Chandrasekaran Balakrishnan

S Ambirajan’s forgotten classic `A Grammar of Indian Planning (1959)’ S Ambirajan’s forgotten classic `A Grammar of Indian Planning (1959)’ Ambirajan felt deep anguish over Nehru’s dilution of attention, ill-attempts to reconstruct the economy and instead of pushing it towards prosperity, indulging in mere rhetoric. He noted: “We cherish our hard-won freedom, and we do not wish to change the essential character of our sovereign democratic republic. But we wish also to achieve freedom from hunger, from squalor, from ignorance, and from idleness, for without these freedoms, mere political freedom can have no meaning for long.” Golden words. Chandrasekaran Balakrishnan July 29, 2020 Indian Liberals Independent India was obsessed with the idea of centralised planning, sadly, minus scientific logic and reasoning and an avoidable penchant for blindly aping other countries. Truth be told, however, the idea of centralised planning was uppermost in the minds of mainstream political leaders, at least since the 1930s – particularly those who were determined to play a major role in independent India. However, anyone with common sense, logic and sound reasoning powers would have seen that the quest for wealth creation would vary from country to country, and in the case of a vast country like India, from region to region. Despite adopting a liberal Constitution, which enshrined the values of economic freedom, liberty and property rights in a free society, centralised planning became the byword for those in the new Indian administration, despite the resistance posed by few well-meaning leaders.  In the absence of well thought out projects and with no institutional mechanisms in place, centralised economy became a plaything in the hand of neo-colonialists who came to rule and dominate independent India’s economic planning. Alas, the shackles of centralised planning continue even seven decades since independence, which has been invariably turned out to be non-productive for a functional democracy like India. Centralised planning has sustained itself over the decades because elected representatives, who hold offices, have enjoyed the fruits of power without a care for implementing economic policies in a decentralised manner. For any elected government over the years, decentralised planning had become an anathema. It was not always like this. The actual experience of India’s centralised planning both before and after 1947, and up to the First Two Five Year Plans -1951-56 and 1956-61 – was meticulously captured in a marvelous account called A Grammar of Indian Planning by Professor S Ambirajan, which was published in 1959 in the heyday of India’s centralised planned economy. A classic, this first book by this great liberal mind, captured the gigantic architecture of centralised planning in the Indian sub-continent with detailed and vast notes of appendix on China and Pakistan.  In 1959, Prof Ambirajan was a young scholar, but A Grammar of Indian Planning included vast literary references, expostulating on the status of political economy, the planning process of British colonies and of major countries like the USA, USSR, Germany, Japan and Australia. He was well versed with the treatises of classical economics of the 19th century, the emerging theories of Fabian socialism and communist literature. Besides, his second book Malthus and Classical Economics was already in the press.  With such deep intellectual insights and a thorough reading of economic literature post-World War II, Ambirajan was pained by the way the Jawaharlal Nehru government dealt with centralised planning for development and growth of the Indian economy. He was not just well aware of the emerging, if contentious, debates on centralised planning as proposed by C Rajagopalachari, M Ruthnaswamy, B R Shenoy and Prof P S Lokanathan, among others, but also well versed with the writings of the Austrian School of economists like Ludwig Von Mises, F A Hayek and Peter T Bauer. Traditionally, this school emphasises the spontaneous organising power of the price mechanism and holds that the complexity of subjective human choices makes mathematical modeling of the evolving market practically impossible, a template that Indian planners chose to ignore.    Prof Ambirajan’s intention to write the book was two-fold – a deep inclination to understand the idea of planning in the Indian context, which meant compromising democracy inherent in the Indian Constitution, as well as to examine how it was used elsewhere in the world. A part of the first chapter of the book first appeared as article in the Swatantra on October 1, 1955. Prof Ambirajan studied the documents of the Bombay Plan, the MN Roy Plan, Gandhian Plan and Gandhism Reconsidered, commenting acerbically: “With so much talk of planning filling the air, even the bureaucracy felt the infection and thought the time had come to act.”  