Mid-term appraisals of Five-Year Plans have traditionally been a dreary exercise. Nothing much is achieved, the report is consigned to the dustbin, and the media lets out one big yawn. But this year has seen a marvellous exception: even before the exercise is underway in earnest, reams of newsprint and hours of airtime have been dedicated to the cause.

It began simply enough. This year, as usual, 19 consultative committees were set up to see how far the first three years of the Tenth Plan have taken the country in areas like education, water resources, industry, agriculture, etc. People from all over were invited to join the committees. But the issue took a turn for the extraordinary when, in a strongly worded letter dated 21 September 2004, five economists threatened to quit and deprive the country of their advice. Their grouse: they wouldn't participate in the process unless Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia throws out some individuals who work for agencies like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and McKinsey from these committees. They argue that their inclusion on the committee is "undermining the autonomy and sovereignty" of the Indian state and they simply cannot bear to "sit together" in the same room with them.

How can some little piece of advice from John Briscoe, senior advisor on water at the World Bank, hurt India's sovereignty? Or how can one Dr Sudipto Mundle, deputy country director at ADB, influence the government - if he is at all heard over the commotion caused by 32 members of the Group on Transport - into some intractable scheme in which India finds itself dominated by powerful foreign states. Senior economist and professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Prabhat Patnaik, explains:

• The tone of your letter sounds like Dr Ahluwalia has inducted foreign agencies into the Cabinet….
  
  We are talking about the government. We are very strong about drawing a distinction between those who are included in bodies constituted as part of state organs and those outside. We cannot prevent Montek talking to people from the World Bank. There is a big difference between that and having these persons on organs of the Indian state. It is a symbolic difference perhaps, but even these symbolic differences are very important because they set precedents. By themselves, what are these groups? They are of no great consequence. But once you have done this, you have opened the way for involving them in further activities of the government. In that sense, the Planning Commission is as much a part of the state as the Cabinet.
  
  
• But this is just a mere review and not an exercise that gets much attention or action.
  
  For that matter, even the Planning Commission has not been getting much attention for the last ten years. Rajiv Gandhi referred to the members as a bunch of jokers. Does that mean one can just take anyone onto these bodies? This is a matter of principle and is unrelated to how important the groups are.
  
  

  “He [Montek] has said that World Bank is a stakeholder and that’s why we have invited them” Prabhat Patnaik

• How can some little piece of advice from a water specialist of the World Bank hurt the country's sovereignty?
  
  We are not talking about hurting the country. But the precedent of involving persons from these organisations in official bodies of the government is something that would certainly affect the sovereignty. It is what typically happens in banana republics. We don't want India to become like that.
  
  
• But there are limits to things - this makes sense if it is an issue of defence or national security, or even if the advice is binding in any way.
  
  The state includes everything, including very important decisions relating to economic ministries. The state is much bigger - it is not confined to the armed forces. We do not want - we just do not want - these bodies to be associated with the Indian state. No matter how much de facto influence they may have. The fact that the recommendations are not binding is again not the point. It is quite possible that these agencies are having a very deep influence on policy, whether they are associated with such committees or not. It is quite possible that the US State Department influences our foreign policy, but that does not mean we invite a US government official to a Cabinet meeting. There is an important difference of principle.
  
  
• What is the basic fear? What will happen if we listen to advice?
  
  There is no fear. It is a matter of objection on principle. There is no question of fear. Most of these people are our personal friends. I knew Arun Maira in college; Sudipto Mundle is a person friend of mine. We are simply objecting to a process.
  
  
• But take, for instance, cases where Indians like NCAER director general Dr Suman Bery have worked for the World Bank. He advised and assisted in Brazil's privatisation - an issue far more sensitive than, say, water.
  
  If I had been in Brazil at the time, I would have raised the same objection. This is precisely what we don't want India to become. Countries in Latin America that are heavily in debt are not in a position to protect their sovereignty. Countries in Africa that are in deep crisis can't either. But that's no reason why we shouldn't.
  
  
• Some other economists argue that it is very unprofessional of the five of you to allow the Left to influence you to further their cause.
  
  I can't respond to that. The fact is that our political views are irrelevant. The term 'Left economists' is coined by the press. We didn't mention Left or Right in our letter… We are not politicians. We are not going out to make trouble.
  
  
• But very few will believe you.
  
  Well, if people carry a particular impression, they are free to do so. We want this issue to be discussed. If someone refuses to confront these issues by dismissing our position, saying that it is part of some conspiracy, what can we do? I can't hold a gun to your head and say please think about this. But many people are responding to these issues - we get emails supporting our stand.
  
  
• But you can't deny your leanings.
  
  That is not the point. In our letter, we have taken a position. When you come and ask me questions, do I ask you your political views? I don't. By attributing that position to political views, attributing motives, they are trying to escape confronting these positions. It's a matter of escapism - accusing us of unprofessionalism.
  
  
• I understand that these experts have been invited in their personal capacities and not as representatives of these agencies.
  
  They have not been invited in their personal capacities. They are representatives of these organisations.
  
  
• They were not nominated by the agency in question, but asked for by name.
  
  I don't know why these consultants think they are there, but the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission has never said - in all his communications with us - that these individuals have been invited in their personal capacities. On the contrary, he has said that World Bank is a stakeholder and that's why we have invited them. He has said that these are organisations financing state governments, they are donor agencies.
  
  
• But even members like Abhijit Sen have said that they have been invited for their individual expertise…
  
  I am telling you what Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia has said. He is defending the principle of associating these organisations with such committees.
  
  
• Many will argue if we had all the expertise we needed, we wouldn't be where we are today…
  
  What is this expertise you are talking about? The World Bank has ruined Third World countries by its advice. The Congress chief minister of Andhra Pradesh has said that the disastrous rural situation in his state is a result of following World Bank advice. Their expertise is responsible for a lost decade in Africa, a financial crisis in East Asia…. if by following their advice you are doing badly, this expertise is bogus.
  
  By the way, you involve McKinsey in Planning Commission today, tomorrow they will go and claim in Latin America: "Look at our expertise, we are part of the Indian Planning Commission."