The Introduction lays out the argument of the book and the political stakes of economic planning for the Indian state. It illuminates how crucial planning was to the Nehruvian state’s self-definition, and how the experiment of Plans and Parliament was meant to represent a distinct path in the superpower-divided Cold War. Seen from western capitals, the Indian experiment offered a path for Asia that was in stark contrast to the communist totalitarianism of the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union. It opens with a brief, but broad, history of the ideas of economic planning and national development in India between the late nineteenth century and the establishment of the Planning Commission in 1950. Surveying the spread of these ideas, it reveals the surprising support planning had across the political spectrum. There is also a short description of the international context of central planning and state intervention in the economy (ranging from the Soviet Union, to post-war Britain and New Deal America) in order to situate the Indian path within it. Along with an engagement with the secondary literature on the subject, the introduction lays out the key themes that the rest of the book will pursue.

The Epilogue traces the factors that caused a steady diminishment in the role and influence of the Planning Commission from the mid-1960’s onward—a combination of economic setbacks and changes in key players. After briefly tracing the fortunes of planning through the following decades, until its ultimate dissolution in 2015, it will conclude with a discussion of how the Rahul Gandhi—leader of the Congress Party, and Nehru’s great grandson—revived the specter of the Planning Commission on the 2019 general election campaign trail in order to contrast himself with Modi. It also discusses the current controversy over India’s statistical system, and why observers describe it as dismantling “the house that Mahalanobis built.” Planning Democracy concludes by underlining the key themes that emerged in the preceding chapters and underscore why understanding independent India is impossible without understanding planning.

Chapter 2 lays out how the planning-induced expansion in the state’s capacities led to the formalization of planning’s relationship with statistics. Changes at both the Planning Commission and the Indian Statistical Institute bear witness to this. It placed a statistician and a statistical institute in a position where they could, in turn, shape Plans. The chapter traces a boomerang’s arc: planning’s influence on statistics led to statistics’ influence on planning. It explains how the Indian Statistical Institute completed the transition from a small scholarly body in the outskirts of Calcutta and on the fringes of mainstream academia in the 1930s, to a nodal agency in Indian economic planning by the mid-1950s. And it describes the way in which Mahalanobis used the close proximity of national statistics and economic planning at this moment to carve a position for himself at the Planning Commission. This culminated in him and the Institute drafting India’s pivotal Second Five Year Plan (1956–61), the economic blueprint for decades thereafter. The very possibility that a statistician could transform into an economic planner reveals the wide latitude granted to experts and expertise in a technocratic state.