But he had little faith in the role of the bureaucracy of Independent India, which according to him, was the same as the British, albeit in different hands: “Fourteen years later, it should now be possible to take a more charitable view of the Government’s endeavours to plan our future. It was no doubt piecemeal planning, it was bureaucracy-bred and red-tape governed; but all the same, those Plans, and proposals were the first attempts at national planning at Government level…” Ambirajan felt deep anguish over Nehru’s dilution of attention, ill-attempts to reconstruct the economy and instead of pushing it towards prosperity, indulging in mere rhetoric. He noted: “We cherish our hard-won freedom, and we do not wish to change the essential character of our sovereign democratic republic. But we wish also to achieve freedom from hunger, from squalor, from ignorance, and from idleness, for without these freedoms, mere political freedom can have no meaning for long.” Golden words.  On centralised planning, he profoundly, demonstrated both the philosophical and the real impact of what it entailed. “There are unpredictable and imponderables in human life which are forever beyond the purview of the planners,” he said, adding, “It would, therefore, be foolish on the part of the administrator to impose one particular type of economic growth drawn from the experience of one country on the economy of another country. The movement of economic progress of a country must follow its own path, based on its history, aptitudes, and other determining

Venkataraman Sundaram-Scholar, Economist and Civil Servant (1942-2014) Venkataraman Sundaram-Scholar, Economist and Civil Servant (1942-2014) An indefatigable proponent of nationalism with free-market economics and against the ideas of communism and socialism, he noted, pithily: “Rajaji spoke against the ‘Licence-Permit-Control-Quota Raj’ in the 1950s and 1960s. If he had been in our midst today, he would have spoken against the ‘Licence-Permit-Control-Quota Raj’ created by our politicians in the field of professional, higher and university education.” Chandrasekaran Balakrishnan July 9, 2020 Indian Liberals Seven decades after Independence, a nation, which is more a continent than a country, continues to be in evolution, struggling to ensure basics to its billion-plus people. It should not have taken this long in a functional democracy, only if its legislature and its executive were sensible enough to implement the constitutional provisions of equal freedom and opportunities to people.   However, India’s face has changed significantly after embarking on the road to economic liberalisation three decades ago. It becomes important, therefore, to inquire why the Indian economy was stilted before 1991, even though the answers are now well known: the institutional framework premised to deliver the fruits of democracy were not only utterly weak, but often hand in gloves with reactionaries, masquerading as progressives.   Yet, the landscape was not bereft of outstanding scholars, thinkers, economists and civil servants – like Venkataraman Sundaram – who warned against the pitfalls of dictatorship and narrow economic determinism. In his career as a civil servant, Sundaram strove for improvements in government delivery systems. He wore many hats with equal proficiency – scholar, economist, writer, author and a fearless journalist. A multi-dimensional personality, his contribution to public policy, historical analysis, poetry and a collector of rare books, sets him apart from the crowd. He strongly believed that without unfettered “civil liberty, individual freedom and political democracy” India cannot achieve economic prosperity.  Sundaram served as civil servant in Tamil Nadu for 29 years. He was Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu before he opted for voluntary retirement from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in 1994, aged 51. He quit in disgust and said it in as many words.  “I quit in disgust… I got fed up with the corrupt system and politicians around me who fail to learn anything either from history or the present.” Both in the government and outside it, Sundaram was known for his independence and courage of conviction.  In one of his more famous orations delivered in 1982 as Director of the Anna Institute of Management, Chennai, Sundaram noted that “When the public sits in judgment on any public servant, they are bound to ask four questions. Was he a man of judgment? Was he a man of vision? Was he a man of courage? Was he a man of integrity?” All questions remain highly relevant even today.   Sundaram was a crusader against the denuding of Tamil Nadu’s natural resources and beach minerals. He believed that being neutral in public was tantamount to committing suicide. In the process, he deliberately veered towards Right Wing analysis, of course, well-backed and supported by data.  