BOOK REVIEWS 79 fore supposedly objective. What this implies is that the system within which a model operates is never questioned; in fact the attempt is to justify the premise of the system by creating suitable models. This method ^ tte^fos^ p'&Triy A^^rqstiw. ^wa TOTitr%Ait^raons bisroiro tteviom in the process of describing, the functionalist either ignores them or accepts them as given and irreconcilable. This is a test for his ingenuity. Whilst Kothari is quite correct in warning against the weaknesses of the 'comparative myth', he interprets these weaknesses in such a way that at the time of a political crisis, the choice should be made in favour of reform and not revolution. He rejects comparison because it is safer to be at the level of quantification, since a qualitative change demands an alternative. The Indian model, that he then creates, reflects all the weaknesses of his theoretical and methodological approach. The Indian polity is 'open9 and unrestricted due to a lack of a political tradition. Therefore economic and social change has to be brought in from the top (the phenomenological dilemma is therefore an antagonistic contradiction in disguise !). To overcome opposition, 'self-interest' is combined with 'the common good^, to widen the base of the political elite, to enable them to more effectively 'persuade9 the mass of the people on questions of economic and social priorities* This is seen clearly in the transition from the slogan of Garibi Hatao to the reality of Garib ko Hatao. Such policies are said to distinguish the Indian model from both capitalism and communism. What we have instead is the 'Developmental Model,9 which equates political development with social change. Here one is left with a paradoxical situation, where on the one hand, political development is a component of social change, and on the other hand, social change becomes, in effect, only a residue of political development I We find that neutrality also has its ideological task to perform—main< tenance of the status quo, Kothari explains political development through terms like mobilisation and power, the development of democracy, the role of the nation-state, modernisation, stability and orderly change. But all these definitions are meaningless since they have no starting point and no goal. Political development, a priori, becomes the pro-requisite of socio-economic change. Such a developmental theory has a purely negative impact. We donot need a 400 page book to tell us that democracy is being threatened in India. In actual terms, the author calls for an end to slogan-mongering and adhocism which he terms 'ideology^. In its place he wants effective neutrality, so that the irrationality of the capitalist system, which he s/ picturesquely calls the 'challenge of simultaneous change5, can be justified. This means a suppression of political opposition, to make one-party dictatorship effective. Mass participation should only be a tactic to outmanoeuvre one's opponents, since equality is only a formal concept not to be actualised. The system can then be exploited to the fullest, without