Memorysclub / NCERT Solutions / NCERT Solutions for Class 12 / NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Political Science / NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Political Science Part 2 Chapter 2 Politics of Planned Development
NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Political Science
NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Political Science Chapter 2 Politics of Planned Development
The politics of planned development of Class 12 Political Science Part 2 Chapter 2 gives students a comprehensive understanding of differences in the approaches towards development in India.
From this chapter, students will gain valuable knowledge about the first-year plan and the consequences of a five-year plan, green revolutions, and positive and negative impacts on India. This chapter is essential for your class’s 12th board exam in the past year exam where many questions came from this chapter. Memorysclub political science team of teachers provides the most suitable exam-oriented solutions for class 12 politics of planned development question answers.
1. Which of these statements about the Bombay Plan is incorrect?
(a) It was a blueprint for India’s economic future.
(b) It supported state ownership of industry.
(c) It was made by some leading industrialists.
(d) It strongly supported the idea of planning.
Answer: (a) It was a blueprint for India’s economic future.
2. Which of the following ideas did not form part of the early phase of India’s development policy?
(a) Planning
(b) Liberalization
(c) Cooperative farming
(d) Self sufficiency
Answer: (b) Liberalization.
3. The idea of planning in India was drawn from
(a) The Bombay plan
(b) Experiences of the Soviet bloc countries
(c) Gandhian vision of society
(d) Demand by peasant organizations
(i) (b) and (d) only
(ii) (d) and (c) only
(iii) (a) and (b) only
(iv) All the above
Answer: (iv) All of the above.
4. Match the following:
Answer: (a)-(iii), (b)-(i), (c)-(ii), (d)-(iv)
5. What were the major differences in the approach towards development at the time of Independence? Has the debate been resolved?
Answer – At the time of Independence, there were significant differences in the approaches towards development in India. Broadly, these differences can be characterized by two contrasting perspectives: one emphasizing socialist principles and state intervention, and the other advocating for a more market-oriented and capitalist approach.
Major Differences in Development Approaches:
Socialist Approach:
- Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and other prominent members of the Indian National Congress leaned towards a socialist approach.
- This approach emphasized state-led economic planning, nationalization of key industries, and social welfare to reduce inequality and prioritize social justice.
Capitalist Approach:
- Modernization was also associated with the ideas of growth, material progress, and scientific rationality.
- This kind of idea of development allowed everyone to talk about different countries as developed, developing, or underdeveloped. This perspective emphasized private enterprise, free-market mechanisms, and a limited role for the state in economic affairs.
Resolution of the Debate:
There was a debate about the adoption of a development model during the national movement. Communists, socialists, and Pt. Nehru supported the socialist model, which reflected a broad consensus.
The government’s priority in this model was to alleviate poverty while also focusing on social and economic redistribution. At the same time, these leaders differed and debated:
- (a) Industrialization should be the preferred path or
- (b) Agricultural development should take place or
- (c) Rural poverty should be alleviated.
6. What was the major thrust of the First Five Year Plan? In which ways did the Second Plan differ from the first one?
Answer – The Young Economist K.N. Roy drafted the First Five Year Plan in 1951 with an emphasis on poverty alleviation. Its main objectives were:
- It aimed to increase agricultural production and improve rural infrastructure to enhance the overall economic structure.
- Huge allocations were made in the five year plan for large-scale infrastructure development, such as the Bhakra-Nangal Dam.
- It aimed to increase the level of National Income.
The first five year plan differed from the second five year plan:
The Second Five Year Plan ( 1956 – 1961) marked a departure from the First Plan in terms of both its priorities and strategies. The major differences between the First and Second Plans include:
- It aimed to consolidate and expand the gains made in heavy industries while also giving attention to the development of consumer goods industries.
- This included initiatives to improve agriculture, health, and education in villages.
- The Second Five Year Plan wanted to bring quick structural transformation in all possible directions in place of slow and steady growth like the First Five Year Plan.
7. What was the Green Revolution? Mention two positive and two negative consequences of the Green Revolution.
Answer – Green Revolution: The Green Revolution, the 1960s and 1970s agricultural transformation, increased crop productivity through high-yielding varieties, fertilizers, and pesticides.