Sundaram was born on August 28, 1942, at Trichy in Tamil Nadu, and did his schooling in Shimla and New Delhi. He completed his school education at the Madrasi Higher Secondary School, New Delhi in 1958 and studied Tamil from eminent writer and teacher Dr ‘Indira’ Parthasarathy. He graduated in Economics from St. Stephen’s College, Delhi, in 1961 and finished post-graduation in Economics with specialisation in Industrial Economics from Delhi University in 1963. Between 1963-1965, he was lecturer in Economics at Delhi University’s Dyal Singh College. In 1965, aged 23, he cleared the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), moving to Madras (now Chennai) after being allotted the Tamil Nadu cadre. He served with distinction in several important positions in the state government from 1966 to 1994.  Posted as Collector in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu, Sundaram was instrumental in developing the Tuticorin Port Trust as Chairman, putting it on the Maritime Map of South East Asia. He played a major role in bringing the branded sunflower oil Sunola as Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd. In record time, he was instrumental in completing the development of Tirupur Industrial Complex for export of textiles and garments, in 1991-92.   Sundaram excelled in many roles: Commissioner and Secretary to Government in the Department of Institutional Finance, Rural Development, Food and Consumer Protection, Public Works Department (PWD) and Personnel and Administrative Reforms. As Secretary PWD, he played a big part in the acceleration of privatisation of the power sector.  Post-retirement, he held many responsible positions, both in the public and private sectors. He was Administrator of the World Bank-assisted National Highways projects. For two years, he was Secretary-General of the Hindustan Chamber of Commerce, Chennai.  A prolific author, Sundaram wrote several books including Growth with Equity (1987), Essays and Reviews (1993), District Administration (1993), Essays in Welfare Administration (1993), Rama Setu—Historical Facts and Political Fiction (2007), Tamil Scholars and Savants (2011), and Elegies on Padma (2012), to mention only a few.  After quitting the civil service, he was Associate Editor of The News Today (a daily in English) and Malai Sudar (a Tamil daily) from 2005-2010 and wrote innumerable scholarly articles in English in their columns.  To judge him as a Hindutva apologist by reading a few of his articles will be misleading; only a thorough reading of his scholarly treatises would help appreciate his position on different subjects.  Sundaram vehemently criticised India’s first Prime Minister for implementing policies through centralised planning. He stated: “…centralised planning process introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1950, with experts like Mahalanobis determining the targets and allocation of resources cannot be an effective model today.” He was scathing in his observations. “…The invasion of Nehruvian secularism which started on August 15, 1947, and is still continuing unabated and unchallenged, clothed in the aura of official authority, now institutionalised … It is because of this politically motivated and criminally perpetrated hiatus between a false nation and a truly blood-sucking State that there is

S Ambirajan – the forgotten liberal political economist (1936-2001) S Ambirajan – the forgotten liberal political economist (1936-2001) Prof Ambirajan was a prolific writer for over four decades and published more than two dozen scholarly books and monographs, among other works, which were appreciated among renowned scholars across the world. He wrote hundreds of articles and columns in The Hindu and The Economic Times for several years. Sad to say, but his scholarly works have found more takers abroad than in his own country or state, where his papers have not been accorded the respect they deserve. Chandrasekaran Balakrishnan June 23, 2020 Indian Liberals Independent India was obsessed with the idea of centralised planning, sadly, minus scientific logic and reasoning and an avoidable penchant for blindly aping other countries. Truth be told, however, the idea of centralised planning was uppermost in the minds of mainstream political leaders, at least since the 1930s – particularly those who were determined to play a major role in independent India. However, anyone with common sense, logic and sound reasoning powers would have seen that the quest for wealth creation would vary from country to country, and in the case of a vast country like India, from region to region. Despite adopting a liberal Constitution, which enshrined the values of economic freedom, liberty and property rights in a free society, centralised planning became the byword for those in the new Indian administration, despite the resistance posed by few well-meaning leaders.  