I now come to the question of the role of the Planning Commission because this aspect has been brought up repeatedly in the course of the debate and it is important that we should be clear about it. Just a few minutes ago, the question of implementation of the Plan was referred to by one hon. Member. It is natural to speak about the Planning Commission, but it has been mentioned in the wrong context, that is, in the context of implementation. So far as getting the blame for itself is concerned, I do not think the Planning Commission should (100) resent it. As the hon. Home Minister pointed out, the Tenth Five Year Plan succeeded very well and everybody, including the Planning Commission, the Government, the States and the people, contributed to its success. But there was one part of that success for which the Planning Commission did not deserve so much credit and that was in regard to the easier position regarding food supplies. The principal credit for that should go to nature. Yet, the Planning Commission got the praise for it, which was not correct. Now, we are beset with certain difficulties which have slowed down the progress (200) of the Plan difficulties for which nature is mainly – responsible and others for which the international situation is responsible. The Planning Commission had no control over the circumstances which gave rise to such difficulties. But there is a general tendency to link up anything that happens to the Plan with the Planning Commission. Let it be very clearly understood that the Planning Commission has a certain set of functions to perform. It has specific terms of reference. There is a misapprehension which seems to be fairly widespread that the Planning Commission has the responsibility for the execution of the Plan schemes. (300) This is not true. The Planning Commission no doubt makes an assessment of the resources, determines priorities, formulates the Plan and reports on its progress from time to time. But its functions are always advisory, never executive. The Planning Commission stands outside the field of execution. I do not disclaim responsibility for anything that goes wrong with the Plan or for any failure, because I stand here not only on behalf of the Planning Commission alone, but also on behalf of the Government of India. Therefore, if anything has gone wrong, we are responsible for it and nobody else. (400) When we are discussing the Planning Commission, it is proper that this demarcation should be kept in view as to what the Planning Commission stands for and can bear responsibility. There were two main suggestions as to what the Planning Commission should do. One was that since the Planning Commission has formulated the Plan or proposed the lines on which it should be re-appraised it should extend its responsibilities to the extent of ensuring that the policies recommended by it are properly implemented. This goes far beyond the legitimate functions of the Planning Commission. Ours is a federal Constitution and (500) the powers of the Union and the States are clearly laid down. There are various governmental and other non-official agencies to execute the Plan. They must accept responsibility for those parts of the Plan which concern them. The Planning Commission does not possess the necessary machinery for the execution of the Plan. However, it does keep a watch and makes an assessment and recommendations on important matters from time to time. But that is all that it can do. There is also another suggestion made by some members about the revision of cost estimates in the case of several projects. (600) It was suggested that the Planning Commission itself should see to it that the cost estimates are kept within proper bounds and do not increase beyond a point. Here also, I would request the House to appreciate that it is not practicable for the Planning Commission to equip itself with a large body of technical experts. The main technical experts must be in the central ministries and the States. The Planning Commission has a relatively small staff. It has made some arrangements for technical scrutiny of irrigation and proper projects. But for various schemes in the field of industry, (700) mineral development and transport, the Planning Commission depends on the technical personnel of the ministries and the arrangements which the Ministries themselves make for further technical examination. Even the Ministries are not self-sufficient in this respect and often have to rely on their consultants who, in a number of cases, come from abroad. There are various limitations. The experts give a certain estimate and then, later on, the estimates are revised for various reasons. Maybe that after a fuller examination, certain other material facts are revealed which necessitate a revision. In many cases, the upward revision in (800) costs has been due to an increase in prices of machinery and equipment, especially those imported from outside, which has occurred during the past two years.
