The recent ‘debate’ between two of India’s best known economists – Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati – is in danger of descending into a farce, and ending up diminishing both their reputations.

The row plumbed new lows after BJP MP Chandan Mitra suggested that Sen be stripped off the Bharat Ratna for his controversial remarks over Narendra Modi. Sen riposted that he would return it if Vajpayee demands it back! Mitra has now expressed regret over his remark.

These fulminations aside, what of the ‘debate’ itself? On the one hand, you have Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, both professors at Columbia University, and on the other, Nobel Laureate and Harvard professor Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze, a well-known academic and social activist.

One side is arguing that for a country like India, growth is absolutely vital for raising living standards and it is the state’s responsibility to create conditions for growth. The other side counters that though growth is important, it is only a means to an end, that being a substantial reduction in poverty and enhancing the capabilities of the vast majority of the nation.

Prima facie are they not pretty much saying the same thing, in different tones?

Bhagwati is all praise for the Gujarati entrepreneurial culture, where the accumulated wealth is used for social good, drawing from Vaishnava and Jain traditions. Sen, in a recent interview, cited Jamsetji Tata and his work in Jamshedpur to make the same point!

It was also quite interesting to see Sen, in an interview to a TV channel, praising Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew for his social vision and the harmonious way in which he balanced the interests of a multi-religious and multi-ethnic Singapore. And, for good measure he asked Modi to learn lessons from Lee. Singapore is usually praised more for its economic model and India is usually asked to learn lessons from that.

Perhaps, this ‘debate’ must not be viewed through the Left-Right prism. It is not as if one side stands for free market economy and the other is calling for a return to a Soviet-style command economy! Both seem convinced by the vital role played by markets. At the same time there are areas – healthcare, nutrition, education -- where state intervention is vital. On this, I don’t see the two sides disagreeing.

Viewing this ‘debate’ as one between the Modi model and Rahul model, as argued by some, is too simplistic. The much feted Modi model doesn’t find currency even within the BJP where Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister, and Raman Singh, Chhattisgarh Chief Minister, are fighting for their alternative development paradigms to be heard. It needs to be reminded here that Chhattisgarh was the first State to implement a comprehensive Food Bill and is at the forefront of reforming its PDS.

One doesn’t even know what model Rahul Gandhi has in his mind; the MNREGA and the Food Security Bill are largely creations of the National Advisory Council of the UPA, whose guiding spirit is Sonia Gandhi.

So where do Sen and Bhagwati differ? Two areas, as far as I can see — the Kerala vs Gujarat model, and the Food Security Bill.

Sen is gung ho for the Kerala model of development where investment in social sectors takes precedence, whereas Bhagwati is cheerleading the Gujarat model that emphasises on investment in physical infrastructure to create a conducive environment for business; investment in social development takes secondary importance.

The Food Security Bill seems to be another bone of contention. Bhagwati feels the Bill will make an already stressed fiscal situation worse and fuel inflation, hurting the poor more. Sen’s contention is that if the goodies doled out to the middle and richer classes – subsidised power, fertiliser, LPG connections – are reined in, there will be more than enough money for food entitlements.

But the pro-anti debate on Food Bill is more complex than it seems. Some States have quite rightly expressed their reservations. Why should a state like Tamil Nadu, which has a reasonably efficient and well functioning universal Public Distribution System, submit itself to a Centrally-driven food entitlement scheme?

There is no doubt that even after more than two decades of economic reforms, an unacceptably large number of Indians are deprived of decent healthcare, nutrition and education. Ethically, this raises many disturbing questions about the nature of Indian society and polity. What’s more worrying is that the high growth rates in the ‘boom’ years of 2004-08 did not significantly raise the employment rate, a fact accepted even by the Planning Commission.

Though the last word in this ‘debate’ is yet to be said, it has unwittingly opened a Pandora’s box on middle-class attitudes towards subsidies and entitlements.

comment COMMENT NOW