In the absence of well thought out projects and with no institutional mechanisms in place, centralised economy became a plaything in the hand of neo-colonialists who came to rule and dominate independent India’s economic planning. Alas, the shackles of centralised planning continue even seven decades since independence, which has been invariably turned out to be non-productive for a functional democracy like India. Centralised planning has sustained itself over the decades because elected representatives, who hold offices, have enjoyed the fruits of power without a care for implementing economic policies in a decentralised manner. For any elected government over the years, decentralised planning had become an anathema. It was not always like this. The actual experience of India’s centralised planning both before and after 1947, and up to the First Two Five Year Plans -1951-56 and 1956-61 – was meticulously captured in a marvelous account called A Grammar of Indian Planning by Professor S Ambirajan, which was published in 1959 in the heyday of India’s centralised planned economy. A classic, this first book by this great liberal mind, captured the gigantic architecture of centralised planning in the Indian sub-continent with detailed and vast notes of appendix on China and Pakistan.  In 1959, Prof Ambirajan was a young scholar, but A Grammar of Indian Planning included vast literary references, expostulating on the status of political economy, the planning process of British colonies and of major countries like the USA, USSR, Germany, Japan and Australia. He was well versed with the treatises of classical economics of the 19th century, the emerging theories of Fabian socialism and communist literature. Besides, his second book Malthus and Classical Economics was already in the press.  With such deep intellectual insights and a thorough reading of economic literature post-World War II, Ambirajan was pained by the way the Jawaharlal Nehru government dealt with centralised planning for development and growth of the Indian economy. He was not just well aware of the emerging, if contentious, debates on centralised planning as proposed by C Rajagopalachari, M Ruthnaswamy, B R Shenoy and Prof P S Lokanathan, among others, but also well versed with the writings of the Austrian School of economists like Ludwig Von Mises, F A Hayek and Peter T Bauer. Traditionally, this school emphasises the spontaneous organising power of the price mechanism and holds that the complexity of subjective human choices makes mathematical modeling of the evolving market practically impossible, a template that Indian planners chose to ignore.    Prof Ambirajan’s intention to write the book was two-fold – a deep inclination to understand the idea of planning in the Indian context, which meant compromising democracy inherent in the Indian Constitution, as well as to examine how it was used elsewhere in the world. A part of the first chapter of the book first appeared as article in the Swatantra on October 1, 1955. Prof Ambirajan studied the documents of the Bombay Plan, the MN Roy Plan, Gandhian Plan and Gandhism Reconsidered, commenting acerbically: “With so much talk of planning filling the air, even the bureaucracy felt the infection and thought the time had come to act.”  But he had little faith in the role of the bureaucracy of Independent India, which according to him, was the same as the British, albeit in different hands: “Fourteen years later, it should now be possible to take a more charitable view of the Government’s endeavours to plan our future. It was no doubt piecemeal planning, it was bureaucracy-bred and red-tape governed; but all the same, those Plans, and proposals were the first attempts at national planning at Government level…” Ambirajan felt deep anguish over Nehru’s dilution of attention, ill-attempts to reconstruct the economy and instead of pushing it towards prosperity, indulging in mere rhetoric. He noted: “We cherish our hard-won freedom, and we do not wish to change the essential character of our sovereign democratic republic. But we wish also to achieve freedom from hunger, from squalor, from ignorance, and from idleness, for without these freedoms, mere political freedom can have no meaning for long.” Golden words.  On centralised planning, he profoundly, demonstrated both the philosophical and the real impact of what it entailed. “There are unpredictable and imponderables in human life which are forever beyond the purview of the planners,” he said, adding, “It would, therefore, be foolish on the part of the administrator to impose one particular type of economic growth drawn from the experience of one country on the economy of another country. The movement of economic progress of a country must follow its own path, based on its history, aptitudes, and other determining circumstances.”

