aitention 10 distributive justice, nor does it distinguish between need and greed, nor does it allow for endogeneous ethical and cultural factors which are pregnant with participatory impulses. Such factors, verily, are non-material factors but that, as Madan argues, does not make them immaterial factors. Planners generally consider them to be intangible over-the-head costs and hence worthless as they cannot be trapped in precise per capita summations. This is*precisely the approach towards development thai Madan seeks to replace. But replace with what? Madan's reply is the strategy of "another development". This strategy is quite in vogue. From McNammara to Mahler (W.H,0. chief) to literate guilt-edged intellectuals in many voluntary organisations of the Third World (particularly India) there are many on this planet who subsceibe to it. For McNammara and Mahler the strategy of "another development" is literally "another" development. Let the rich develop as as they will, but there is another development possible for the non-rich through the agency of popular participation, credit associations, community health workers, adult literacy, and so forth. In other words another development steers clear of the other development.^^ pretends that it is possible to remain that way. Among other things it draws attention (and envy) from the life styles and path ways of development of the rich-cum-privileged sector and legitimises parallel institutions for the poor. Let the rich continue to believe that the world is their oyster; let hospitals and doctors serve their sick, while the poor have half-literate community health workers who are legitimised on the ersatz anti-technology ideology of "people's health in people's hands". Naturally this does not work: for many crumbs do not make a cake. For the World Bank and for W.H.O. however it does not really matter for the strategy of "another development" affords a sequestered Ice-side against possible counter ideological storms. Jt is a little different for the guilt-edged intellectuals. There is of course the satisfaction of saying "be blown" to the non-intellectual mainstream, and, more ymportantly, the aesthetic joy of fashioning the world as their will and idea. But some of these intellectuals who have tried to work out "another development" on the ground have found to their dismay that good ideas get bad in practice; and what is worse, if allowed a limited run get into the bad company ofOxfam and foreign funds. The initiative is thus wrested not by force but by grease and it is no longer under popular control. Sure enough model villages are set up but on the largesse of benevolent big brotherly agencies. The oblige, quite plainly, is thoroughly noblesse -and to deny it would imply instant extinction for these organisations. Then there are the intellectuals who work in universities and for whoxn nothing matters. Not for them the rude shock on the ground; nor for them an elementary appreciation of how the other half dies. They work entirely within a rich man-poor man syndrome and divide the world much as they would divide their class rooms between good boys and bad boys. Just as the teacher in the class room, between talk and chalk, keeps the bad boys away from the good boys and dreams of reforming them before the day of reckoning, so also in the larger world they Janaury-March 1984 ' 83