40 SOCIAL SCIENTIST contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality .... How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? . . . We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy . . . .13 In India, no attempt can claim to be appropriate unless it is geared to meet the exploitative relations of semi-feudal agriculture, tenancy, landless labourers, famished peasantry and unemployment. Village j&^^A^a^s can succeed in their objectives only when they can function within a relatively homogeneous social structure in which there will be a minimum differentiation in regard to property relations. So the first major thrust must be towards fundamental and genuine land reforms. But the experience during the last quarter of a century puts strong doubts on the implementation of radical land reforms. By and large, the precapitalist land relations persist for, those who formulate policies have interest in perpetuating such relations. The bourgeoisie which is in alliance with landlords and foreign capital cannot guarantee radical land reforms and transformation of the rural life. The most crucial factor in land reforms as well as decentralization of power seems to be the development of class consciousness of the peasantry and agricultural labourers and their organized struggles. In summary, decentralization of power through panchayati raj institutions in India has not been successful. Under the prevailing class structure in the Indian villages the panehayati raj institutions have helped the process of centralization of power rather than decentralization. To achieve the objective of decentralization, there is the foremost neeed for a transformation of land relations. It requires organized peasant movements. Restructuring of land alone is inadequate; it must further be followed by cooperative farming which can assure development of productivity and rural industrialization for greater employment. Under such a situation, democratic decentralization can have real meaning and value. JAGANATH PATHY 1 H D Malaviya, Village Panchayats in India, New Delhi, All India Congress Committee, 1956, pp 66-91. 2 J Narayan, "Decentralised Democracy : Theory and Practice", The Indian Journal ofPublic Administration, July-September 1961, pp 271-286. R District local boards were effective at least in Bombay and Madras Presidencies but