(a) Idea of Development Planning and Mixed Economy

Development refers to a change in the system of production or that of a process of change in economic system, so that an economy characterized by ‘low production and low consumption equilibrium’ is transformed into one characterized by ‘high production and high consumption equilibrium’.

We can say two things over here:

(a) Development is a process of change which creates sustained growth in production of income. Often economic production is measured in terms of income like GNP.

(b) Production takes care of supply side of activity. And, consumption takes care of demand side activities. So, there is equilibrium between supply and demand’.

Planning is a rational arrangement for achieving any set of targeted objectives. When we talk of economic planning, we are talking of a rational strategy for bringing about this transformation from a low demand, low supply equilibrium to high supply-high demand equilibrium. And that sustained increase of levels of production of goods and services, coupled with redistribution of wealth brings a change in people.

Why did we adopt planning?

British economy grew without any planning. This has to be understood in context of

legacy of colonial rule. India had been a colony of British for more than 200 years. Not only colonization was a misery, also decolonization was of greater misery as it was accompanied with partition of India. Both of these had negative consequences for both Indian economy and its society. 200 years of colonial rule meant ‘progressive underdevelopment’ of Indian agriculture.

This can be found in increasing frequency and violence of famine in India. Growing

backwardness of Indian agriculture became highly devastating. Famine of 1942-43 killed millions of Indians. After achieving independence, we never had a famine except in Kalahandi district of Orissa. We never had starvation deaths in India after independence. East India Company came to India to buy manufactured goods and sell them in Europe. As they acquired political control, by 19th century all industries were progressively and systematically destroyed. There was de-urbanization’ accompanied with ‘deindustrialization’. British adopted a ‘deliberate tariff policy’ by which indigenous industries were progressively destroyed. Although modern industry did make a beginning during British rule, but its spread was limited’. Only a few firms took to production that too after First World War.

Composition of industry was also jute, textile, Iron and steel. There were very few

cement and chemical factories. So, India didn’t have its own indigenous industrial base in heavy engineering, machinery and tools. Most of industries were consumer goods industry. This is how colonial legacy meant progressive underdevelopment.

We were known for our Jute and Wheat production. But areas under Jute went to East Pakistan and wheat went to Pakistan. The Punjab that Pakistan got was for more developed. Due to canal irrigation Punjab and Sind were known as wheat bowl of India. Also, so many refuges and migrants entered India. So, entire economy was ‘dislocated’. This is the background scene that existed in which we thought on project of nation building.

In fact there were ideological debates towards the later part of freedom struggle. Debates over the kind of economy to be pursued after independence started in 1937 itself. Three different streams of thought existed, but in principle they were only two thoughts.

(a) Represented by ‘Nationalist modernizers’. They were for rapid modernization

of Indian economy. This group was led by Nehru.

(b) Left ideology

(c) Gandhian ideology.

Ideologically there were no fundamental difference between left and modernizers. Both were influenced by western thinking and wanted an economy whose character was to be socialist with increasing levels of consumption. Both of them emphasized on greater production. They felt that a market where more commodities would be available would reflect a better market situation.

The only point of difference, between leftist and modernizers were regarding

(a) Role to be assigned to market in generating capital and bringing about distribution of goods and services.

(b) Who would bear cost of development?

When we go in for capital accumulation, we sacrifice our present for a better tomorrow, which is nothing but deferred gratification.

One possibility is that cost is equally borne by everyone and by abolishing private

property, control of income and surplus is diverted to industrialization and economic

production as it was adopted in Russia.

Another possibility is that, let the rich remain rich and if rich earn more they are likely to reinvest it. If poor earns, they spend on consumption. So, they let the states of inequality exist. In this case, the poor bears cost of capital accumulation. So, we don’t bring in a juridical change in institution of private property or ownership changes. This view was prescribed by modernizers as state didn’t have enough capital. Otherwise the desired state of a developed economy for both modernizers and left stands same.

On the other hand, Gandhi represented a real ideological alternative, where not only

means was different, but even, there was a fundamental difference in goals and the model of society he aspired to create. Gandhi stood for ‘voluntary delimitation of needs’. The more a man controls his desires, the more does he became god like. He was not for mindless increase of consumption levels because he realized that our resources were limited and if used heavily would disturb ecological balance. Not only economic wellbeing but also harmony between man and environment, man and society and between classes was what he wanted.

