RURAL UNREST IN INDIA 73 this level. The other two themes pertain to the authors views on the state and on "decentralised fascism'* At this point a long quotation from the book is necessary: Some of the pseudo-marxist researches have tried to show the class origins of the personnel of the public service and thus establish the 'bourgeois' nature of the state. Nothing can be far from truth than this sort of analysis. It may well be there is a congruence between the class nature of the personnel and the nature of the state. But that is only a spurious correlation. The class nature of the personnel does not determine the class of the state. The state may be the protector of the capitalistic class but may not necessarily have representatives of their class operating the bureaucratic machinery. In fact it is not to the advantage of the ruling class that it is so. Even if the bureaucracy were to be filled with the representatives of the working classes unless the economic power of the dominating class is destroyed it will not make any difference as far as the nature of the state is concerned. Some times there may be a relative autonomy of the State. In India there is a cooplion of petitbourgeois elements in the capitalist and feudal classes. Hence the relative autonomy of the state also is weak. The village life with the existing land ownership is not going to be transformed as far as class relationships are concerned, since the movement of the peasantry and the attempts at uniting the poor peasantry with the landless agricultural workers has become an uphill task. Hence the local tyrant with the connivance of the corrupt police and the equally corrupt administrate! and the supporting politician will be able to hold invisible grip over the whole area where he has his land and influence. Thus while the trappings of bourgeois democracy will be maintained in the cities, in the larger areas of the country where villages exist, there is no question of civil rights or democracy. In fact, there may not be basic safety for life and limb. This state of affairs is what I would term as decentralised fascism'... (P 188). There is little disagreement here with the claim that the class nature of the bureaucracy does not by itself determine the nature of the state. But what is the nature of the Indian state then? If the ruling classes 'co-opt' the middle classes what are the consequences in the Indian context? What does it mean to «ay that the relative autonomy of the state is *weak'? If the author's (perfunctory) comments on the state are true why does he consider that cities are likely to have the 'trappings of bourgeois democracy' while the rural areas are bound to be deprived of ii? Is it in fact true that our cities have any more democracy (in the author's sense) than our villages when millions of city dwellers live,