8 8 SOCIAL SCIENTIST capable of standing above group interest and play the role of the referee for a free capitalist growth. The Caesar of the olden days was felled by his colleagues. The new Caesar, whom his colleagues failed, could remain a leader only through capitulation. Nehru did not want to identify himself with any particular socio-economic class. His attempt was to appear as the leader'above class-strifes and class-interest. As a consequence, he had to wilt under the pressure from the only organized power group—big business in India. The bourgeoisie in India, albeit unable to establish its class hegemony over the society because of its distorted growth under colonial aegis, could always influence the political process. This was possible because of the particular configuration of the power-groups giving leadership to the Indian peoples' struggle for freedom and the absence of any other strongly organized class-force. The role of the big bourgeoisie in India was to set limits to the power aspiration of the political leadership in the course of state formation in India. G.D. Biria in his now famous letters to P. Thakurdas in 1936, had, in so many words, defined these limits.44 All the efforts of Nehru to transgress these limits had resulted in failure and in his resultant surrender to the mainstream conformism dominant within the Congress leadership. The Budget episode discussed here illuminates these limits further by attempting another futile transgression. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. The subject forms a section of my Ph.D. thesis. The Idea of Planning in India, unpublished. The Australian National University, 1985. I am indebted to Ranajit Guha for his guidance and to Dipesh Chakrabarty and Gyanendra Pandey for their comments on an earlier draft. I that Pratha Chatterjee and Barun De for their comments which helped me to prepare the revised version. 2. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, India, 1959, p. 166. 3. Ibid., p. 175. 4. See A. M. Zaidi and S. M. Zaidi (eds). The Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, New Delhi, 1981, Vol. 12, pp. 530-37. 5. See Azad, 1959, p. 175. 6. Ibid., p. 176. 7. See Government of India Publication, Legislative Assembly Debates, [hereafter L.A.D.], 1947, p. 1323. 8. Ibid., pp.1334-36. 9. Ibid., p. 1336. 10. See, N. Mensergh (ed) India, the Transfer of Power 1942-47, [hereafter T.P.L London, 1970-80, Vol. IX, Document No. 494 (Wavell's report to Pethick-Lawrence dated March 5,1947). 11. See, e.g. editorials in Hindustan Times and The Statesman dated March 2 and 3 1947. 12. See, Liaquat's speech in the Assembly rounding up the discussion on the Budget in L.A.D., 1947, pp. 1504-08. Also see Penderal Moon (ed.) Wavell, the Viceroy's Journal, Oxford, 1973, p. 430. 13. See, Wavell's report to Pethick-Lawrence dated February 19, 1947 in T.P., Vol. IX, Doc. 434. 14. See Moon, 1973, Wavell's diary dated February 28,1947, p. 424. 15. Azad, 1959, p. 175. 16. Ibid., p. 176.