Skip to main content

Development in Modern India under Structural Dualism (1947–1980)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Development under Dualism and Digital Divide in Twenty-First Century India

Part of the book series: Dynamics of Asian Development ((DAD))

  • 379 Accesses

Abstract

When India got independence in 1947, the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, put it, ‘the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It was Lord Clive’s victory at Plassey in 1757 that inaugurated official British rule in India by the East India Company. As a result of the Mutiny of 1857, the Government of India was subsequently transferred from the hands of the Company to the Crown in the same year.

  2. 2.

    As to the colonial government’s apathy towards India’s genuine industrial development, one could easily verify the fact that even towards the end of the colonial period (e.g. 1938–1939), about three-fourths of India’s imports consisted of manufactured articles, while raw materials and (agricultural) foodstuffs together showed about the same proportion to her total exports.

  3. 3.

    Recently, ‘quasi-corporations’—defined in the UN’s System of National Accounts (SNA 2008) as ‘an unincorporated enterprise that has sufficient information to compile a complete set of accounts as if it were a separate corporation and whose de facto relationship to its owner is that of a corporation to its shareholders’—has been reclassified in the new series as part of private corporate sector. Some selected trusts and non-profit organisations are designated as quasi-corporations in India.

  4. 4.

    RBI (1982, p. 1).

  5. 5.

    Concept of social security in the context of developing countries (especially, with huge unorganised segment) needs to be broader than the one applied to the developed countries. Many rightly argue that economic security and social security are intimately connected in developing societies. There is, however, ‘a general recognition that social security must be expanded to include not only new elements such as food provision, housing and sanitation; but also income and employment’ (Jhabvala 1998, p. L8).

  6. 6.

    NCEUS (2009, p. 17).

  7. 7.

    Article 38 under ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ in Part IV of The Constitution of India.

  8. 8.

    The present author has a summary of details on the nature of control in Dutta (1990, p. 90).

  9. 9.

    Following Third Five Year Plan (1961, p. 39), Chakravarty (1987, p. 19) quotes these figures.

  10. 10.

    The public sector is widely defined to include the administrative machinery of the government as well as public enterprises.

  11. 11.

    A list of major regulatory control mechanisms are given in Dutta (1992, pp. 83–84).

  12. 12.

    Sen (1982, p. 131).

  13. 13.

    Quoting from the Government of India’s Third Five Year Plan (1961) document, Chakravarty (op. cit., pp. 19–20). also notes that in spite of the spectacular increase in the machinery index during the Second Plan period, growth in iron, steel and chemicals was less spectacular and that of cotton textiles was virtually unchanged.

  14. 14.

    Third Five Year Plan (op. cit., p. xiv).

  15. 15.

    This section has been adapted from Dutta (1990).

  16. 16.

    Nehru expressed this thought on socialism in the spring of 1958 (Brecher, p. 532).

  17. 17.

    Karanjia (1960, pp. 51–52).

  18. 18.

    Ibid., pp. 76–77.

  19. 19.

    The far reaching implication of these uneven power relations that exist in India has been elaborated in Dutta (1989).

  20. 20.

    Karanjia (op. cit., pp. 39 and 49).

  21. 21.

    Nehru (1960, p. 43).

  22. 22.

    Chand (1966, pp. 38–39).

  23. 23.

    Ibid., p. 43.

  24. 24.

    ‘An Appeal on 5 July 1961’ in Gopal (1983, p. 332).

  25. 25.

    ‘A Speech in the Lok Sabha on 11 December 1963’ in Gopal (1983, p. 317).

  26. 26.

    The Indo-Chinese conflict lasted from 20 October to 21 November in 1962.

  27. 27.

    That Nehru was the architect of Indian Planning has been documented in detail by the present author (Dutta 1990).

  28. 28.

    After Nehru’s Death, Gulzarilal Nanda was the Interim Prime Minister from 27 May to 8 June in 1964, and then Lal Bahadur Shastri became the new Prime Minister on 9 June 1964.

  29. 29.

    The Indo-Pakistan conflict took place from 5 August to 23 September in 1965.

  30. 30.

    Chakravarty (op. cit., p. 22).

  31. 31.

    The ‘core’ sector consisted of industries which were important because of their links to other industries such as synthetic rubber and certain chemicals.

  32. 32.

    Chakravarty (op. cit., p. 27).

  33. 33.

    Panchmukhi (1985, p. 296). Among the significant developments during the early seventies, included are the creation of Export Promotion Councils, Commodity Boards, Trade Development Authority and Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., pp. 297–298.

  35. 35.

    Some examples of more controls include the passing of the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act in 1969, the nationalisation of fourteen commercial banks in July 1969, the introduction of new Industrial Policy in 1970, the revision of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), etc.

  36. 36.

    Reports of two Committees are noteworthy: R.K. Hazari Report (1966) to the Planning Commission on “Industrial Planning and Licencing Policy” and the “Industrial Licensing Policy Inquiry Committee Report” (July 1969) known as Dutt Committee Report to the Government of India.

  37. 37.

    Larger private industrialists’ views have been summarised in Wadhva (1977, pp. 298–301).

  38. 38.

