Letters:Too much for a plan body

This refers to “An empowered planning commission” (July 14). The author may be right when he says Kamal Nath’s outburst against the planning commission is a reflection of the latter’s growing influence within the government. But Nath’s criticisms of the plan body (and indirectly of Montek Singh Ahluwalia) were not inappropriate.

The planning commission today is like a supra-ministry but without much accountability. Unlike the finance commission, it is not a statutory body and is, therefore, not answerable to Parliament (the only link being the fact that it is officially chaired by the prime minister). Deputy chief Ahluwalia is a “permanent invitee” to the Cabinet (whatever that might mean), but without being a member of either House of Parliament. From the mid-80s, the planning commission’s primary role of allocating national resources has become increasingly irrelevant.

Till Ahluwalia’s ascent, the body was mostly a parking ground for talented bureaucrats, politicians and academics. Today it is little more than an official think tank. There might be some merit in that role in a country where governance is becoming increasingly populist, especially if it can check and balance ministerial performance as it has undoubtedly done in the case of roads (the reason for Nath’s irritation). The question is whether an elaborate institutional set-up, which includes a building assigned for its use (Yojana Bhavan) and a large support staff, is needed to fulfil this role. Surely having Ahluwalia and a couple of other specialists in the PM’s advisory council should suffice.

Ashok Roy, Dehra Dun

Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in