Bagicha Singh Minhas who passed away last August had the rare distinction of being recognized and respected for his contributions as an academic economist, as planner and policy maker, and for his active engagement in public discourse on contemporary socio-economic issues.

After an undergraduate degree in Agriculture, he switched to economics. His doctoral dissertation and post-doctoral research at Stanford University were on the then frontiers of theory. Widely cited as a pioneering and influential work, it had earned him a respected place in the academia by the time he returned to India in 1962 to join the Planning unit of the Indian Statistical Institute in Delhi.

This unit brought together an exceptionally talented team of economists and statisticians deeply interested in development problems. Located in the premises of the Planning Commission, this group worked closely with the Perspective Planning Division in studying various methodological and substantive issues in shaping a long-term development strategy for poverty eradication. It was an extra-ordinarily exciting and creative period. And Bagich played a key leadership role.

After some years, several members of the Planning unit left to take up positions in other Indian and foreign universities. But Bagich preferred to stay put and continue teaching and research in the ISI through the rest of his active professional life. That he chose to do so without being tempted by opportunities to work abroad reflects his quiet but deep conviction that it is important to do one's bit to build indigenous institutions, conduct high quality research on specific development problems facing the country, and bring knowledge to bear on public policy. It is truly remarkable that he did all this without any touch of narrow patriotism or ideological posturing.

Bagich's research since his return to India focused a variety of developmental problems of the country and policy issues centering on them. He focused on rigorous empirical research on specific issues. His interventions in the debates on policy issues were based on research, refreshing for their incisiveness, candour and forthrightness. Some of his notable works include his questioning empirical basis for the alleged increase in poverty incidence during the sixties, suggesting a technique for decomposition of agricultural growth into its component elements as a necessary prelude to meaningful analysis of its determinants, modeling of production functions to assess the relation between water inputs and crop yields and optimum utilization of water available in a multipurpose reservoir, and strategy for rapid alleviation of absolute poverty and equitable distribution.

He saw poverty eradication as the central goal of planning but was skeptical whether land reform (and in particular lowering the land ceiling) would by itself make a significant dent on rural poverty. He saw an important role for ‘deliberate measures to provide poorer segments with free education up to a certain level, scholarships for talented for vocational and higher training, and drinking water, sanitation and public health’ as means of poverty alleviation. But emphasised that a rapid and sustained growth of employment and productivity in the economy as a whole and in agriculture in particular are essential conditions for eliminating absolute poverty in a reasonable period of time.

To this end, he proposed an integrated programme for compulsory consolidation of holdings and complementary public works to utilize the plentiful and under-utilised labour resource to increase the productive capacity of land and other rural resources on a permanent basis. He emphasized that that a substantial part of the needed resources should be raised locally; that inequalities in land ownership should not come in the way of effective implementation; and that while an element of compulsion is involved, it should be consistent with a democratic political regime. The various employment and rural development programmes subsequently adopted by the government failed to recognized that all these elements are crucial for effective alleviation of rural poverty.

Poverty and rural development were important but by no means his only concerns. He was deeply interested in issues relating to industrialization, foreign trade and aid, fiscal policy and resource mobilization for development and the role of the state and planning in the development process. An active protagonist in contemporary debates on these issues, he recognized that the State has an important role in the development process but was against centralization and state control over economic activity, inefficiencies and corruption in the public sector, and a tendency for ideology to dominate rational analyses in policy making. He was for a liberal economy with markets playing an important role in mediating resource allocation, but far from the currently fashionable neo-liberal view of economy and society. He articulated his views forcefully but always in a well-argued manner.

Bagich recognized, to a greater degree than most empirical researchers and policy makers, that inferences and insights on socio-economic trends and of policy analyses depends crucially on the availability of reliable of data. He was among the most articulate and informed critics of the deficiencies of official statistics and methods of collecting them. He did not stop with criticism but played an important role – as member of the Planning Commission, as member and later as Chairperson of the NSSO governing council and as president of the Indian Association for Research on National Income and Wealth – in efforts to improve the system and make it more transparent. He was brutally frank and unsparing in his criticism both of the defects in the data system, and of mechanical and unthinking use of statistical and econometric techniques in analyzing data.

This is evident in his interventions on the debate regarding poverty incidence and trends, and measurement of growth and instability in agricultural production, as well as his concern about the deterioration in agricultural statistics and of the arbitrary revisions in the national income estimates in the early nineties. Bagich was a staunch believer in the properly designed sample surveys. He was conscious of the problems involved in large-scale surveys, and as Chairperson of NSSO took keen interest in maintaining high professional standards. When the divergence between NSS and NAS estimates of the level and pattern on consumption came under public debate, he undertook a massive and meticulous exercise to show that a substantial part of the differences arose from identifiable differences in coverage, concept methods of valuation. The study may not have settled all the issues, but it remains a truly land mark effort.

Throughout Bagich actively engaged in discussions with political leaders, the media and public forums on a wide range of controversial policy issues. He was both clear and forthright in articulating his views and never pulled punches. He was the one to call a spade a spade. His blunt and outspoken style of discourse may not have endeared him to every one, but few could ignore or dismiss his arguments. Holding formal office did not inhibit this style. As a member of the planning Commission, when he disagreed with decisions on important matters (like nationalization of wholesale trade and the size of the public sector plan), he spelt out his misgivings in public and chose to resign rather than compromise his convictions. Throughout the rest of his life he continued to speak and write critically with undiminished vigour and candour on issues he considered to be important.