Positive Consequences:
- Increased Productivity: Raised crop yields, particularly in wheat and rice.
- Food Security: Improved food availability, reducing hunger and malnutrition.
Negative Consequences:
- Environmental Impact: Chemical use leads to soil degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss.
- Social Inequities: Unequal benefits, favoring wealthy farmers and exacerbating income disparities.
8. State the main arguments in the debate that ensued between industrialisation and agricultural development at the time of the Second Five Year Plan.
Answer – During the Second Five-Year Plan, there were debates regarding the relevance of agriculture in comparison to industry.
- The second Five Year Plan emphasized industry in place of agriculture or rural India.
- J.C. Kumarappa, an economist who followed the principles of Mahatma Gandhi, proposed an alternative blueprint that emphasized rural industrialization.
- Bharatiya Lok Dal leader Chaudhary Charan Singh commented that the focus on creating prosperity in urban and industrial areas was given priority over rural welfare.
Others debated that without an increase in the industrial sector poverty could not be alleviated:
(i) India did not have an agrarian strategy to boost food grain production.
(ii)It proposed community development programs, spent heavily on irrigation, and blamed its lack of implementation on land-owning classes.
(in)They argued that even if the government had invested more in agriculture, it would not have solved the issue of rural poverty.
9. “Indian policy makers made a mistake by emphasizing the role of the state in the economy. India could have developed much better if the private sector was allowed free play right from the beginning”. Give arguments for or against this proposition.
Arguments in Favor of Emphasizing the Role of the State:
- Initial Capital Constraints: In the early post-independence period, India faced significant capital constraints. The state’s intervention was necessary to kick-start economic development, as private enterprises may not have had the financial capacity or willingness to invest in critical sectors such as infrastructure and heavy industries.
- Social Justice and Inclusive Growth: The state-led approach allowed for a focus on social justice and inclusive growth. Policies such as land reforms and public sector investments aimed at reducing economic disparities and uplifting marginalized sections of society.
- Strategic Industries and Planning: The state played a crucial role in planning and prioritizing strategic industries. This approach was aligned with the idea of planned economic development, where the state could direct resources to sectors deemed crucial for long-term growth and self-sufficiency.
- Stability and Control: State-led development provided a degree of stability and control over economic policies. This was seen as necessary for managing the transition from a colonial economy to a self-sustained, industrialized nation.
Arguments in Favor of Allowing a Free Play for the Private Sector:
- Efficiency and Innovation:- Advocates for a free-market approach argue that the private sector is inherently more efficient and innovative. Allowing businesses to operate without significant government intervention could lead to increased competitiveness and economic dynamism.
- Entrepreneurship and Risk-Taking:- A free-market environment encourages entrepreneurship and risk-taking. Private enterprises are often more willing to invest in new ventures and technologies, driving economic growth through innovation.
- Global Integration:- A liberalized economy allows for greater integration into the global market. Private businesses, with their flexibility, can better respond to international market demands, promoting exports and attracting foreign investment.
- Job Creation:- The private sector is a significant generator of employment. Allowing private enterprises to flourish could lead to increased job opportunities, contributing to poverty reduction and economic development.
Counter Arguments:
- Market Failures: – Supporters of state intervention argue that markets can sometimes fail, leading to issues such as monopolies, inequality, and environmental degradation. State regulation is necessary to correct these market failures and ensure fair and sustainable development.
- Inclusive Growth:- The private sector may prioritize profit over social welfare. State intervention is essential to ensure that economic growth is inclusive and benefits all sections of society, preventing the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
- Strategic Control:- Certain strategic industries, such as defense and critical infrastructure, may require state control to ensure national security and long-term planning. Complete reliance on the private sector in such areas may pose risks to the nation’s sovereignty.
- Initial Conditions:- The emphasis on the role of the state in the early post-independence period was influenced by the specific conditions of that time. The state’s intervention was considered necessary to overcome the legacy of colonialism, establish basic infrastructure, and lay the foundation for subsequent economic growth.
In conclusion, the debate between emphasizing the role of the state versus allowing free play for the private sector involves complex considerations. The effectiveness of either approach depends on the specific context, policy implementation, and the evolving economic landscape. Over the years, India has adopted a mixed economy, combining elements of both state intervention and private enterprise.