Revision summary
Peru’s mid-century development mixed export oligarchy with a radical military-planning interlude under Velasco, then crisis and neoliberal reversal. Indian early planning under the Planning Commission and the Mahalanobis strategy built public industry, technical education, and a durable idea of state-led structural change. India’s process was parliamentary and federally argued; Peru’s surge was corporatist and more easily dismantled. Critiques of the Hindu rate of growth and of controls do not cancel the foundational industrial and administrative capacity. The comparison shows that planning founds future development when institutions outlast a single regime, which India did more than Peru.
Model answer
Introduction
Peru and India both tried, in the mid-twentieth century, to use the state to break a primary-export trap and to industrialise. Peru’s path ran through an oligarchic export economy, a burst of military developmentalism under Juan Velasco Alvarado, and then a crisis that opened onto Fujimori’s neoliberal shock. India’s early planning under Nehru, Mahalanobis, and the Planning Commission was more durable, more democratic, and more foundational for the mixed economy that followed — including the later turn to markets.
Body
The Peruvian experience
Peru’s classic political economy was coastal export (guano, then sugar, cotton, minerals) and an Andean hinterland of incomplete agrarian citizenship. Civilian governments flirted with import-substitution and with a National Planning Institute. The decisive developmental surge was the Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces (1968–75). Velasco nationalised oil and parts of mining, legislated agrarian reform against the coastal latifundia, and built state enterprises. Planning was nationalist and corporatist, closer to a military project of CEPAL-style structuralism than to a parliamentary five-year debate.
- The limits were severe: top-down reform, later debt, and 1990s dismantling. Peruvian planning is a discontinuous developmental state — interrupted ISI without a lasting democratic coalition.
Early Indian planning as foundation
India’s Planning Commission (1950) and the Second Plan’s Mahalanobis heavy-industry strategy built steel, machines, IITs, and a public-sector elite. Critics of controls and the Hindu rate of growth do not erase that industrial and food-policy base. Unlike Velasco’s Peru, Indian plans were debated in Parliament and the NDC. 1991 liberalised from a mixed economy, not from an export oligarchy alone.
The comparative lesson
Planning without democratic depth can be reversed in a decade. India’s early phase laid physical and institutional rails that later markets and welfare still use. The foundation was a sovereign developmental state that survived leadership change — Peru’s mirror of discontinuity.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD PE[Peru] --> V[Velasco ISI and land] V --> BR[Break / neoliberal shock] IN[India] --> PC[Planning Commission] PC --> MH[Mahalanobis industry] MH --> F[Foundation for 1991 and after]
Conclusion
Peru planned sharply under a military developmental regime and then unplanned under crisis and neoliberal shock. India planned early, imperfectly, and continuously enough to found an industrial and administrative base. The early Indian phase matters because later development, including the market turn, still stands on that base — a foundation Peru’s interrupted ISI did not equally leave.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Illustrate with examples how regional parties in India have played a crucial role in drawing the historically disadvantaged groups into the mainstream political system
Next question in the 2025 paper (Q8). View answer →
-
Why compare India with Peru rather than with the USSR?
Because both were mixed, postcolonial or post-oligarchic economies using ISI and land reform, not Soviet command systems; the contrast is democratic continuity versus military interruption.
-
Did early Indian planning cause later growth?
It did not cause the 2000s boom by itself. It supplied steel, skills, public banks, and a national market on which later growth and welfare could be built.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain the Philosophical approach to the study of Political theory -
2025 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Write a note on the relation between equality and liberty from the multi-cultural perspective -
2025 · Q1(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain the Macpherson's view on power -
2025 · Q1(d) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Mention the difference between Italian and German brands of fascism -
2025 · Q2(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Karl Popper presents a defence of the open society against its enemies. Elaborate -
2025 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Provide a comparative analysis of behavioural and institutional approach to the study of Political theory -
2025 · Q3(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
"State ………. does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress." - Mahatma Gandhi. Elucidate -
2025 · Q3(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Explain how the slogan 'the personal is political' addresses the issue of women's oppression and discrimination?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain the Philosophical approach to the study of Political theory
Political Theory
The philosophical approach treats political theory as reasoned inquiry into meaning, right, and the good regime. It defines concepts such as the state, obligation, and justice, and tests them against rival claims. Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Rawls are central practitioners of this method. Strauss, Oakeshott, Berlin, and Arendt show that texts and categories still organise modern debate. The approach is not a substitute for behavioural data or institutional history, but it supplies questions that measurement cannot invent.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Write a note on the relation between equality and liberty from the multi-cultural perspective
Political Theory
Liberty is non-arbitrary space of action; equality is the claim that this space belongs to every person. Mill and Berlin warn that liberty can be crushed in the name of a single real self or a uniform good. Taylor, Kymlicka, and Parekh show that recognition and group-differentiated rights can be liberal tools in diverse societies. Uniform rules may still silence minorities; group vetoes may still silence women and dissenters inside a community. The Indian Constitution already pairs equal citizenship with cultural rights, which is the practical form of this relation.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain the Macpherson's view on power
Political Theory
Macpherson read Hobbes and Locke as theorists of possessive individualism: the person as owner of capacities in a market society. The liberal state in that reading mainly protects property and contract. He then distinguished extractive power, which takes benefit from others, from developmental power, which is the ability to unfold human capacities. Democracy should be judged by equal developmental power, not only by elections or negative liberty. The argument retrieves an ethical liberalism and a non-authoritarian Marxism against a thin competitive elite model of democracy.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.