the last two decades when economic liberalisation policies have resulted in a significant enhancement of the role of the private sector and a corresponding decline in the importance of the state sector. Moreover, increasing budgetary resource constraints have spurred the Commission to focus more on making the systems and policies more efficient for better and more effective utilisation of resources.
Ahluwalia, however, has made a far greater impact on the way the Planning Commission's functioning has changed. To be sure, he tried to bring about a change in the Commission's functioning style even when he was a member from 1998 to 2001. He had mooted the idea of involving the Planning Commission even while policies were being discussed and framed in administrative ministries. Thus, the telecom department's internal discussion on a telecom policy issue could have the benefit of the Planning Commission's expertise. The Commission's involvement was proposed to be extended to the level of the Cabinet, where the policies could be discussed and then cleared. That experiment, however, did not make much headway for obvious reasons - quite a few administrative ministries did not like the idea of losing their exclusive domain over policy-making.
On his return to Yojana Bhavan as deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, Ahluwalia tried some new ideas. His attempt to seek the involvement of international experts, including those with past or current affiliation with the World Bank, in undertaking Plan formulation kicked off a political row. The Left parties, which supported the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in its first stint, made this a political issue and the Commission beat a hasty retreat. In spite of this early setback, the Commission began focusing more on policies and flagship programmes, instead of merely allocating resources for the central and state Plans.
In his second stint as deputy chairman, Ahluwalia made further progress in giving the Commission a new look. While the government was free from the influence of the Left parties, which were no longer part of the UPA, the Planning Commission, too, decided to beef up its personnel by hiring a good number of young talents from international universities and institutes who worked on government policies programmes. This experiment has worked to the advantage of both the young recruits as also the consultative capability of the Commission.
There was yet another positive fallout of the new orientation in Yojana Bhavan. The frequency of interventions made by the Planning Commission even as the government was framing policies increased. A few of them deserve to be mentioned here to underline the change it brought about in governance. The Commission gave its full support to the idea of an independent rail tariff authority and pushed for its clearance by the Cabinet, even as the railway ministry was not too thrilled with the idea of delegating all powers of fixing fares and freight rates to an independent body. The matter is yet to be sorted out, but the Planning Commission made a difference.
Similarly, the Commission has been instrumental in ushering in other policy changes like the new legislative framework for public procurement. Not that all its interventions resulted in policy decisions without a controversy. Take for instance, its stand on pooling of coal prices to minimise the impact of higher costs on imported coal. The idea was abandoned subsequently. Or for that matter its support to the idea of an international pricing formula for natural gas.
But there is little doubt that the Planning Commission under Ahluwalia has made its presence adequately felt. It even objected to the idea of a bailout for projects that had won road construction deals after some aggressive bidding. You may not agree with all its suggestions or proposals. But gone are the days when Yojana Bhavan would be happy merely fixing the plan size of the Centre or the states. Ahluwalia has raised the bar for the Planning Commission.
Clarification
The 12th Five-year Plan was erroneously called the 13th Five-year Plan, which has been corrected. We regret the error.