SOCIAL SCIENTIST
There are only two ways of achieving "success" as an economist in our country, or indeed in any third world country: by doing what is "professionally respectable", which means being acceptable to imperialism; or by joining the domestic State apparatus. What is more, in the era of "liberalisation" these two ways have got merged into only one, namely being acceptable to imperialism, either by closing your eyes to its massive presence and confining yourself to displaying great technical virtuosity in some obscure and inconsequential field, or by actually painting it in prettified colours. The basic fact however is indubitable: unless you make yourself acceptable to imperialism you are not a "successful" economist. This is hardly surprising: among all the science and social science disciplines, economics is perhaps the one most hegemonised by imperialism. Pradhanji was acutely aware of this fact, but remained true to his convictions without a thought for "recognition" and "success", which is why he stood out as a shining exception.
He began his professional career as a mathematical economist. Had he continued to remain one he would no doubt have acquired much glamour and professional standing, not to mention the awards and honours, that go with it. Instead he decided to shift his area of research to agriculture and political economy, inspired no doubt by the Marxist intellectual winds that have always blown strongly across Bihar, even in the current arid times. He was asked by Professor K.N.Raj to come over to the Delhi School of Economics, which at the time had a fantastic intellectual reputation all over the world. Accepting such an offer would have been considered the best possible career move for any young Indian economist. Pradhanji however turned down the offer, choosing instead to stay on in Bihar; he stayed on till the end.
Perhaps his affluent, even aristocratic, background gave him the resilience to pursue his own path, unconcerned about "glamour", "recognition", and what is conventionally considered "success". There is tragically an element of truth in the claim that personal experience of suffering and privation provides a more shaky foundation for rebelliousness than intellectual conviction acquired without any reference to personal suffering. The case of Maurice Dobb, perhaps the most outstanding and the most consistent Marxist economist of the Anglo-Saxon world of the twentieth century, illustrates the point: Dobb once reminisced that he came to Marxism entirely out of conviction. Even the case of Paul Sweezy, the only other possible contender for these adjectives, underscores the same point. Both Dobb