    The 20-point programme included measures to bring down prices of essential commodities, promote austerity in government spending, crack down on bonded labour, impose ceilings on ownership and possession of vacant land, acquire excess land and distribute among rural poor, liquidate rural indebtedness and make laws for a moratorium on recovery of debt from landless labourers, small farmers and artisans.

  39. 39.

    The declaration of a State of Emergency by Mrs. Gandhi on 26 June 1975 and later on its lifting for elections in March 1977 are believed to have paved the way for the Janata government—the first non-Congress government at the Centre. Morarji Desai was its Prime Minister until he resigned on 15 July 1979. Afterwards, Janata(S), formed by Raj Narain in early July 1979 and claimed to be a secular party, formed the government with Charan Singh as its Prime Minister sworn in on 28 July 1979.

  40. 40.

    This policy under the Morarji Desai government with George Fernandes as its industry minister led to the exit of high-profile MNCs like Coca-Cola and IBM from India in 1977.

  41. 41.

    In fact, the percentage share of the Public Sector in GDP increased up to a maximum of 27.3 in 1992–93 (National Account Statistics of India: 195051 to 199596, EPW Research Foundation, 1997, p. 45) and then gradually declined to 19.9 in 2007–08; subsequently, it remained within a range between 20 and 21% during 2008–2014 (National Account Statistics 2014, p. 67 and National Account Statistics 2015, p. xxxviii).

  42. 42.

    The variation of domestic income measured in terms of GDP and NDP has been ignored for the sake of approximation.

  43. 43.

    Several diversifications of investment into low-priority areas have been cited in Wadhva (1977, p. 146). For example, the Sarabhai Group (an Indian group—family based), which had traditionally been operating in the textiles field had diversified into radio business. Delhi Cloth Mills (DCM) (an Indian company—family based) had diversified into the production of electronic desk calculators and PVC plastics. Among the foreign-based multinational companies operating in India who had diversified into low low-priority fields of business were Hindustan Levers, ITC Limited (Principals: Imperial Tobacco Company) and Union Carbide. Hindustan Levers which had traditionally been operating in soap, clear butter (ghee) (prepared from edible vegetable oil) and baby foods business had planned to diversify into Sodium Tripolyphosphate and related raw materials required for the production of detergents. ITC (formerly, the Indian Tobacco Company) had diversified into hotel industry. Union Carbide which had been operating in the dry cells industry had diversified into deep-sea fishing. It is interesting to note that India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) have been currently looking into whether Vijay Mallya, a beleaguered liquor baron, had used a part of the IDBI Bank loan given to his now-grounded Kingfisher Airlines for buying a racehorse that cost Rs. 9 crore (The Economic Times, 27 April 2016).

  44. 44.

    India’s slow rates of national income growth (around an average of 3.5%) in the earlier three decades since 1950 were coined as ‘Hindu rate of growth’ by the Indian economist Raj Krishna while referring to the results of the Congress Party’s socialistic economic policies in India. In fact, Raj Krishna was the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission under the first non-Congress government at the Centre.

  45. 45.

    The phrase ‘structural dualism’ is here used as a short form of ‘structural-functional dualism’.

  46. 46.

    Wadhva (Ibid., p. 147).

  47. 47.

    Various explanations of the underlying reasons for industrial stagnation during 1966–1979 have been summarised in Varshney (1984).

  48. 48.

    Elaborated explanations of these factors can be found in Varshney (1984).

  49. 49.

    In the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India, there are three lists: Union List, State List and Concurrent List. The Union List consists of 97 areas (original) assigned to the Central government (such as defence, foreign affairs, communications, currency and coinage, and banking and insurance.). The state legislatures have exclusive authority to make laws in relation to 66 items (original) listed in the State List (such as police, public health, land, roads and bridges, agriculture and irrigation, forest and fisheries, and trade and industry.). In addition, there was a Concurrent List of 47 items (original) of common interest such as education, planning and social security, labour welfare, industrial disputes, electricity and newspapers for which the Parliament and state legislatures can both make laws. In fact, education has been transferred from the state to the concurrent list by the 42nd amendment to the Constitution of India in November 1976 during the State of Emergency declared by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

  50. 50.

    The Planning Commission has been replaced by the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog (Commission) on 1 January 2015. The new body’s acronym-based name ‘NITI Aayog’ means ‘Policy Commission’.

  51. 51.

    This had been noted in the Sixth Five Year Plan: 197883Draft (p. 110). When the original Gadgil Formula for the distribution of central assistance for State Plans was approved by the National Development Council in September 1968, it was agreed that the requirements of Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland should first be met out of the total pool of central assistance. The Gadgil Formula was first applied for the Fourth Plan (1969–1974). When the Fifth Plan was formulated, this list was extended to include Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim and Tripura, making eight states in all. It is only since 1980 that the share of special category states was predetermined at 30 per cent. In 1990, the number of special category states was increased to 10 with the inclusion of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram (WG-SFR 2012, p. 17).

  52. 52.

    Brass (1982, pp. 233–34).

  53. 53.

    Bhargava (1984, p. 684).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dilip Dutta .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dutta, D. (2018). Development in Modern India under Structural Dualism (1947–1980). In: Development under Dualism and Digital Divide in Twenty-First Century India. Dynamics of Asian Development. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6344-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics