8/10/2019 Reservation, Merit, Distributive Justice

1/4

Of Reservation, Merit and Distributive JusticeThe Backward Classes in Contemporary India by Andre BeteilleReview by: Ghanshyam ShahEconomic and Political Weekly, Vol. 28, No. 15 (Apr. 10, 1993), pp. 633-635Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4399578.

Accessed: 25/03/2012 17:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weeklyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4399578?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4399578?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw

8/10/2019 Reservation, Merit, Distributive Justice

2/4

REVIEWS

Of

Reservation,

Merit

and

Distributive

Justice

Ghanshyani

Shah

The

Backward

Classes

in

Contemporary

Indlia

by

Andre

Beteille;

Oxford

University

Press,

Delhi,

1992;

pp 117,

Rs

110.

ANDRE

BETEILLE

is a

leading

sociologist

who

has done

considerable

work

on caste

and equality

for now

more

than

thirty

years.

The

major

part

of

this

book, his two

lectures

delivered

in

1980,

was

first published

in 1981.

This

book

adds

his one more

lectureon

'institutional

well-being'

and appendices

of eight

ar-

ticles previously

published

in newspapers

and journals.

His position

on the issue

of

reservation

emainsunchanged

since

1980.

He

adds arguments

with

a viewto

counter

pro-reservationists-policy-makers,

in-

tellectuals

and pedestrians.

He,

however,

does

not add evidence

in

support

of his

position.

None

would disagree

with

the author

that

no society

can move

forward

unless

it sets

for itself

an

ideal of

achievement

that

is superior

to the

present

reality.

But

such

a

new social

order cannot

be

built

in

a

vacuum.

As he

himself

concedes,

no

society

starts

on

a clean

slate, every

society

has

its historical

legacy

(p

19).

Policy-

makers

aiming

at building

a

new social

order cannot afford to lose touch with

social

facts

as

they

are '

What are

these

social

facts?

This calls

for detailed

studies

of social

complexities.

Empirical

evidence

does

not

mean that

one

should

get

bogged

down in it,

but one cannot

simply

wish

it away. One

has to

find out options

at a

given point

of time

within

an ideological

perspective.

Beteille'soptions

are

within

the framework

of

liberal

democracy.

He

is not talking

about

fundamental

changes

in

the economic

and

political

structure.

It should

be mentioned

at

the

outset

that Beteille

supports

reservation

for

'Harijans',

i e, scheduled

castes,

and

'Adivasis'

e, scheduled

tribes,

but

not

for

the Other

Backward

Classes-Castes

(OBCs).

Backwardness

of SCs

and

STs,

according

to him,

is

not solely

a

matter

of

poverty.

The former suffer

from

the

stigma

of pollution

and

the latter are

ex-

terior

to the larger

society.

The

disabilities

that they

suffered

were

in

each

case

im-

posed

on

the community

as a whole,

and

not on

individual

members

of

particular.

communities (p

35).

This

is not the case

with

OBCs. They

are a

residual

cate-

gory ,

and their

position

is

highly

am-

biguous .'

They are

differentiated among

themselves

and

the discrimination

which

the

Brahmins practised

against

them

was

in turn practised

by the superior

Shudras

against

inferior (p 5).

One of

the central

arguments

of the

book

is that

in modern society

an

indi-

vidual and

his merits

be given

a place in

the centre .

An

individual

is a citizen

and

he should

be

treated as an

individual

qua

individual.

The author

argues that in

the

context

of

Indian society,

here and

now,

we must realise that the alternative to in-

dividualism

may

not be cherished

dream

of

socialism, but

a

moral

order

in which

the

individual

is once again

displaced

by

clan,

caste

and community

(p

38).

In-

dividualism

is closely

associated

with

the

meritarian

principle

which

takes

indi-

vidual alone

into

account,

ignoring

the

group or

community

to

which he belongs.

No society

can prosper

unless

it gives

an

important

place

to the claims

of

indivi-

dual merit (p

18).

In

a society

where high

value is placed

on

the individual,

he

is ex-

pected

to make

his own

life for himself

and to be judged on his own merit, ir-

respective

of family

or community

(p 48).

This

is an ideal

which Beteille cherishes.

To be sure,

those who demand

caste-

based reservation

also

desire

to

have

a

casteless society.

They

want equality

and

not

the

caste system.

They

know verywell

that continuity

of

the

caste

system is anti-

thetical

to their

own development.

