REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN INDIA 65 very rightly so, that "the crux of the problem is that the objective of balanced regional development is sought to be pursued under a highly inequitous system...'5. If this is so, then one wonders why the author, instead of examining the very character of regional approaches and techniques of such developmental planning in whatever form they exist and have been adapted in the country ends up with an implicit notion that the fault primarily lies not with the structure but the apparently ineffective and inappropriate implementation of otherwise 'relevant' policies. This is clearly implied when he proceeds to comment on the spatial distribution of Indian urbanisation and the spatial growth strategy. While his findings about the trends in Indian urbanisation are correct and known rather widely, one wonders why he does not try to relate the same with the larger context of development of capitalism and the 'peripheral5 character of Indian urbanisation. The continuous growth of the primate cities and of a few of the major Glass I cities essentially remains related to the nature and pattern of the country's participation in the global economy and the elements of its inherited colonial economic structure subsumed under the present system. Hence a radical alteration in the process, rate and nature of urbanisation cannot be pursued, given the present dominance of capital and the existing class structure. In other words, the regional disparities in the rate of urbanisation are essentially a product of the intrinsic interplay of the elements of world capitalism and are thus purely manifestations of the 'peripheral' character of Indian urbanism and the continuance of the class struggle in urban as well as rural areas. By the same token, it can be argued that the policy of reducing regional disparities through the 'development' of small towns or growth centres too is nothing but a systematic attempt at bringing about 'desired3 changes in the relations of production, aiming at the advancement of the elements of capitalism. To elaborate a bit, the oft-repeated concept of growth centre remains an aggregate of its two major dimensions, viz, the 'centre5 and 'growth9. Whereas the former appears as a manifestation of elements which are strictly spatial the latter introduces a temporal dimension into the concept. 'Planning of growth centres' hence appears as designing of spatial units for growth (characterised with a definite value) with a time perspective. It is the inbuilt but explicit emphasis of this concept on 'space' that brings in its most obvious inherent contradiction. Prima facie, the space and population within it are presumed to be exclusive to one another rather than related in their apparent integrity. The resultant conceptualisation becomes a 'space dominant' growth model loaded with packages of elements essential to bring in modifications in the production relations, thereby modifying the class structure to mature correspondingly with characteristics of the peripheral capitalism. Given this, Minocha should not have started by doubting the procedural aspects of the policies which he thinks are intended to reduce