Ideology and Indian Planning

Abstract

THE ATTEMPT on the part of Professor Ralph B. Price to bring out the ideology in (rather than and) Indian planning (American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 1, January, 1967) could be regarded as remarkable but for some blemishes and misreading of the Indian situation. following remarks are intended to promote a better understanding of the subject in question. Professor Price's opening sentence, The Congress Party of India is noted for the strong ideological position of its preand post-independence leadership and for its adoption of the goal of building a 'socialist pattern of society,' tempts one to ask two important questions, viz., what is the period of pre-independence leadership, and how strong is the ideological position of this leadership. From the article one guesses that Professor Price has probably in his mind the period between the early 30's and 1947 as the one constituting pre-independence leadership. But one is not certain about the strength of the ideology of leadership during this period, even if it is granted that there was an ideology. A study of national leaders in the struggle for independence would show that there were liberals, extremists, middle-of-the-roaders, and any number of men with different textures of ideas. It may, however, be said, in fairness to Professor Price, that the word socialism, whatever be its meaning or content, was often found in the speeches and writings of different leaders since the beginning of the 30's. It was M. N. Roy who, though not a Congressman, seemed to have first introduced, as he himself claimed once, the Marxian language and (probably) thought (too) in the independence movement, while revolutionaries like Jayaprakash Narayan, Rammanohar Lohia, and Asoka Mehta belonged to the Congress Socialist group (set up in 1934) within the Congress Party itself. Jawaharlal Nehru did not belong to this group; nor was he an ardent Gandhian or even a Royist. He seemed to be an amalgam of all thought processes but was still regarded as a socialist who rejected proletarian revolution and believed in democratic ideals, mixed economy, cooperatives, and a gradual extension of the public sector. On these points there were few differences, except of degree, between him and other socialists. Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948 does not, therefore, seem to be any