NON-PARTY FORMATIONS IN INDIA 51 up a twin struggle against colonial as well as native exploiters. The deepening of the socio-economic crisis, the technological parasitism in Indian industrial effort and the emerging threats to national unity have exposed the hollowncss of the consensus model; cleavages emerged more clearly as a process of dependent capitalist development in India got under way. The 'breakdown' of 'consensus' is apparent from the recognition that mainstream politics refuses to accommodate the values and interests of marginalized sections of the population. The votaries of the consensus model, however, retain their argument without succumbing to the Marxist explanations of the Indian phenomenon, a fact which demonstrates the remarkable durability of the liberal democratic theory even in the face of a social reality which defies the presumptions of a consensus model. The pluralist argument goes as follows : class is too inadequate a category to describe and understand the Indian reality. Due to undue reliance on the "working class", which is too small on account of the small size of the organized economy, the Left parties have not been able to wage an effective struggle 10 defeat the anti-people policies of the Indian state. The bulk of the pauperized sections live in rural/informal sectors of the economy and they are the real force which needs to be harnessed to break the existing structures of exploitation. Traditional working class parties have failed to mobilize underprivileged sections like women, tribes or landless labour, probably because they are not equipped ideologically as well as organizationally to do so. The Marxist formulations are inadequate to mobilize the people in India against the growing authoritarian tendencies and the bankrupt economic policies. The ethnic, regional, religious and multi-sectoral (in terms of social formations) social content of India needs an alternative paradigm for ameliorating the lot of the people in the unorganized sector. The prevalence of semi-feudal structures, the Marxists' pre-occupation with capture of state power, inability to retain sensitized activists in communist parties and the vanguard role assigned to working class turn the 'orthodox* Marxist paradigm as well as organizations redundant, as far as transition of the contemporary Indian society is concerned. The group of behavioural scientists, presently offering these theses, also talks of the growing solidarity of the middle classes and the managerial cadres at the international level, and of a conspiracy for depoliticizing the mass of people by denying them any participatory role in Indian democracy. According to this school, political parties (including the communists) only manipulate masses for electoral advantages. They are not able to build issue-based mass movements at various levels, especially at the grassroots, for getting the grievances of the people redressed. The alternative paradigm offered by Rajni Kothari et al in the Indian context is based on the phenomenon of "grassroot" movements in the unorganized sections of Indian polity. They believe that to aid the resurgence of the people at local levels, "non-party formations" (NPFs) like voluntary organizations/action groups can play a vital role. These groups,