More on EGS

More on EGS Meeta Rajivlochan WE are grateful that S Mahendra Dev and M L Dantwala read our remarks (EPW, January 13-20, 1996) with care and found time to comment upon them (EPW, March 2, 1996). However, as was evident in our remarks, the differences with Mahendra Dev are on the substance of what he calls his "critical evaluation of the EGS". We find fault with his judgment about the relative weight ascribed to different factors in understanding the functioning of the scheme and the absences in his evaluation. Not for a moment did we presume his paper to be a comprehensive review of the EGS. We do not doubt that it was the result of a collective effort involving wisdom from a number of seminars and input from many reliable sources. Our comments too are beholden to the efforts of others. However, we alone are responsible for the interpretations.