30 SOCIAL SCIENTIST therefore not an uncommon feature to find the leaders of caste and communal strifes on both sides of the social divide united under the umbrella of the same ruling class parties. A retarded and crisis-ridden capitalism is always politically a divisive force, especially so in a multi-national and socially diverse context, and for such a capitalism the instinct for political survival always takes precedence over national unity and people's welfare. Therefore, from whichever way one looks at the problem, the struggle for State autonomy, for the democratic reorganisation of our federal polity and for the lasting national unity based on the equality and voluntary union of Indian people belonging to the various national streams, is integrally tied up with a consistent and relentless struggle against the dominance of big bourgeoisie and its allies. 1 Consider, for example, the provisions relating to the Concurrent List, the system of Centrally appointed Governors and their power to dismiss elected democratic goverments or to manipulate majorities, the power of the Central Government to issue directives to the State goverments, and the right to issue ordinances and then get them stamped by Parliament and, over and above everything else, to declare emergency and abrogate the basic freedoms of citizens. 2 This is clearly revealed in the growth and multiplication of para-military forces like the Central Reserve Police (CRP). Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CSIF), etc. along with the developments lead^ng to an overweening executive out to repress the democratic movements of the people with the help of these para-military forces even when certain State governments may not be so disposed. One should not forget the examples of the central executive arbitrarily deciding to dismiss duly elected governments in the States as early as in 1952-53 (PEPSU) or the use of Governors to prevent the formation of certain ministries like in Madras or Travancore-Cochin, again in 1952. Subsequently the behaviour of the Centre in this respect has been too blantant to need mention, especially in Kerala in 1957 or with United Front governments in 1967-1959 etc. 3 A very useful theoretical summing up, and still very relevant, is contained in AjoyGhosh, "The Indian Bourgeoisie", in Ajoy Ghosh, Articles & Speeches, Moscow, 1962, pp 57-75. The best source to look at the differences among the communist parties concerning the Indian bourgeoisie is their party programmes. See CPI (M) Programme (adopted at Seventh Congress at Culcutta, 1964), Amendments (Ninth Congress at Madurai, 1972) and Statement of Policy, Calcutta, 1971; CPI, The Programme of CPI (Seventh Congress, Bombay, 1964), New Delhi, 1965; CPI (M.L.) programme first published in Liberation, IV, 4, April-June 1971, adopted at their first party congress, 1970. 4 Sec, Georges Knstoffel Lieten, "Janata as a Continuity of the System", Social Scientist, Vo\ 9, No 5/6, December 1980-January 1981, p 14-35, fora very useful and detailed analysis. 5 At this point it is necessary to make the distinction clear between the notion of State autonmoy and ^decentralisation" which became a talking point during the rule of the Janata party. It seems to me that the notion of State autonomy refers to the constitutional rights that guarantee the political integrity and financial viability of the constituent States within a federation and the State autonomy movements represent attempts, on the one hand, to protect the already limited State rights from further encroachments from