SV Chitti Babu, academician, educationist and reformer par excellence (1920-2020) SV Chitti Babu, academician, educationist and reformer par excellence (1920-2020) Chitti Babu was an able administrator in several higher educational institutions and can be credited for introducing many reforms in Tamil Nadu. According to him, educational and training institutes needed to identify and inculcate students’ talents and improve their capacities to handle societal situations with skill, rather than mere socialization. For a lifelong, he strove for `providing equality of opportunities to all its citizens’ in the field of education. Chandrasekaran Balakrishnan June 18, 2020 Indian Liberals India’s contemporary society is such that it scarcely pays attention to someone’s multi-decadal achievements, to one who is a doyen in many fields – unless he or she belongs to the ranks of popular politicians, cine actors, fiction writers, directors of cinema or industrialists.  It is even stranger that nonagenarians are recognized not just for their age, but also their lifelong contributions to chosen field of excellence that spans many decades. Late Professor S.V.Chitti Babu, a leading intellectual educationist of the country, was one such person.  He was an educational reformer, who served for more than six decades in various capacities. A lifelong policy wonk, he worked for improving the quality of education in schools, colleges and universities in India and Tamil Nadu.  Chitti Babu was an able administrator in several higher educational institutions and can be credited for introducing many reforms in Tamil Nadu. According to him, educational and training institutes needed to identify and inculcate students’ talents and improve their capacities to handle societal situations with skill, rather than mere socialization. For a lifelong, he strove for `providing equality of opportunities to all its citizens’ in the field of education.  The veteran’s achievements in the field of school reforms and the positions he adopted in the annals of India’s educational history, is a case study to learn and imbibe about meeting systemic transitions and challenges that are resolved over many decades.  The eminent educationist passed away on March 29, 2020, at Chennai, celebrating his hundredth birthday on November 7, 2019. He had diabetes for close to six decades, but that never came in the way of his active engagement in public life, taking on a different role every time to bring policy changes in the education sector.  Prof Chitti Babu stood tall in the field of education. For decades, many in the state turned to him to resolve the myriad issues and challenges faced in this crucial sector. His pragmatic views and suggestions were welcomed by one and all, as they provided succor to everyone who sought help. The nonagenarian headed many committees and commissions, coopting himself in the role of even a simple member in committees related to the education sector, both in Tamil Nadu and the national level.  Chitti Babu had published widely, writing more than a 100 scholarly articles and lectures on the issues confronting the education sector, which are still relevant for his splendid articulation, context and content.  The centenarian was born on November 7, 1920. He received his B.A. (Hons) in History from the Pachaiyappa College, Chennai. He concluded his M.A. degree in History from the University of Madras. In 1942, he joined as Assistant Professor of History at the Pachaiyappa College.  Babu became Professor in 1947, teaching in many colleges, including the prestigious Madras President College. He was the first Principal of the Government Training College, Vellore, a Fulbright Scholar who trained in the USA and went on to become member of the State Planning Commission. As Vice-Chancellor at the Madurai Kamaraj University from 1975 to 1978, he was the first in the country to spearhead and introduce Distance Learning in Tamil Nadu for higher education, apart from introducing semester and internal assessment systems.  Chitti Babu served two terms as Vice-Chancellor of the Annamalai University from 1950-86, leaving his imprimatur there with many far-reaching reforms, including the introduction of Distance Education. He was honoured with the D.Litt. degree (Honoris Causa) for his yeoman services.  He was also the first Vice-Chairman of Tamil Nadu State Council of Higher Education established in 1992, also serving as Member in the Executive Committee of Association of Commonwealth Universities.  Chitti Babu travelled to several countries for keeping abreast with educational issues, enlarging his learning and broadening his horizon. In 1994, he founded the Tamil Nadu History Congress and was its President for a decade.  He was the first Director of School Education and Higher Education Departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu. While serving there, he was told that without teachers’ training, he could not grow beyond a point; hence at the age of 32 in 1951-52, Chitti Babu took leave from work for a year and joined the Collegiate Teachers’ Certificate course at Teacher Training College, Saidapet in Chennai, which is also one of the oldest teacher training institutes in Asia.  In 1991, he headed a committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to study the status of unrecognised English medium nursery schools run by private individuals. His brief was to recommend regulations for controlling and monitoring such schools. In 1993, the state government had notified various regulatory measures for control and monitoring proposed by him.  It was during this period that mushrooming of private English-medium nursery schools proliferated across Tamil Nadu. Indeed, the failure to safeguard the interest of parents and children prompted the government to step in and regulate.  After the tragic demise of 96 children in a school fire at Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu, in 2004, Prof Chitti Babu headed a Commission constituted by the state government to study and prescribe the fee structure of such schools. It was also mandated to introduce minimum infrastructure facilities, including the land area for each school depending upon its location, and the salary structure of teachers of private matriculation schools and private matriculation Higher Secondary schools. Again, another market failure warranted a second government intervention.  The Commission’s recommendations created a huge controversy in Tamil Nadu. Some private schools even went