hope to influence, by their exemplary will, those who are poor bui pure to think of another development and save the world. But how does the other-half die? Do the rich become rich, before they become super rich, on their own? Do the poor become poor because they lack the will tfe participate? Is the social world world nothing more than ^ welter of wills and ideas? Madan does not face these questions when he advocates his culture of development. There is a rudimentary appreciation of these questions when he reviews the theories of under development in his second paper, but even there the gravamen of his charge is that the planners have failed to think differently. On a clear day from behind their desks these planners can almost see the whole world, but they have not taken a peek from the shop floor into the n^ean streets of the metropoles they inhabit, nor have they looked into their hearts to search for the common bond that unites them with the multitude. Rather than knot the false school tie that binds them to the U-sector the planners and intellectuals (the omniscient "we", pace Madan) should now create antother world on another consciousness; where the bad boys become good boys and good boys remain good boys and the teacher turns down his own promotion. Dipankar Gupta 84 Journal of Arts ami Ideas