lopment strategy in the early years gave rise to two big controversies. 

These included-

(a) Agriculture vs. Industry: There was a lot of debate among the planners as to which of the two was to be given priority in planning the agricultural industry. Many scholars thought that the Second Five-Year Plan had done more harm to the suffering industry in agriculture and rural India. An eminent Gandhian j. C. Kumarappa provided an alternative blueprint that could bring India on the path of rural industrialization. Congress leader and later Bharatiya Lok Dal leader Chaudhary Charan Singh stressed the need to make agriculture the backbone of the economy. Mr. Singh thought that planning led to prosperity and industrialization in rural areas to urban areas. 

There were others who believed that poverty could not be eliminated without industrialization. The state enacted laws to implement land reforms and distribute resources among the poor in the villages. Large funds were looted for proposals and irrigation projects on the community. However, all these policies failed because they were never implemented. This was because the zamindar classes had social and political power. Furthermore, this class argued that even if the government spends a large amount on agriculture, the problem of major poverty will not be solved.

(b) Public vs Private Sector: India adopted a mixed model of economy. The adoption of a mixed economy was subject to criticism from both left and right. Critics say that the private sector was not given enough space and incentive for development. The active, increased role for the public sector created powerful vested interests that created barriers to private capital using license permit monarchy and permits for investment. In addition, the state's policy of restricting the good produced by the private sector in the domestic market left the private sector with no incentives and competitions to improve its goods. 

This led to inefficiency and corruption. In addition, critics point out that the state has not spent enough on public health and education. The intervention of the state was only in those areas where the private sector did not interfere. Thus, the state helped the private sector benefit. No help was given to the poor and a new middle class was created due to the intervention of the state. This class enjoyed power and privileges without much accountability. Furthermore, even though the proportion of the poor decreased, their number continued to increase.