In a mature academic community, differences of opinion can be debated without any ill feelings or injuries. It is regrettable that often debates degenerate into quarrels. That is one reason why one sometimes hesitates to enter into a debate. I have also hesitated to take up the challenge thrown by T. N. Srinivasan at all economists in India who might be opposed to the World Bank–IMF policy line that has been adopted by the government of India. It would be sad indeed if my opposing Srinivasan in public should lead to any deterioration of the excellent relations we have maintained with each other over more than 35 years. Of course, I have always thought that on policy questions Srinivasan is quite mad, mad as a March hare; I am sure Srinivasan on his part has never taken me seriously on these questions. But these differences have never affected our personal relations, and I hope it will continue to be so in future. If despite this anxiety I feel called upon to make some comments on two of his recent writings in the EPW (Srinivasan 1991a; 1991b), that is because in these pieces he has made a large number of assertions and sweeping generalizations on matters of the utmost gravity for the country. Srinivasan is a serious scholar and his writings are usually analytically rich. But unfortunately, in the two recent pieces that I am talking about, there is hardly any trace of any analytics; only a number of diktats. He must be exceedingly happy to see the government of India adopt lock, stock and barrel the policy measures he, along with some others, has advocated for nearly 30 years.