This view of Gandhi was not taken seriously by national leaders. Also the demise of Gandhi made this idea of a village economy to bury along with him. Nehru believed that sustained growth cannot be realized through agriculture. He believed that agriculture after a while gives diminishing returns. Nehru called industries as temples of modern India. But Gandhi called industrialized civilization as satanic civilizations. In India, Left could never access power and so left ideology also as an alternative to Gandhian ideology was kept out. The task of development in India now fell on shoulders of modernizers. They subscribed to Fabian socialism. They were influenced by writings of Bernard Shaw etc. S. Chakravarty says even if Nehru was not influenced by Fabian socialism, he still had no alternative. Our socialism was born out of our compulsions.

How did the leadership led by Nehru analyses the problem of Indian economy. What was their diagnosis?

(1) Deficiency of material capital and infrastructure.

(2) Indian economy was also characterized by a low capacity for saving. As a

British economist said, the fundamental problem of development is how to convert a 5% saving GNP to 20% saving GNP. It is because if an economy is able to save 20% of its GNP and reinvest it, it leads to sustained growth. Also, a structural constraint in our economy was that, even if we save, it doesn’t automatically lead to investment.

Agriculture was diagnosed as a sector, which is subject to laws of diminishing returns. The solution lies in massive industrialization. This part of diagnosis shaped our attitude to agriculture. We treated agriculture like a ‘bargain sector’. We invested minimum in it and wanted to get maximum out of it. We didn’t see agriculture as engine of growth/nor as means of generating surplus.

We wanted to maintain food at cheap prices. And if food was available to low cost, wages would remain low, this would increase profit margins of industrialists and industries and surplus capital would be reinvested for building infrastructure. We only cared for agriculture, to the extent it gives us high returns and neglected it thereafter. We were primary interested in agriculture only when production was raising, but once agriculture started to stagnate, we didn’t do enough to rejuvenate the sector.

Our prime focus was on industry, which we saw as a prime mover of growth. Also, we were not ready to go for market led growth. We believed that market alone can’t be trusted as failures of market were well known in different parts of world. Adam smith called market as a hidden hand and it is really hidden and too little a hand to work alone. Left to itself market doesn’t remain market free. Market led growth would create distortions in India. The problem was that Indian entrepreneur didn’t have capacity to produce capital goods because it requires mobilization of enormous capital and that too gestation period is so long. This is why Indian bourgeoisie went in for consumer goods for quick returns and this is why we wanted state intervention.

In India, state alone had capacity to mobilize resources on a large scale and had capacity to wait for a long gestation period for turn around. State had to play an active interventionist role. This state had to decide, how it should rationally distribute and reinvest.

Here, there was another factor. Given the size and endowments of India, modernizers believed that, we need to try to create our own independent industrial based. We had influence of nationalism also and we wanted economic independence along with political independence.

We wanted to be self-sufficient in terms of production of basis and capital goods. We wanted to develop our indigenous industrial base. We wanted to have a diversified industrial growth where native industries were to be protected from unhealthy competition from outsiders. We consciously rejected the principle of comparative development which Japan has followed. Japan was primarily endowed with fertile land and it had no natural resources.

So, Japanese’s made best use of agriculture. 70% farmers in Japan were small farmers. There was intensive cultivation and the soil suited cotton. Initially they exported cotton, and with the capital earned, they built a cotton industry. Through export of finished goods they earned foreign exchange. This foreign exchange was reinvested to create other industries and that is how their industries diversified.

But we rejected this and accepted Russian mode. Mahalanobis model came to be remarkably close to Russian, model. We thought that the time was not ripe to go in for export-led growth. Because, export of primary goods was only fetching low prices. We could only export Tea, coffee, Jute etc. And if we have to export value added things, we required an indigenous industrial base.

It was thought, India would have advantage vis-à-vis other countries in export market

because of:

(1) There were lot of Iron are reserves, so steel would be at low cost for us to build industries.

(2) We had a cheap labor force.

But when we started exporting, our items faced high competition in markets. The Asian Tigers and cubs like South Korea and Singapore, out bared Indian goods. We ended up being too late in the initial stages export was never considered. Even import was restricted to minimal levels which was unavoidable. We were a closed economy to operate.

We wanted balanced growth. On one had we didn’t trust market entirely, but we realized markets potential to stimulate growth and encouraged market entrepreneurial development. Private enterprises were permitted along with state controlled production. We also realized that extreme inequalities are not conducive for stable societies. But we did want to retain moderate inequalities. Because total equality would amount to distribution of poverty in society and if majority of people are poor, then development would be thwarted as money wouldn’t be left for reinvestment.

We were to wait for size of cake to grow before we could redistribute it. We didn’t want to think of any drastic redistribution of our productive assets. Also Nehru was a liberal and didn’t want a totalitarian society. So, we never aspired to mobilize people and nationalize production and property using means of coercion as was existing in Russia.

So, S. Chakravarty says, the entire diagnosis saw problem as a production supply side problem. That there can be demand side problem was never thought of when there would be no purchasing power with people, there would be recession in economy. Today India has a unique distinction of having inflation and recession at same time which is called stagflation, which is a result of neglect of demand side problem.

Basic Strategy Adopted for Development

In diagnosing, the primary concern was a supply side problem. We didn’t want to completely get away with market economy. Also we didn’t want an economic model of Soviet Russia where state controlled everything. Also, Indian entrepreneurs were not in a position to invest to ensure a balanced economic development. Under these situations we thought of an interventionist state, where a state is not only a regulator but an entrepreneur in itself, private sector at that time had no ability and inclination to invest in capital goods. We thought of a sustained investment in infrastructure, basic and capital goods, also later on we added defence production after the rude shock of 1962.

So, we thought of developing PSU’s through which sustained investment would be made in these areas. Also they thought that the infrastructure the state builds could be used for private sector investment. It was acknowledged that growth of capital goods will not generate employment as it is highly capital intensive area. Redistribution wouldn’t take place. But as consumer goods sector is labor intensive, it will generate employment. Capital goods increase will also lead to consumer goods increase. There would be redistribution which would increase standard of living.

Along with this, another lesson learnt from Soviet Russia is that, if we go in for nationalizations of agriculture, then it is not conducive for agricultural production. In U.S.S.R, 20-40mn died as a result of famine that broke out. Internal trade, agriculture, consumer goods were to constitute private sector industry, while public industry would be in capital goods and infrastructure. That is how we adopted a strategy of walking on two legs. We were a mixed economy. We never thought in terms of drastic change. We adopted an incremental growth mode to eradicate poverty.

Pilambar Pant developed model for poverty eradication. He argued in favor of 7% growth rate over a sustained period for emancipation of poverty. He said that if there would be 7% growth rate for over a decade, 80% would be pulled above poverty line as growth would trickle. For the rest 20%, through anti-poverty programmes, state can help the vulnerable.

But we didn’t take agriculture seriously. It was a persistent complaint of Chaudhary

Charan Singh. He said that industrialization benefits India not Bharat. There was urban development at the cost of rural development. Our concern with agriculture was only a mechanism to ensure cheap food price regime we didn’t envisage agriculture as an engine of growth. We didn’t think that agriculture can generate surplus and that this surplus could be used for industry.

Actually in countries like Japan and West, the surplus generated through agriculture was invested for industry. But we viewed agriculture as a bargaining sector. To the extent agriculture development is required for ensuring cheap food regime, we invested in agriculture. For this we build dam, fertilizer industries etc. but we didn’t go for massive infrastructure in rural areas.

The reason for agriculture backwardness is due to thinking in 1950’s that the remedy is in industrialization as Nehru called it commanding heights of economy. We thought that, as public sector enterprise would develop capital goods and infrastructure, there would be private savings. When private savings would be there it would increase savings of private entrepreneur which would generate employment. So, they thought that once employment is generated, it would, eradicate poverty.

But this conclusion was naïve. We thought of making sustained and high investment in PSE’s. But where would the money came from? There was a problem of financing the plan. It was a problem of allocation of finances. Initially, we needed to import machinery which will make machinery to produce consumer goods. We didn’t go for exports. So, there was no foreign exchange but we had foreign aid. Foreign aid is a soft loan. It was a loan at concessional rates. Along with foreign loans, there were public loans like LIC, NSE etc. Also, we relied on taxes as sources of generate revenue and profits. It was also a naïve assumption that our PSU’s would earn profit.

Government thought that, till PSU’s would generate profit, it would rely on foreign loan and public loan and when once PSU’s start to earn profit, it would move to taxes as a means of generating revenue. But even till recently 2.89% paid taxes in India (P.

