36 SOCIAL SCIENTIST in India at that time. Although there were, of course, many more corporate enterprises apparently independent of these powerful economic interests, their average size would not have been more than Rs 7 lakhs in terms of paid up capital.5 The point to be emphasised, therefore, is that while independance meant the transfer of "political" power to the Congress, it also meant the transfer of "economic" power to the big Indian industrialists and agricultural landlords.6 It is important to remember that while some of these industrialists had played a prominent role, directly or indirectly, in the national movement, they constituted the oligarchic bloc in planning bodies.7 It is thus unlikely that any other than a "mixed" pattern of economy could have been "opted" for, given the high degree of concentration of industrial assets in private hands, and the decision making power flowing from this.8 On the other hand, public enterprises in areas involving high risks and long gestation periods were required for the growth of enterprises controlled by large industrialists. Popular sentiment in favour of the public sector generated during pre-Independ-ence debates was skilfully used to justify investments in such strategic industries.9 Encouragement to Small Enterprises There was a socio-political as well as economic imperative for the conscious encouragement of small enterprises. The high degree of concentration of capital in the Indian economy at the time of Independence led to a serious situation as far as the stability of the existing social order was concerned. Property distribution in India was, as figures for capital concentration show, extremely skewed, with only a minute fraction of the Indian population in ownership of industrial assets. Added to this was a situation where the country had achieved independence under the pressure of a mass national movement. Although never seriously challenging the legitimacy of institutions of private property, this had generated and disseminated democratic ideas, viewing unfavourably the existence of extreme concentrations of income and wealth.10 For the continuance and further development of the capitalist social order bequeathed by British colonialism to the leaders of the Congress—the major organised constituent of the national movement—it was essential, if not to distribute existing industrial and agricultural assets, at least to encourage the growth of numerous smaller property holders.11 The economic imperative facing the planners arose from the high degree of self-employment in the economy. According to the 1951 population census, over 58 per cent of the work force engaged in industry "neither employed any one nor did they work for anyone".12 If the mass of productive facilities already existing at the time of independence were to expand and grow, it was critical that the market for the goods which they produced should also grow. The goods produced in