Democracy, Development, and Dominance
1. The state in independent India was expected to remain an independent and
autonomous actor that would reform the society, create opportunities, promote
growth but would remain above the diversity, complexities and divisiveness of the
society. But as the subsequent years revealed the state could not remain an
independent actor. The socio economic transformation agenda was
subverted by the same forces against which it was planned. The dominant
landed elite, industrial class and the higher castes, historically placed in a dominant
position, wielded pressure on the state to mould the democratic policy and
appropriate the developmental benefits, there by undermining the purpose of
democratic institutions and developmental agenda.
2. After Effects of Land Reforms The abolition of intermediaries on the land
resulted in the coming up of a new proprietary class of peasants. The superior
tenants who had secured their tenurial rights benefited from the new legislation.
The legislations could neither benefit the lower strata of peasantry, the
sharecroppers and the tenets-at- will, nor abolish the intermediaries
completely. The ambiguities in the legislation permitted them to retain their home
farms as personally cultivated land. The land ceiling legislation drafted by the
provincial governments had great diversity regarding the level of ceiling, unit of
application, exemption of special categories. Numerous exemptions and wide
spread transfer did not result in the desired change. The land reform measures
were lenient towards the dominant groups in the country side. Congress
party’s dependence on the rural dominant groups dated back to 1930’s when it took
part in provincial politics in the British administration. Since the same groups
influenced provincial politics after independence, the Congress found it difficult to
ignore their interest. Not only the land reform measures did not produce the
desired effect, in the place of old intermediaries they created a new class
of proprietors who emerged as the dominant group in the country side.
This class of peasantry took active interest in agriculture and gave a different
direction to peasant mobilisation which was the affluent peasantry’s pressure on the
state for more patronage. The capital intensive agriculture introduced with the
green revolution in the better irrigated zones of Haryana, Punjab, and western Uttar
Pradesh further strengthened this class of middle peasantry who took advantage of
the government programme of subsidies in the form of electricity, irrigation and
fertiliser. The farmers who took advantage of the green revolution later
lobbied for a share in political power and more favour from the state.
3. The intermediate class of peasants in the northern states of Bihar and
Uttar Pradsh were mostly from the intermediate castes like Ahir and Jat who
replaced the traditional dominance of Brahnins, Rajputs, and Bhumihars to emerge
as the rural bourgeoisie. The lower castes, a large number of them surviving as
landless labourers or with small plots of land, could not be the beneficiaries from
the land reform legislations. Thus in the place of the old upper caste dominance the
countryside became the site for the domination by a neo- rich peasantry. These
new dominant groups, being from the ritually clean castes continued to maintain
social distance from the lower castes. Consequently there was hardly any
change in the economic and social positioning of the lower castes in the
rural areas.
4. The old industrial class, despite the restrictions imposed by a licence permit
raj continued to dominate the private sector and peruse their sectoral interests. The
state intervention in the economic sphere saved them from the competitions from
foreign capital. The Bombay Plan of 1944 prepared by the leading industrialists in
fact, had sought state intervention in matters related with economic planning,
investment and industrial growth. Thus the big bourgeoisie at the national
level and the small bourgeoisie at the local level continued to dominate
the private sector.
5. The Bureaucratic Structure, a carryover from the British administration,
was further consolidated and vested with powers to play a central role in matters of
policy formulation and implementation . The democratic institutions like Panchyati
Raj created to integrate the people with the decision making process were
dominated by the rural elites. Consequently, the common people were
excluded from the decision making and the projects to promote
community development and local governance at the grass roots failed to
transform the social landscape.
6. Evident Socio-economic Imbalance Developmental agenda of the state
was thus subverted by the affluent peasantry, the industrialists and the upper caste
groups. The social mobility remained confined to the upper layers of
society. Consequently the benefits of development were appropriated by the
dominant groups both old and new The lower layer comprising the vast majority of
people mostly tribal and lower castes who had suffered social and economic
vulnerability and were targets of development not only did not benefit from it
development added new dimensions of disadvantage to their already
disadvantaged position.
7. Techno-Centric Economic As the techno-centric economic growth took
off and huge irrigation, hydel projects and heavy industries took shape, thousands
of people were displaced from their original habitat and without a comprehensive
resettlement and rehabilitation policy displacement became the inevitable fall
out of development.
8. As the natural resources were put into commercial use a large number
of people directly dependent on nature for their subsistence lost their access and
control over their resources. With industries becoming livelihood for more and more
people low wage, insecurity of employment, and poor living condition in the slums
became the fate of the migrant labourers in the urban areas.