Chidambaram, former Finance Minister said in Parliament, 2014)

Critics

(1) Development efforts benefitted only a class of people.

(2) According to Yogendra Singh development planning has led to emergence of

difference categories of powerful middle class in rural and urban India - class of ‘merchant capitalists’

(3) New structure gave new land of conflict and confrontation between caste and

classes.

(4) Erosion of authority, dissatisfactions with existing process of development and

change has contributed to problem of violence, lawlessness is country.

(5) A.R. Desai says, no land reform— interregional disparities, urban unemployment

etc.

Constitution, Law and Social Change

In this topic we are basically looking at issue of law being used in India as instrument of social change. Law refers to the new norms created by state. Primarily constitution and law as an instrument of social change means how state acts as an agent of social transformation. In other words, it is role of state as an interventionist state. It tries to intervene in social ordered to transform the existing order.

In history of India, except for reign of Ashoka, we never had an interventionist state in India. Society was autonomously managed by family, caste, traditions and customary rules and regulation. However it is the colonial State/British rule that first initiated the practice of using law as an instrument of change. Many laws were passed particularly related to personal sphere like abolition of Sati, special marriage act, prohibition of female infanticide, raising the age of marriage for girls. British sought to transform family sphere the through law.

They also tried to bring about a change in terms of agrarian relations. Through various laws they created a new system of revenue collection hinged upon private ownership of land in open private ownership of land in economic sphere. They also made law and relating to trade, commerce, industrialization, labor legislation etc. In 1926, there was the trade union act. There were law and relating to a new system of administration like civil service act, criminal procedure code, laws relating to judiciary, civil issues etc. even Indian penal code was drafted during period of British. There are all the instances where British for first time initiated laws which brought social change.

After 1947, Indian elite primarily trained in Britain and influence by colonial practices, passed a constitution which relied heavily on Government of India Act, 1935, we wanted a kind of continuation of tradition as laid down during colonial rule. We embarked on process of nation building and for that social, political and economic modernization had to be ushered in constitution became the fundamental law to implement this process of modernization.

Constitution envisaged a state with a dual character. Constitution transformed nature of Indian state from a feudal monarchial character to a liberal democratic state. Constitution of Indian recognized individual freedom, gave equality before law, equal vote for prince and pauper, political equality, introduced representative and responsible government, universal adult franchise, equal right of participation etc.

We didn’t had a system where all citizens equally participated. Through constitution we created democratic institution, parliamentary system of government, independent judiciary, and electoral politics. This was an aspect of political modernization created by constitution and law.

At the same time, we wanted our government to be a welfare state. In Europe, liberal democratic state developed as a consequence of rise of capitalism. But in India, the liberal democratic state is a cause and consequence of the constitution that we adopted a law that we made in chapter 3 of our constitution and chapter 4 of constitution we created welfare principles. State was to create equality, protect vulnerable sections, and promote social justice through there laws any.

Also, secularism was ushered in by constitution. Secular state is one which is not linked to any religious dogma. Secular laws are based on rational humanistic principles. They neither favor nor discriminate any religion. It gives freedom of religion to individual. That is how it is a significant rule of law rather than rule of persons. Our constitution recognized certain rights for all individual and ensured measures for protection of minorities.

Also, state was concerned ahead with pushing ahead of economic development along with poverty alleviation. In India, there was democratic decentralization through institutions of Panchayti Raj. At the same time state regulated entire economic activity. Agricultural relations changed from a semi-feudal type to capitalistic mode of production through programmes like Community Development Programme, Area development programmed etc. Also Jajimani relations broke down.

As an interventionist state, state was preoccupied with development of industries. State played an important role in development of industries as private players didn’t have the required capital and also will to enter into this area. Along with this state was also concerned with redistribution aspect and providing social justice to all by not allowing concentration of wealth. Though success of state in this regard was limited, yet it initiated a change which touched millions. Nehruvian model was the basic strategy for bringing about economic modernization. So, this is how state modernized economy through building industries and through agrarian relations.

State also sought to bring about social modernization. Traditionally Indian society has been a hierarchical social order based on caste. Due to effort of state through Article 17 which abolished untouchability and also through various acts which prohibited atrocities against SC/ST/women acts, the state sought to undermine social hierarchy and sought to create an egalitarian society.

