The Reorganization of The Planning Commission in India
| Author | Arvind K. Sharma |
| DOI | 10.1177/002085236803400406 |
| Date | 01 December 1968 |
| Published date | 01 December 1968 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The
Reorganization
of
The
Planning
Commission
in
India,
Case
for
a
Purely
Technocratic
Body
by
Arvind
K.
SHARMA,
Lecturer,
Department
of
Public
Administration,
University
of
Rajasthan,
Jaipur,
India
UDC
338.984.3:
354
(54)
The
Administrative
Reforms
Commission
(ARC)
(1)
in
its
interim
report
on ’
The
Ma-
chinery
for
Planning’
has
proposed
to
make
the
Planning
Commission
a
wholly
techno-
cratic
body
by
completely
eliminating
its
minis-
ter-members,
including
the
Prime
Minister
who
has
been
its
chairman
ever
since
its
in-
ception
(2).
The
Government,
on
its
part,
has
not
accepted
this
recommendation
and
has
in-
stead
considered
fit
to
continue
with
an
ar-
rangement
under
which
the
Prime
Minister
will
be
its
chairman
and
the
Finance
Minister
its
member.
As
originally
conceived
in
1946,
the
Plan-
ning
Commission
was
to
be
a
non-political
advisory
body.
In
the
beginning
it
had
five
full-time
non-minister
members
and
even
then
the
Prime
Minister
was
its
chairman.
By
1956
(3),
however,
a
strong
ministerial
element
had
been
established
when
its
full-time
non-
minister
members
were
counter-balanced
by
the
Prime
Minister
and
minister-members;
and
now
its
advisory
role
has
been
maintained
only
in
form.
This
marked
the
genesis
of
the
controversy
which
right
up
to
this
day
remains
unsettled.
Thus
it
had
been
rightly
remarked :
&dquo; Though
the
Planning
Commission
is
an
ad-
visory
organ
of
the
Government,
it
has
come
to
exercise
significant
influence
over
the
form-
ation
of
public
policies
even
in
matters
other
than
of
development,
and
its
advisory
role
in
a
way
extends
over
the
entire
administra-
tion &dquo;
(4).
The
difficulty
that
arises
on
account
of
the
ministerial
membership
of
the
Planning
Com-
mission
is
that
its
decisions
tend
to
be
heavily
biased
in
favour
of
political
considerations
to
the
utter
neglect
of
paramount
technoeconomic
considerations.
The
solution
would
be
to
go
in
for
a
purely
technocratic
body
ot
experts
(referred
to
henceforth
as
the
Pure
Model)
as
(1)
The
Administrative
Reforms
Commission
—
a
’Hoover-Type’
commission
—
was
appointed
by
the
Government
of
India
in
January
1966
to
go
into
the
various
problems
of
administration
and
make
recommendations
to
streamline
it
at
the
central,
state
and
district
levels.
In
their
respective
interim
reports
submitted
to
the
Government,
both
the
ARC
and
its
Study
Team
while
strongly
advocating
an
advisory
planning
body,
do
not
see
eye
to
eye
with
each
other
on
the
following
points
relating
to
the
reorganization
issue :
the
ARC
has
recommended
a
Commission
of
experts
alone
whereas
the
Study
Team
has
favoured
retaining
the
Prime
Minister
in
it.
Thus
the
ARC
has
recommended
a
complete
elimination
of
the
ministerial
element
from
the
Commission
including
the
Prime
Minister
who
is
its
chairman
—
the
implication
being
that
the
close
association
of
the
Commission
with
the
Government
would
be
brought
about
trough
in-
formal
media.
As
against
this,
the
Study
Team
has
desired
that
this
relationship
may
be
form-
alized
by
continuing
with
the
earlier
arrangement
under
which
the
Prime
Minister
was
its
chair-
man.
The
chairmanship
of
the
Commission
accord-
ing
to
the
ARC,
should
go
to
one
of
its
fulltime
members.
Also
the
two
are
at
variance
on
the
sub-
ject
of
political
decision-making.
While
the
ARC
has
recommended
that
the
Cabinet
as
a
whole
should
take
the
final
decisions
on
the
recommendations
of
the
Commission,
the
Study
Team
has
suggested
the
creation
of
a
Sub-Committee
of
the
Cabinet
there-
of
for
the
purpose.
(2)
Interim
Report
of
the
Administrative
Reforms
Commission
on
’The
Machinery
for
Planning’.
Government
of
India
Press,
New
Delhi,
April,
1967,
pp.
9-14.
(Henceforth
cited
as
the
ARC
Report).
(3)
For
a
historical
perspective
of
the
Planning
Commission
refer
to
Dr.
H.K.
Paranjape,
The
Plan-
ning
Commission
—
A
Descriptive
Account.
Indian
Institute
of Public
Administration,
New
Delhi,
1964,
pp.
5-12.
(4)
P.P.
Aggarwal,
’The
Planning
Commission’,
Indian
Journal
of
Public
Administration,
Oct-Dec.,
1957.
Quoted
by
Dr. D.R.
Gadgil,
Planning
and
Economic
Policy
in
India,
Gokhale
Institute
of
Poli-
tics
and
Economics,
Poona,
2nd
edition,
1962,
p.
92.
To continue reading
Request your trial