)
The public, if one were to believe Rajesh Khanna in a memorable role, knows everything. Everything, presumably, includes the best way to reform the Planning Commission.
A fortnight after Prime Minister Modi’s clarion call to the aforementioned public for their views, the suggestions are in.
A concept note circulated by the government has collated the best of them. The Planning Commission should, among other things, ‘incubate a continuous stream of ideas’, ‘become a national mirror that reflects an evolving future’, ‘write a comprehensive roadmap that enables private investment to flourish’, facilitate ‘cooperation through concentric circles’.
Concentric circles, is perhaps, the best way to describe the approach of this government to reform thus far. Circumscribe a problem, then fill the void with platitudes.
Public views aside, as my colleague Sanjeeb Mukherjee reports, the government has also called in some experts: the consensus is that the Commission should not allocate funds –a fair point which has been made repeatedly in the opinion pages of this newspaper.
But then, who should? The government, apparently, thinks the Finance Ministry should handle allocations.
“The idea is to eliminate the distinction between plan and non-plan expenditure – in line with the recommendations of the Rangarajan Committee – and end most centrally sponsored schemes, except roads, infrastructure and big-ticket projects like river-interlinking,” said a source privy to the discussions, “States prepare development plans, apply for funds, and spend the money as they see fit.”
But who decides which state will get how much?
That, the source said, is still under discussion.
Thus far, the Planning Commission debate has been framed as a Centre-State problem: The state wants money, the Centre uses the Planning Commission to say ‘no’.
But the debate must include the state versus state problem: given limited resources, how do we decide between Maharashtra and Mizoram?
Fund allocation has always been, and arguably should remain, in the realm of politics: after all, re-distributing resources from wealthy to less-wealthy states is a political decision.
Bringing in the Planning Commission into this process allowed, at best, for an economic perspective to a political decision; at worst, a willing scapegoat to the Centre’s whims.
Handing over its powers to constitutional institutions like the Finance Commission will not solve the allocation conundrum as planning and allocation is not a pure, scientific exercise that has been corrupted by base politics. Nor will it necessarily be more equitable in the broader sense of equitability between states.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the Planning Commission should be preserved in its present form. But the Commission, or its succesor, is not a replacement for the political process of demanding funds. This process takes many forms - from using leverage in coalition governments, to public agitation to outright armed insurgency.
By dissolving the Planning Commission, Mr. Modi has shot an apparently inefficient and evidently unloved messenger. The public must know that, thus far, this is all that has happened.