Effort in this regard can be seen through:

(a) Article 17 of constitution to remove untouchability

(b) Article 15, Article 16—provides for positive discrimination.

(c) Prevention of SC/ST atrocities act of 1989

(d) Redistribution of land

All these were efforts to mitigate the social hierarchy and results of this empowered

deprived, which elevated them to status of middle class. Also, through 73rd and 74th

admitted, the middle class was politically empowered. Also constitution sought to remove gender based hierarchies. Constitution prohibited any discrimination on basis of sex/gender. Numbers of legislations have been made with regard to personal laws of Hindu. Personal laws of christens also stands modified in light of gender equality. Laws were passed regarding to inter caste and inter-religious marriages. Also today there is right of women to inherit property. Also laws against Dowry, Sexual harassment and atrocities against women were efforts in this regard.

Also, a national commission of women was constituted at the highest level to address to problems of women. This is how constitution brought change in gender relations. This contributed to undermining of patriarchy. Almost all facts of life including ecology, children, minorities, culture, heritage etc. have been touched by constitution. By looking at constitution of India, India appears to be most enlightened state in world (Paul Henson Appleby).

But when we look at reality it cast doubts over our efficiency of law as an instrument of social change. Practices at existential life often show that, in India law is observed in its breach. Law can only become an instrument and agent of law change only when the law is internalized. Internalization of law develops when a value consensus is forged in society through civil society and public spirited citizens.

When female is seen as liability, gender sensitivity can never be brought. When the judge also demands dowry for his son, laws against dowry would remain dormant. Due to lack of internalization of law, it is rendering the entire legislations to force. According to Amitai Etzioni, there is coercive authority to law but no normotive authority. In India, law is only idealistic and lacks voluntary commitment. Only punitive measures cannot make citizens to confirm to law. So, the need of hour is to internalize the law. For internalization we need to do a great deal of good work. Massive mobilization through education and mass media should be done so that a new social consensus can be developed in favor of law. Unless this consensus is there, law would be only observed in its breach.

Reliance on laws within a liberal democratic state depends on populist measures. If people believe in tradition, anything against tradition is seen as unpopular and if done would have lot of public outcry and opposition. When Sanjay Gandhi tried to implement family planning vigorously, Congress was voted out where ever family planning was successful. If government uses law as an instrument of social change, there is also a constraint. Political elite is forced to go slow in implementing the law. A liberal democratic state as Gunnar Myrdal calls is a ‘soft state.’

Communist state of China used the same law to control its population and bring about rapid modernization of economy. Law was made use to bring drastic changes.

So, in a country like India only when there is deliberate attempt to win over civil society through mobilization and public education, law would then act as social change. Principal commitment on part of political elite to bring new consensus in favor of laws to be made is never there in India.

When Judge, police and minister gives and takes dowry, how can we enforce law? When giver is giving and taker is taking, where is law? We have done a partial job that we created laws, but we were not able to internalize, which reflect here the failure of political parties and political elite. We have shinned from taking a stance wherever law tends to be unpopular. On one hand it spawned bureaucratic corruption to please vested interest. Only in recent times due to ineffectiveness of state, judicial activism as an alternative emerged where it is unavoidable for state to enforce law. Otherwise state showed singular incapacity in enforcing law.

Yogendra Singh refers to three functions of Law (1) Indicator (2) Initiator and (3) Integration of change. However law alone consists do much without corresponding changes in structure of society. As Andre Béteille puts it, while law determines the direction in which society should go, the social structure determines the direction in which actually goes. The values cannot be law alone; Upendra Baxi suggests that it is important to go beyond purview of constitution and laws and include civil society, social movement to bring about dynamic changes in India society.

Education and Social Change

Education has played a large role in modernization of society, and modernization is

nothing but social change. Education did exist in India from ancient times. In fact India has a tradition of formal education both in case of Hindus and Muslims, dating back to medieval and ancient times. Among Hindus there were Paathshalas, Vidyalayas, Gurukuls and Vidyapeethis. Muslims had madras as, so we did have education in India which was non-utilitarian, restricted and confined to Dwijas and Ashrafs.

