ON INDIAN POLITICS 65 populist and psuedoradical style of the Congress. The Congress established bourgeois hegemony by effectively camouflaging class policies. The party undoubtedly recieved the support of various groups, but it did not represent their interests equally. The socalled consensus involved only certain groups—big business, landlords, rich farmers and urban professional groups'—while those who demanded a fundamental redistribution of the surplus were systematically excluded from the consensual model. So, consensus was often at the level of appearance. In the ultimate analysis, the Congress was composed of classes, factions and individuals engaged in an endless scramble for power and domination. These aspects of the Congress have been ignored by Morris Jones. These problems arise from the limitations of an approach which stresses exclusively the political dimension and neglects the social and economic aspects. Political stability, for example, was considered a virtue, and an end in itself, regardless of whether it was gained through political repression or at the expense of the dissatisfaction of the people. This approach was not equipped to explain why highly rated democracies suddenly gave way to authoritarian systems, as in the case of India. The emergency, Morris Jones argues, was the cumulative result of Indira Gandhi's autocratic style of functioning, and the failure of the Congress government to respond suitably to popular indignation. The latter, he concedes, was a manifestation of the economic crisis. However, Morris jones still believes the crisis was precipitated largely because the politics of populism created the situation in which the government was left with little space for manoeuvre. In that vein he censures the Congress leadership because it wavered from the established pattern of bargain and compromise. He holds Indira Gandhi responsible for this. In a limited political sense he is right. Indira Gandhi was responsible for disturbing the internal equilibrium of the ruling classes by arrogating to herself all powers of manipulation. Although the intraclass conflict was an important element in the crisis, it nonetheless does not fully explain the emergence of authoritarianism. ZOYA HASAN