Expectations from NITI Aayog

Dr Ashwani Mahajan
A few weeks ago, Vice-chairman of NIT I (National Institution for Transforming India) Aayog sent his resignation to Prime Minister, Narendra Modi citing reason for not getting extension of leave from his employer Columbia University, where he had been serving as Professor. Government has appointed Prof. Rajiv Kumar (Economist) in his place. Along with Prof. Rajiv Kumar, Dr. Vinod Paul, who is serving at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) has also been nominated as member NITI Aayog. Media reports suggest that Arvind Panagariya has perhaps resigned due to ‘criticisms’ coming from Swadeshi Jagran Manch and Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, both organizations affiliated with RSS, This is also being said that nobody from Government has come to his rescue amidst these criticisms.
Why NITI Aayog?
NITI Aayog came into existence on January IS\ 2015. Prime Minister Narendra Modi made announcement to this effect that a new system would be set in place replacing erstwhile Planning Commission. While NITI Aayog was being constituted, Prime Minister had said that while working as Chief Minister of Gujarat, he realised that States always had to approach Planning Commission with begging bowl. Centre makes policies and programmes, which states have to follow, whether they want them or not. Therefore there was a need to have co-operative federalism. ‘One Size Fits All’ approach is no good; therefore programmes have to be tailor made for states. There is need to have ‘Bottom to Top’ approach in place of ‘Top to Bottom’. Therefore NITI Aayog was seen as an instrument of states’ empowerment. NITI Aayog was devoid of power to allocate funds, which Planning Commission possessed. NITI Aayog was considered not as a power centre, but as a ‘Think Tank’.
Natural expectation from the NITI Aayog was that along with GDP growth it would focus on other challenges faced by the nation namely, poverty, unemployment, deprivation, inflation etc; Programmes would be chalked out to meet these challenges, after consulting the states, based on the principle of co-operative federalism. Since, NITI Aayog was envisaged as a Think Tank, it was naturally expected that NITI Aayog would be working with open mind, and not under any pressure. Policies and programmes would be made according to the needs and conditions of the states. However, we find that NITI Aayog despite being equipped with huge workforce of statisticians, officers and experts, failed to make a solid policy document, even to make a start in this regard. Even about long pending issue of finding a suitable definition of poverty it could not make any headway.
Corporate Influence
Instead of finding solution to the long standing challenges of poverty, unemployment and deprivations, NITI Aayog’s attention has been mainly on the issues which were connected with interests of the big corporate, including MNCs. Issues ranging from giving permission to GM crops to dismantling of price control mechanism for pharma prices (so that interests of Pharma companies are not hurt), attracted the attention of the NITI Aayog. It didn’t even hesitate to hire international consultancy firms, to take forward corporate interests.
Expectations from NITI Aayog
Declared objectives and structure of NITI Aayog are really appreciable. As we understand that in present days, we have bid farewell to the planning and role of private sector has increased enormously. Therefore need was being felt that there would be a think-tank guiding the Government free from the responsibility of allocating resources. Even Ex-Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had also indicated the need for this shift from Planning Commission. However, the issue of ulmost importance is about the choice of people to spearhead this task. Government has done away with making of policies by inviting economists from abroad (may be of Indian origin). After Arvind Pangariya’s resignation, government decided to appoint an Indian economist to lead the NITI Aayog. Minimum expectation from the vice chairman and members of NITI Aayog is that they would understand the problems of this country closely. Need of the hour is to have an inclusive development and not just corporate based, GDP growth.
Inclusive development means development where farmers get remunerative prices for their produce, workers get due share in the production, health and education are easily and appropriately available to the masses and incomes are more or less equally distributed. Our youth gets employment and farms get irrigation facility. A criterion of development is not development of big cities only; rural development gets equal attention. For this, minimum requirement is that people sitting in NITI Aayog are sensitive to the problems of farmers, workers, unemployed and deprived.
In this context, it would be appropriate to state that there are two schools of thought about development in the world. One is represented by Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati – Arvind Panagariya combine and the other by Prof. Amartya Sen. First approach states that we should merely concentrate on GDP growth. If we have high rate of growth of GDP, benefits of the same, would automatically accrue to the poor and deprived. According to this approach the only way to reach high rate of growth of GDP is globalisation and free trade. According to the other approach, represented by Prof. Amratya Sen, though free trade and globalisation is the only possibility, however, it leads to inequalities and poor are not able to fulfill their basic needs. Therefore, to overcome their problems, poor are needed to be provided with food security, employment guarantee, and health facilities etc. If we look deeply, both these approaches are not appropriate for a country like India. Both approaches have corporate interests in focus. Both do not talk of employment generation and talk about job-less growth. Poor are left in lurch in Bhagwati – Panagariya’s approach and on Government’s mercy in A.K. Sen’s approach.
Away from these two approaches, there is an imperative of a third approach. An approach, where small scale and cottage industries get attention keeping corporate interests at bay, where fanners get remunerative prices for their produce, where employment generation gets priority along with GDP growth. Everybody has a fair chance to be employed and earn livelihood, so that he/she is not left to look upon Government for fulfillment of basic needs, including food, shelter, education and health.
(The author is Associate Professor, PGDAV College, University of Delhi)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com

Follow our WhatsApp channel