However, this traditional education system in India didn’t act as a force of change. By its very nature education was esoteric in nature/character. It was accessible only to elite. Content was overwhelmingly religious both in case of Muslims and Hindus. Education became a means of preserving status quoism and conservatism. Rather than acting as an instrument of modernizing change, education tended to preserve existing hierarchy, sanctity of tradition and tended to suppress any tendencies for innovative change. So, education as an instrument of change developed only in the 19th century, as it was introduced by British, where the content and character of education changed. Content became secular and character became utilitarian. Education in real sense was started in India with 3R’s of Lord Macaulay who emphasized ‘reading, writing and Arithmetic’.

They were essentially skills in literacy and numeracy, which was later followed by education in liberal arts. Though predominantly famous schools were run by missionaries, the central theme was never religious in character, education now became to be overwhelmingly utilitarian. Education in areas like law, journalism, engineering, and medical started in India which were actually areas of utilitarian learning. New system was in principle exoteric, though education didn’t succeed in becoming universally accessible. Exoteric nature of education started developing at a rapid pace only from second half of nineteenth century, education now started to become as an agent of social change in India. This was a modernizing change.

At the level of social structure, it produced a new middle class and new kind of elite, which was bureaucratic, managerial, political and professional elite. This new elite was imbibed with a new value system. A progressive outlook, which seeks change, began to develop amongst the youth. This was indeed remarkable as earlier elite wanted to preserve the continuity of tradition. The focus of the newly emerged elite was on transformation. A changed orientation mindset developed amongst educated.

As new kind of value system was inculcated due to western education, ideas like liberty, equality, fraternity developed. Nationalism and demand for Swaraj as an ideology developed. Reading the writings of intellectual like John Stuart Mill gave ideas of nationalism to the educated elite. Nothing that existed in India helped to contribute for nationality. It is only after introduction of education, their ideas arose.

India does have a civilization of unity among the sub-continent. If not exactly a uniform Hindu System, but an essential Hindu belief system. Even Ashraf Muslims like Hindus had culture and religious uniformity. Linguistically also Indian language are connected to Sanskrit and thus are inter-related.

Even in Europe, there was religious uniformity, a common language system which arose from Latin, and same culture system. Yet Europe is a collection of small and tiny pockets of developed countries. In spite of higher degrees of uniformity than India, they weren’t able to evolve as a nation like India. English is the common language which divides UK and U.S.A. English of their countries is not only commonly connected but also of same source, yet they are separate countries. Czechoslovakia —Czech and Slovenia.

Definitely in India, civilizational myth contributed and facilitated for nation building but

was not the sole basis for creation of a modern state. In fact we imbibed idea of nation by forging a coalition of communities that make Indian society. Indian society was like a jig saw puzzle. Greatness of leaders like Gandhi and Nehru was to forge that consensus. Everyone was given a stake in national enterprise. Nation was a product of western education.

Hinduism was also tolerant of differences and diversity which is also crucial for survival of democracy. Dating back to Jahangir emperor of Mughal, people were asked to ring the grievance bell on Kings House in moments of crisis. There were mechanisms for peaceful coexistence right from Days of Ashoka to Tughlaqs to Akbar and Jahangir. Yet, there was no liberal democracy and egalitarianism. But ideas of liberal democracy and egalitarianism developed from western education. Traditional monarchy and feudal system gave way to modern democratic system with introduction of western education.

Thus, western education contributed to political modernization. Nehru and Ambedkar

represented this production of political elite due to western education, par excellence, political, social, economic culture. Traditionally we had a traditional authority system based on customs and practices. There was patriarchy at the village level and patrimonialism at macro level. But introduction of western education, this gave rise to legal rational authority. Even during days of British, lower functionaries in District administration except collector were recruited from amongst Indian. It is for these reasons, British introduced western education in India. Modern education initiated by British expanded rapidly after independence. This contributed to transmission of skills. A vigilant and articulate working class, factory based organizations, rational authority system in economic organizations, a service sector economy and economic modernizations was a result of spread of education in India. Educated elite initiated nation building in India through process of Five year plans. To make this system work, educated personnel emerged for equality and justice emerged. Social movements developed. There were protests against caste system.

