OUR COUNTRY has a historic opportunity to work an arrangement that reflects its culture. Nehruian model of mixed economy enabled the country to make critical social adjustments; the system reached an impasse in less than half a century. Presently, the process of stop-go economic reforms, which were taking place, were denying the economy the benefits of both a planned and aliberal system. The distribution of income land limits on property in land needed to be upgraded. Public policies must aim at building an ethos of restraint rather than putting up with rank consumerism, which is eroding values as well as resources.

Nehru had said strategies of development must strike a balance between development of material and non material resources must shift to empirical work. Just look at the example of commitment to Socialist modernisation by China in the last decade, and we will find that leaders of great nations could not be puppets.Development economists are increasingly veering around the idea that the roles of governments and makers are complementary and interventionist governments were not necessarily less efficient than those committed to free trade. The World bank in its development report observes that the experience of Japan, East Asia and China made it clear that it was possible for a country to have an interventionist government and still enjoy extremely rapid growth over a period of decades. There are many inherent contradictions in the Nehruvian economic policy. While Nehru wanted Socialistic pattern of society, he favoured capitalist mode of production. While the preamble of the Constitution declared India as a democratic, Socialist republic, the government was pursuing the economic policies of capitalism, globalisation and privatisation, which was bound to subordinate the country to western powers.

While farmers were being subsidised in Europe and the US under the pretext of protecting wildlife and environment, these countries were putting pressure on India to eliminate subsidies and remove quantitative restrictions on farm produce which would adversely affect farmers of the country remarks. India must address its problems at home before it could compete globally. Hence, a development model should be evolved which could make the country's 40 to 50 per cent poor progress at a faster rate. These models could not be adopted from outside without understanding the problems facing the country. Socio-econornic problems could not be studied and solved in isolation and that a comprehensive strategy was needed to uplift the poor masses, empower women and give a definite direction to the youth. In India there were too many politics in what we said and what we did, it was unfortunate that the people had allowed politicians to get away with promises. Punjab was no longer in the forefront of Indian states and had been decisively replaced by Andhra Pradesh, adding the development approach adopted by the state was responsible for this.