Sustainable development as a term was popularised by the Brundtland Commission. But the question behind the phrase has an old pedigree. In 1900, 50,000 horses were used in London’s transport system (buses, trams, carts, private carriages) and 1,000 tonnes of dung were produced every day, leading to questions about whether London’s growth was sustainable or whether the city would be buried under dung. In 1900, advent of automobiles was unanticipated in policy discussions.

In December 2002, the Planning Commission produced a Vision 2020 document, suggesting a target of universal enrolment (in schools) by 2020. Less than five years ago, no one would have believed universal enrolment would happen in 2007, notwithstanding problems of retention. The point is that with structural changes, extrapolations based on past experience are misleading and this is equally true of suggestions about India’s real GDP growth.

We now have GDP growth of 8.5 per cent in 2003-04, 7.5 per cent in 2004-05, 9.0 per cent in 2005-06 and 9.4 per cent in 2006-07. There are minor issues of compatibility across CSO’s advance, revised and quick estimates. But the serious question is the following. Is India on a growth trajectory of 6 per cent, the baseline for the 1990s? Or, since 2003-04, have we broken away from 6 per cent and are on a trajectory of 9 per cent? Has there been a structural change or is this growth cyclical? Will we look at 9 per cent upside down and pretend it is actually 6 per cent?

... contd.