DEMOCRATIC POLITY AND SOCIAL CHANGE 81
system. He therefore recommends the renewal of the ^Basic Model' which, he hopes, would restore ^thc balance between central initiatives and a decentralised structure of power" (pp 47-48). He also proceeds to suggest ways and means of changing the socio-economic content of the model of development, and recommends various fiscal measures to reduce economic concentration in order to minimise the possibilities of class conflict. The success of the ^modeF rests on democratization which Kothari believes, provides the only alternative to revolutionary strategy.
Errors in the Framework of Analysis
There arc several shortcomings in Kothari's framework of analysis as well as in his suggestions to renovate and regenerate the system. We confine our discussion to his analysis of class conflict, distributive justice, democratization and revolutionary conflict.
Democratic Polity and Social Change in India concentrates on the defects in the functioning of the Indian political system, but it fails to explain the nature and causes of the crisis even though the book purports to be about that. There arc references to the failures in the political sphere; but these have not been related to the larger socio-economic contradictions. It fails to recognise the fact that the Indian political system, apirt from being democratic, is capitalist at its base and as such the crisis is essentially of the capitalist system. Therefore his contention that with certain reforms the existing system can deliver the goods is difficult to accept.
Land legislation, for example, has effected certain changes in the Indian countryside. But they have not achieved the desired results, a fact ignored by Kothari. Instead the author concludes that ^the worst vestiges of feudalism in land relationships were removed through legislation and the Article on property rights was amended to make this possible'^ (pp 17-18). He does not recognise that the process of curbing feudal interests has gone hand-in-hand with conscious efforts to develop and foster a class of rich peasants and capitalist landlords. Though the major part of the area under cultivation is within the category of self operated ownership holdings and the area under lease has been considerably reduced, in the country as a whole 3.21 percent of the rural house holds, each owning 30 acres, hold 23.65 percent of the total land. At the other end of the spectrum, 84 percent own between them only 19.18 percent of the total land. Sharecropping, concealed leasing, usury and concentration of land in a few hands are still characteristic features of production relations in agriculture. Kothari would have done well to take sufficient note of the class nature of land reform in India. Political crisis can be fruitfully understood only if it is seen as a consequence, rather than a cause of socio-economic crisis.