Why Nehru’s Planning Commission didn’t fail India—but Modi’s Niti Aayog might

Two significant changes were made in the last decade: First, taking the people on board from the very inception of planning; and second, loosening the rigidity of centrally-sponsored schemes (CSS) to accommodate different aspirations. This is because very early we were told by our chairperson—the prime minister—that one size does not fit all.

Policies had to be tailored to address the fact that given India’s diversity and geography, different states would be at different stages of development. At annual plan discussions, states were urged to indicate what changes to CSS would address their special needs.

The new architecture is planned to ensure the participation of states in the planning process and to affect “bottom up” instead of “top down” planning. It is, therefore, decided that all chief ministers of states will be members of NITI Aayog.

As a result, planning will be done by the entire National Development Council, the highest decision making body of the country.

How many meetings of this body will be held in the year?

How many chief ministers, given their excessive workload, will attend to their duties as planners?

Will the decisions then be thrown back to the lap of officials who are known for status quo ante, business as usual?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Give Modi some time before comparing Niti with the Planning Commission.

Based on what happened to India until PVN came along, it is safe to assume that Chi Chi Nehru and his daughter destroyed the economy.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Two significant changes were made in the last decade: First, taking the people on board from the very inception of planning; and second, loosening the rigidity of centrally-sponsored schemes (CSS) to accommodate different aspirations. This is because very early we were told by our chairperson—the prime minister—that one size does not fit all.

Policies had to be tailored to address the fact that given India’s diversity and geography, different states would be at different stages of development. At annual plan discussions, states were urged to indicate what changes to CSS would address their special needs.

The new architecture is planned to ensure the participation of states in the planning process and to affect “bottom up” instead of “top down” planning. It is, therefore, decided that all chief ministers of states will be members of NITI Aayog.

As a result, planning will be done by the entire National Development Council, the highest decision making body of the country.

How many meetings of this body will be held in the year?

How many chief ministers, given their excessive workload, will attend to their duties as planners?

Will the decisions then be thrown back to the lap of officials who are known for status quo ante, business as usual?

http://qz.com/320924/why-nehrus-planning-commission-didnt-fail-india-but-modis-niti-aayog-might/

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Two significant changes were made in the last decade: First, taking the people on board from the very inception of planning; and second, loosening the rigidity of centrally-sponsored schemes (CSS) to accommodate different aspirations. This is because very early we were told by our chairperson—the prime minister—that one size does not fit all.

Policies had to be tailored to address the fact that given India’s diversity and geography, different states would be at different stages of development. At annual plan discussions, states were urged to indicate what changes to CSS would address their special needs.

The new architecture is planned to ensure the participation of states in the planning process and to affect “bottom up” instead of “top down” planning. It is, therefore, decided that all chief ministers of states will be members of NITI Aayog.

As a result, planning will be done by the entire National Development Council, the highest decision making body of the country.

How many meetings of this body will be held in the year?

How many chief ministers, given their excessive workload, will attend to their duties as planners?

Will the decisions then be thrown back to the lap of officials who are known for status quo ante, business as usual?

http://qz.com/320924/why-nehrus-planning-commission-didnt-fail-india-but-modis-niti-aayog-might/

Ok! According to you, Niti Aayog is going to fail. Country will not grow beyond 6 percent. UPA were in power for 10 years and screwed the economy. NDA is in power. They are at least trying something different. May be it will not work. So what are you going to do about it ?

Hellsangel wrote:True. And the Soviet Union's five-year plans (that Nehru copied) didn't fail them either.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:True. And the Soviet Union's five-year plans (that Nehru copied) didn't fail them either.

Per author, Planning commission adapted to times and morphed into a dynamic institution with proper checks and balances and accountability.

As a member of Planning Commission for two terms (10 years)....

rawemotions wrote:
Ok! According to you, Niti Aayog is going to fail. Country will not grow beyond 6 percent. UPA were in power for 10 years and screwed the economy.

rawemotions wrote:
NDA is in power. They are at least trying something different. May be it will not work. So what are you going to do about it ?

Hellsangel wrote:
And he is also unbiased as can be inferred from what he said before he said that:

As a member of Planning Commission for two terms (10 years)....

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
And he is also unbiased as can be inferred from what he said before he said that:

As a member of Planning Commission for two terms (10 years)....

So.. Modi figured it all out in < 3 months.

Hellsangel wrote:
Do you know the definition of insanity according to Albert Einstein?

Two significant changes were made in the last decade: First, taking the people on board from the very inception of planning; and second, loosening the rigidity of centrally-sponsored schemes (CSS) to accommodate different aspirations. This is because very early we were told by our chairperson—the prime minister—that one size does not fit all.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
Do you know the definition of insanity according to Albert Einstein?

Two significant changes were made in the last decade: First, taking the people on board from the very inception of planning; and second, loosening the rigidity of centrally-sponsored schemes (CSS) to accommodate different aspirations. This is because very early we were told by our chairperson—the prime minister—that one size does not fit all.

Does the above fit that definition?

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
Do you know the definition of insanity according to Albert Einstein?

Two significant changes were made in the last decade: First, taking the people on board from the very inception of planning; and second, loosening the rigidity of centrally-sponsored schemes (CSS) to accommodate different aspirations. This is because very early we were told by our chairperson—the prime minister—that one size does not fit all.

Does the above fit that definition?

Big deal. By that standard then, what is being done now fits the bolded part very well and you have no cause for complain.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:
Do you know the definition of insanity according to Albert Einstein?

Two significant changes were made in the last decade: First, taking the people on board from the very inception of planning; and second, loosening the rigidity of centrally-sponsored schemes (CSS) to accommodate different aspirations. This is because very early we were told by our chairperson—the prime minister—that one size does not fit all.

Does the above fit that definition?

Big deal. By that standard then, what is being done now fits the bolded part very well and you have no cause for complain.

Cutting down on unnecessary bureaucracy is a good thing but this sounds like setting up a platform to push his Hindutva based agenda, leveraging BJP CMs.