In this chapter… In the last two chapters we have studied how the leaders of independent India responded to the challenges of nation-building and establishing democracy. Let us now turn to the third challenge, that of economic development to ensure well-being of all. As in the case of the first two challenges, our leaders chose a path that was different and difficult. In this case their success was much more limited, for this challenge was tougher and more enduring.
In this chapter, we study the story of political choices involved in some of the key questions of economic development. What were the key choices and debates about development? Which strategy was adopted by our leaders in the first two decades? And why?
What were the main achievements and limitations of this strategy? Why was this development strategy abandoned in later years? Stamps like these, issued mostly between and , depicted a vision of planned development. Left to right, top to bottom: Damodar Valley, Bhakra Dam, Chittaranjan Locomotives, Gauhati Refinery, Tractor, Sindri Fertilisers, Bhakra Dam, Electric Train, Wheat Revolution, Hirakud Dam, Hindustan Aircraft Factory As the global demand for steel increases, Orissa, which has one of the largest reserves of untapped iron ore in the country, is being seen as an important investment destination.
The State government hopes to cash in on this unprecedented demand for iron ore and has signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with both international and domestic steel makers. The government believes that this would bring in necessary capital investment and proivde a lot of employment opportunities. The iron ore resources lie in some of the most underdeveloped and predominantly tribal districts of the state. The tribal population fears that the setting up of industries would mean displacement from their home and livelihood.
The environmentalists fear that mining and industry would pollute the environment. The central government feels that if the industry is not allowed it would set a bad example and discourage investments in the country. Can you identify the various interests involved in this case? What are their key points of conflict?
Do you think there are any common points on which everyone can agree? Can this issue be resolved in a way which satisfies all the various interests? As you ask these questions, you would find yourself facing yet bigger questions. What kind of development does Orissa need?
Indeed, whose need can be called Orissa’s need? Political contestation These questions cannot be answered by an expert. Decisions of this kind involve weighing the interests of one social group against another, present generation against future generations. In a democracy such major decisions should be taken or at least approved by the people themselves.
It is important to take advice from experts on mining, from environmentalists and from economists. Yet the final decision must be a political decision, taken by people’s representatives who are in touch with the feelings of the people. After Independence our country had to make a series of major decisions like this. Each of these decisions could not be made independent of other such decisions.
All these decisions were bound together by a shared vision or model of economic development. Almost everyone agreed