question_answer

How was 'one party dominance' in India different from the 'one party system' of Mexico? In your opinion, which of the two political systems is better and why?

Or

Explain the main arguments in the debate that ensured between industrialization and agricultural development of the time of Second Five Year Plan.

 

Answer:

In India one party dominant system existed up to 1967, several political parties participated in election in India but Congress Party dominated the scene at the centre as well as states before 1967. First three general elections not only provided leadership to the Congress Party at the national level but was also made responsible for the evolution and development of the party system in India. In China, there is only one party, i.e., Communist Party. In fact, a single party system cannot exist in a democracy. But in India multi-party system exists and within a multi-party system, one party can be dominating. Dominance of one party did not mean that India was not .really a democracy. India has neither a single party system as in China, nor a two party system as in England and America. We have a multiple party system as in Switzerland. Both India and Switzerland are democratic countries. Besides Congress Party other parties also actively participated in elections and in the first three general elections, Congress Party was defeated and opposition parties came into power. Thus dominance of one party does not mean that democracy is absent.

Or

The Second Five Year Plan stressed on heavy industries. Indian planner, Prof. P. C. Mahalanobis, was the real architect of the Second Plan. He adopted a strategy which emphasized on investment in heavy industry to achieve Indus tribalization which was assumed to be the basic condition for rapid economic development. In fact, there was a big debate whether more importance should be given to industries or agriculture. Ch. Charan Singh, a Congress leader who later formed Bharatiya Lok Dal, forcefully articulated the case for keeping agriculture at the centre of planning for India. He was of the view that planning was increasing the prosperity rural people.

However, the planners justified their strategy of rapid development through rapid industrialization.

(1) The planners felt that the country with its vast natural and human resources was ideally suited for industries.

(2) Indian agriculture was suffering from heavy population pressure on land. One method of reducing this pressure of population on land was to shift the surplus population to industries.

(3) Rapid industrialization was an essential condition for the development of not only agriculture but also for all other sectors in the country.

(4) Rapid increase   in   national   and   per   capita income would be possible only through rapid industrialization.