76 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
that facts and figures have to be collected, but they have also to be used. The connection between collection of data and their use is a nexus which has been missing in the Indian planning machinery.
District planning can become a reality only if it is based on a thorough inventory of local resources. This kind of a decentralized approach has not so far been visible on the horizon of Indian planning. The first task should be to gear up the institutions that are now in existence at the sub-national levels to a new type of functioning. Generally, government officers at the lower level who are entrusted with planning duties merely carry out instructions from above. The result is that neither the officials nor the people have a viable stake in the process. As the study points out:
This is also apparent if we examine the normal state of affairs in Indian planning wherein the stress is laid more on the publication of paper plans and the fulfilment of financial targets than on actual physical results... At least to some extent, the chasm between financial planning can be traced to the structure of planning as it exists in India today.
Planning at the district level cannot be visualized in the isolation of a framework of multi-level planning if only because there cannot be any difference regarding fundamental objectives of planned development. Within such an overall objective the districts can attempt to tackle special problems of their areas. There has necessarily to be two stages in district level planning—a spatial frame should be worked out first and detailed departmental programme should then be formulated. Agriculture, minor irrigation and soil conservation, afforestation, small-scale industries, intra-district road linkages, and provision of market facilities are among the important areas where district planning can make its real contribution.
The study has drawn special attention to the lack of a clear-cut policy on the part of the Planning Commission towards the decentralized approach to planning. "Planning Commission itself has never been clear about the organization required for district planning. In particular, it has been silent on the relationship between the different agencies operating in the multi-level planning framework". In fact, the absence of any serious regard on the part of the Planning Commission for the institutional framework necessary for a decentralized planning process in the operative sense, has been the main inhibiting factor in the initiation of the grass-root level approach in planning. The study has the merit of having discussed these kinds of major issues with clarity and analytical rigour.
K V NAMBIAR