Analyzing Criticisms of the Nehruvian Development Model

The question asks to identify major criticisms of the Nehruvian Development Model, specifically focusing on the early 1970s. Let's break down the model and the potential criticisms:

Understanding the Nehruvian Development Model

The Nehruvian model, largely implemented from the 1950s onwards, was characterized by:

• State-led industrialization: Emphasis on building a strong public sector in heavy industries.
• Import substitution: Policies aimed at reducing reliance on foreign goods by producing them domestically.
• Mixed economy: Allowing private enterprise but with significant government regulation and control.
• Centralized planning: Use of Five-Year Plans to direct economic development.

Evaluating the Criticisms (Early 1970s)

By the early 1970s, this model faced significant critique. Let's examine the given options:

Option a) Rising unemployment

This was a significant issue. The focus on capital-intensive industries in the public sector did not generate enough employment opportunities relative to the growing workforce. This led to increasing rising unemployment, particularly among the educated youth, becoming a major point of concern.

Option b) Declining agricultural input

While agricultural growth was crucial, and its performance varied, the primary criticism wasn't necessarily a general 'declining agricultural input'. The focus was more on the pace of growth and whether policies adequately supported the sector compared to industry. It wasn't universally seen as a primary failure point compared to industrial policy outcomes.

Option c) Corruption & hoarding

The extensive government controls, licensing systems (the 'License Raj'), and the dominance of the public sector created opportunities for corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency. Shortages resulting from planning and controls could also lead to hoarding by traders. These were widely cited problems associated with the implementation of the model.

Option d) Excessive focus on women education

Investing in education, including women's education, is generally considered a positive aspect of development, aiming for social progress and a skilled workforce. It was not typically framed as a criticism of the *development model* itself in the early 1970s. Concerns about education usually related to access, quality, or relevance, not the focus itself.

Conclusion on Criticisms

Based on the analysis:

• Rising unemployment (a) was a direct consequence of the industrial strategy and a major criticism.
• Corruption & hoarding (c) were significant problems linked to the bureaucratic and controlled nature of the economy.
• Declining agricultural input (b) is a less direct or primary criticism compared to a & c.
• Excessive focus on women education (d) is contrary to the nature of criticism; it was usually seen as a desirable goal.

Therefore, the combination of rising unemployment and corruption & hoarding represents major criticisms of the Nehruvian Development Model in the early 1970s.