There were Anticaste movements, Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, Mahar movements in Maharashtra led by Ambedkar. That is how, with spread of education, so many transformation movements arose. Tebhaga movement, Telangana movement was led by educated youth drawn from urban India in rural India, which addressed peasantry. Ravi Narayana Reddy emerged as leader of Telangana movement. He came into contact with Marxist leaders of Vijayawada and thus Telangana movement emerged as a communist movement which helped in end of Nizam rule. Leaders and Cadres of Anushilan Samiti who later converted as Marxist led Tebhaga movement in Bengal. Even after independence, educated elite was in forefront of Naxalbadi movement. This movement had profound impact on Bengal.

The successful implementation of land reforms in West Bengal owes it to Naxalbadi movement. Apart from these, education became an avenue of mobility. Even at grass root levels, study by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, shows that earnings of rural labor who spent 5-8 years in part time schooling earned twice more than illiterate farmers and laborers. A similar story was reported by Arun Ghosh collector of Pudukkottai district in Tamil Nadu. There were 4,000 quarry worker and who were women with whom collector was sympathetic. He launched a literacy movement which gave literacy and numeracy skills. He organized these women into 152 groups and leased lands to them rather than to contractors. Thus quarry business became self-managed business of women. These women showed their earnings improved. This is how even minimal education provides avenues of social mobility.

Kounds and Vellalars of Tamil Nadu, Jats and Yadava of North India, Lingayas and Okalingas of Karnataka who were traditionally peasants, converted themselves as

successful businessmen due to education. This is how education provided opportunity for trade and commerce which gave a profession with self-employment.

Due to spread of education a number of Dalit castes like, Chamars, Mahars, and Male and Irawari of Kerala gained mobility. Irawaris of Kerala are today no longer called as Dalits, education weakens traditional hierarchy. That is why there is a competitive struggle for reservation to gain access for education. Education also made significant changes at familial level. Individualism, rationalism and egalitarianism grow. There is increasing to nuclear families. And with spread of nuclear families, there is greater trend towards gender equality in families. Kerala has demonstrated how mass education could develop literacy rates even that of women. Abdul Kalam in his presidential address said that, when women are educated, a society with stability is formed. Thus spread of education amongst women resulted in delayed marriages, fertility control, population controller etc. Amartya Sen commits that performance of Kerala on socio-economic indicator and is better when compared to performance of every of district of China.

Education also results in creation of a secular mindset. As goals of life become increasingly secular, ritual dimension of caste is decreasing. Education thus gives primacy to secular goals. And after rapid spread of education, especially after independence, a buoyant middle class emerged. Middle class stabilized democracy in India and gave stimulus to economic growth. That is how education played an important role in bringing social change. But, spread of education in India had been lopsided presence of educational institutions are more in cities than villages. The BIMARO region in characterized by low facilities of education at school level, education is still the way it persisted during the colonial rule. It continued to be capital and knowledge intensive.

The poor cannot afford quality education. There is no universal literacy even after 150 years of education in India. Literacy rate according to 2011 census is only 74% but functional literacy is still less. India has a booming sector in IT due to science and technology trained manpower, but at the same time we have largest member of illiterates. The situation in BIMARO states is worse than Sub-Saharan Africa. There is a rapid growth of higher education which is highly subsidized, but no growth of education at primary level. Benefits of education has accrued only to elite in India.

Santosh Goel in his study of executives of private sector reports that 47% of senior executives are Brahmins, who did their best with education. J.P. Singh reports that class 1 officers in government of India constitution 75% are Brahmins. Suren Novella says 80% of executives in India are from Dwija castes.

Yogendra Singh says among university teachers of Rajasthan 80% are from urban

Dwija castes. Upendra Bakshi studied lawyers of Delhi. High court and Supreme Court lawyers are from Dwija castes. Lower court lawyers are from middle class and lower castes. There studies show that mobility is gained by those who are already in

privileged positions. The benefits of education has not accrued adequately to SC, ST, women and Muslims who from ages were deprived and lived in a fear of persecution. That is how role of education in bringing about change in India was rather limited. Education in India has still not been able to evolve a secular consensus, on values and ethos.

Though education facilitated technological modernization, it didn’t faster cognitive modernization. Communalism and fundamentalism are still present in Indian society amongst both Hindu and Muslims with presence of education. The requirement is of a committed bureaucracy accompanied with strong political will. Strong political wills have transformed states like Kerala, Gujarat, Maharashtra and West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh etc.

The need of the hour is not leaders but visionaries, who can dream and spell out their vision to eliminate the weeds that plague Indian society for which education needs to percolate to bring participation of people in governance.