Page 4 of 12

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta (PGT): Prof. Sen, will you look back at the second 5 year Plan and the so-called Prof. Mahananda Model of development which we went in for. You were critical of that approach, if I recall correctly. That model emphasised investment in heavy industry, and also keeping consumption low. When you look back on what happened, were you correct in criticising that model, and was that model inappropriate for this country?

Amartya Kumar Sen(AKS): I think it was inappropriate in many ways. I think there is no question that Prof. Mahananda was a major contributor to thinking rationally about economic planning in India, and to that extent we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to him. people like us at that time were out tackling But it seems that while negligible the fact that there issues, and one of them, I remember writing at that time, was concerned with seemed little interest on what the ultimate objectives of economic development were. They seemed to concentrate on certain instrumentalities, in this case, the investment rate, and particularly heavy industry, and so on... and how that related to the objectives that fired the imagination of people for which we fought to get independence and so on... didn't seem to connect. And I think to some extent that is a very general concern, whether the instrumentality happened to be heavy industry and raising the investment rate, or the instrumentality happened to be just the opening up of the economy to the world all just means towards an end, and we cannot examine them without explicitly bringing in what the trade, these were objectives are and how the means might relate to these objectives. That was, I think, primarily what I was concerned with and worried about in the Mahalanobis Plan, and that is the criticism that would apply to many of the different Plans that we have had in India, and for that matter anywhere else...