There have been a set of recent studies on India 2020. One by the Planning Commission, the other by the United Nations. The first is called ‘Report of the Committee on India Vision 2020’. The UN report released at Johannesburg is entitled, ‘Towards a New Strategic Framework for large Developing Countries: China, India and Indonesia.’ The Commission must be congratulated for a report which is “neither a prediction”, “nor simply a wish list” but “what we believe it is possible for our nation to achieve provided we make the requisite effort.” The method the Commission has followed is interesting. They construct a reference scenario of UMI (Upper Middle Income Countries), which India will meet as a target, rather than the earlier tradition of working with a national perspective. In addition the Commission has a sectoral vision of major sectors and issues like sub-models on energy, water, agriculture and communications and transport, as well as issues like urbanization, population and governance. Some of us are happy at this, since the tradition of sub-models for agriculture, energy, employment and demography was started by us as early as the seventies. Vision statements have obvious sex appeal in a political economy sense, but their real social use is that some issues really need a long term view on decisions to be taken today. In a society on the make, a “Vision Statement” can be taken seriously only if it outlines the decisions which have to be taken today to realize the stated objectives. Otherwise there is no meaningful way of evaluating it. The Planning Commission has played the role of Brahma. It wants a high growth economy and an educated, healthy, technologically progressive society, caring for its water and land, removing poverty and unemployment and urbanizing rapidly. The economist Tinbergen got the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Economic Policy for telling us that the objectives or the goodies promised must be shown to be possible through the structure of the economy to the instruments to be worked on. If we don’t want to cheat, these instruments would tell us what we should do and what we should not do in unambiguous terms. Apart from Brahma, there has to be Vishnu (what to do) and Mahesh (what not to do or what to kill). The quantitative magnitudes of the UN study show the sharp breaks in many indicators and unmanageable problematics emerging in major concern areas, if business is as usual. Solid waste disposal levels of more than 100 million tonnes, slum population of around 100 million persons, acute water shortages and air and noise pollution of a severe kind all manifest themselves. The serious environmental implications of burning poor quality coal are apparent underlining the critical energy situation in the country. The glaring magnitudes indicate the long-haul for improving living standards. This also brings into sharp focus the hazards of following an unbridled consumerist path both at the global and national levels. Serious “Vision” documents should also warn against impending tragedies. Growth in large countries underlines the quantum jumps being faced. If severe water shortages are to be avoided, improvements in irrigation efficiency and cropping intensity will have to be much faster than historical rates. If bad coal of over a billion tonnes is not to be burnt for power needs, alternative energy management styles will have to be implemented and hydel and nuclear options considered, in addition to a major focus on renewables. If slums are to be kept within reasonable limits, a strategy of decentralised urbanisation will have to be followed. Modern technology will have to be integrated with artisan and rural populations so that the benefits of national and global markets can percolate to the work force. Trade and globalisation will have to grapple with these questions. Regional arrangements may well be a part of the answer. If these kinds of links cannot be established in concrete terms, the concept of an enduring future will remain an empty box. E-mail the Author
