SUMMARYThis paper touches on three models of growth, viz: the Fel'dman(Soviet) model, the Harrod‐Domarmodel and the Mahalanobis(Indian) model. Of these three, the ancestry of the first is maintained in respect of both its contents and historical sequence.It is argued that the Soviet model is superior to the other two models because it recognizes the significance of a number of factors, viz: (a) the pattern of income distribution, (b) increase in the effective utilization of the existing capital stock, (c) distinction between degrees of effective utilization of the old and the new capital stocks, and lastly, (d) consideration of the rate of growth in terms of capital capacity as well as in terms of the absorption of a growing labour supply. In other respects, the model runs more or less parallel to the Harrod‐Domarand Mahalanobismodels.Some striking similarities between the Soviet and Indian models exist in spite of the differences in economic and political conditions of the two countries. These are: (a) the Marxian setting of two departments of a closed economy, (b) the aim of achieving a high rate of investment by expanding the capital goods sector and (c) a relative neglect of propensity to save as a crucial variable in the process of growth. The affinity between the Indian and the Soviet models is so strong that the former seems to answer the Soviet rather than the Indian conditi