Planning commission

Does planning matter. On the basis of national income and other indicators, it would appear to have made little difference. Paradoxically, the highest growth rate of national income was  achieved during the Fifth Plan which, was mostly non plan period.The rate was 4.7 percent per year and  the second highest rate of growth (4.1 percent) was on the three years (1966-1968) when the planning exercise was in abeyance and the commission was on near holiday.The lowest rate of growth (2.4 per cent) was registered during the Third Plan (1961-1965) which, by all accounts, was the most successful of all plans and laid the foundation for much of the basic infrastructure of the economy. Going by national income figures,  high rates of growth seem associated with poor or indifferent plans and low rates with forceful planning activity.
.The Soviet Union and China had their disillusionment with frenzied central plans.We gained in agriculture in the early plans and were nimble to switch to economic reforms in the 1990s. Centralised beaurocratic copy book exercise have been known to be  high in meticulousness and low in informed imagination.Aayog or commission ,in today's flood of statistics we need consummate economists and thinkers who can see the future more clearly than many.Should the states feel diffident over central plans the finance commission must find out solutions .This is far better than reworking plans.