Consider the following statements about India’s Second Five-Year Plan: (1) It was drafted under the leadership of economist K. N. Raj. (2) It proposed that key industries such as electricity, railways, steel, heavy machinery and communications should be developed in the public sector. (3) The drafters of the Plan found it very difficult to balance industrial growth with agricultural development. (4) The drafters found balancing industry and agriculture really easy. Which of the statements given above is or are correct?

Introduction / Context:
The Second Five Year Plan is an important part of India's economic history. It was implemented in the mid 1950s and is closely associated with the strategy of rapid industrialisation, particularly the development of heavy industries in the public sector. This question tests your ability to recall who guided the Plan, what its industrial priorities were and how it balanced industry with agriculture.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Statement 1 claims that the Second Five Year Plan was drafted under the leadership of economist K. N. Raj.
- Statement 2 says that the Plan proposed that key industries like electricity, railways, steel, heavy machinery and communications should be developed in the public sector.
- Statement 3 states that the drafters found it very difficult to balance industrial growth with agricultural development.
- Statement 4 asserts that balancing industry and agriculture was really easy for the drafters, which directly contradicts Statement 3.
- The task is to identify which statements are factually correct.

Concept / Approach:
The Second Five Year Plan is widely associated with the economist P. C. Mahalanobis, whose model placed emphasis on heavy and basic industries. Although economists like K. N. Raj contributed to planning discussions, the leadership of the plan is primarily credited to Mahalanobis, making Statement 1 suspect. The Plan did propose that core industries such as steel, energy and transport should be developed in the public sector, which supports Statement 2. Balancing industrial growth with agricultural needs was a major challenge and is frequently mentioned in books on Indian planning, which supports Statement 3. Statement 4 contradicts Statement 3 and is therefore unlikely to be correct. The approach is to check each statement against these well known facts.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate Statement 1: The Second Five Year Plan is commonly described as being based on the Mahalanobis model and drafted under the guidance of P. C. Mahalanobis, not K. N. Raj. Although K. N. Raj was an important economist, he was more closely associated with other aspects of Indian planning. Therefore, Statement 1 is incorrect. Step 2: Evaluate Statement 2: The Plan emphasised the development of basic and heavy industries such as steel, power, transport and communications in the public sector as part of building a strong industrial base. This is consistent with historical descriptions and documents. Therefore, Statement 2 is correct. Step 3: Evaluate Statement 3: The Second Plan's emphasis on heavy industry led to concerns that agriculture did not receive sufficient attention, and planners had difficulty ensuring adequate agricultural growth alongside industrial expansion. Many analyses mention that balancing industry and agriculture was a challenge. Therefore, Statement 3 is correct. Step 4: Evaluate Statement 4: This statement directly contradicts Statement 3 by saying that balancing industry and agriculture was really easy. Historical accounts do not support this; they highlight difficulties rather than ease. Therefore, Statement 4 is incorrect. Step 5: Since Statements 2 and 3 are correct and Statements 1 and 4 are incorrect, the correct combination among the options is 2 and 3.

Verification / Alternative check:
Verification can be done by consulting standard economic history or Indian planning texts, which attribute the strategy of the Second Plan to P. C. Mahalanobis and describe it as focusing on heavy industries. These sources also discuss the strain placed on agriculture and the problems that arose because the Plan priority was industrialisation rather than agricultural development. None of these sources describe the balancing of industry and agriculture as easy, and none identify K. N. Raj as the primary leader of the Plan, confirming the evaluation of the statements.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A (1 only) is wrong because Statement 1 is incorrect and Statements 2 and 3 are not included even though they are correct.
Option B (1 and 2) is wrong because it includes Statement 1, which is incorrect, and omits Statement 3, which is correct.
Option D (3 and 4) is wrong because it pairs a correct statement (3) with an incorrect, contradictory statement (4), which claims that balancing industry and agriculture was easy.

Common Pitfalls:
One common pitfall is to assume that any prominent economist associated with planning, such as K. N. Raj, must have led one of the Plans and to overlook the specific association of the Second Plan with Mahalanobis. Another mistake is to read Statements 3 and 4 superficially and think they both might have some truth, without noticing that they contradict each other. Students should pay attention to contradictions within the statements and use their background knowledge of history to judge which version is likely to be true. Remembering that the Second Plan prioritised heavy industry and struggled to balance agriculture helps in answering correctly.

Final Answer:
The correct statements about the Second Five Year Plan are 2 and 3 only.