Their

fight

is

against

the Brahminical

ideology

which adheres

to

the principle

of hierar-

chy.

It is too

simplistic

to depict

pro-

reservationists,

as

the

author

does,

as

claiming

that

the state

should

distribute

the benefits

of education

and employment

equitably

between

the

different

castes

and

communities (p 50).

Or that

the

object

of

reservation

is to

provide

equitable

representation

in

them

to all

castes

and

communities (p 83).

Beteille

caricatures

them

as

stupid

enough

to consider that

every

institution

(university,

hospital,

government

departments,

etc)

performs

representative

unctions

(p 83),

those

of

electoral bodies

such as village

panchayats

(p 75).

Article

16(4)

of

the

Constitution

uses the

word

'adequate'

and

not

'equita-

ble. And, SCs,

STs,

and

OBCs

are clusters

of a

number

of

castes/tribes

and not

one

caste.

Pro-reservationists

demand

affir-

mative

action

to give concessions

to

those

members

of

the deprived

communities

who

have been

systematically

denied

ac-

cess

to the

modern

sectors

despite their

qualifications.

It

is their

social status

that

has been the stumbling block. Therefore,

in a

given situation,

they have

to demand

caste-based

reservation.

However,

Beteille

is right

that

protective

discrimination

can

and

should seek

to satisfy

present

needs,

it can do

nothing

to repair

past

injuries

(p 19).

It

is Andre Beteille's

ontention

that

life

chances

are

not related

to

caste.

A rich

Brahmin

and

rich

Koli

(OBC)

or a

poor

Brahmin

and poor

Harijan

have

equal

chances

in

developing professional

skills

(education)

and getting jobs.

He asserts

that employment

is determined by

imper-

sonal laws of the market. One's life

chances

are no longer

determinedby

one's

birth

in a particular

caste.

In

other

words,

cultural

values and

social

proximity

are

unimportant.

Though

I

wish

he were

right,

I am

surprised

hat sociologists

who

more

often

than

not

talk about

culture,

now

have begun

to emphasise

economic

factors

alone. Ground

level

reality,

as

of

today

and

given

the

manner

in which

the

country

has

developed

in

the last

four

and

a half decades,

debunks

this

particular

brand of modernist

theory.

We

must

realise

that market

forces

in the sluggish

Indian economy are not as strong as

Beteille

would

like

to have them.

They

have

not disrupted

completely

the agra-

rian village

economy,

hence

the

social

structure

has not

turned topsy-turvy.

In

the villages people

from

the

same

caste

but of

different economic

strata

live

together

in the same

localities.

The

pat-

tern

has

changed

somewhat

in the

urban

areas.

Persons

from

the

same caste

and

economic

strata

live

together

in the

same

neighbourhood.

Here

the

caste-class

as a

cluster go together.

Even in

Gujarat,

which

is

relatively a

developed

state,

an

OBC

or

a Muslim-not

to speak

of

a

Harijan-finds

it

difficult

to

get

a

house

in

predominantly

upper

caste

localities.

This

pattern

reinforces

caste-based

con-

tacts,

values

and

prejudices.

A

poor

Brahmin

residing

in a predominantly

upper

caste locality

is

likely

to get help

from middle

class residents

or

rich caste-

brethren

o

pursue

studies or

get

more in-

formation

which

is relevant

for the

job

market

and

also

get

contacts necessary

to

improve

life-chances,

whereas

such possi-

bilities

are

less for

a

poor

Koli

because

he

lives

in a neighbourhood

having

similar

economic

and

educational

status. There-

Economic and

Political

Weekly

April 10,

1993

633

8/10/2019 Reservation, Merit, Distributive Justice

3/4

fore,

a

family

which

socialises

a child

is

also

a

part

of

neighbourhood

and caste.

Andre Beteille is of course right that

because of various forces dissociation bet-

ween caste and

income,

caste

and

occupa-

tion and

caste and education has increas-

ed.

From

this

he deduces

that

such

a situa-

tion compels

us to take more and more

account of the needs of the individual ir-

respective

of

his

caste,

for his

caste

tells

us less and less about the total range of

his deprivation (p 37).

Such a

sweeping

derivation is problematic.

There are differentiations

within caste

Hindus

as well as SCs

and

STs.

But

one

would expect a sociologist to tell us the

nature

and

extent

of differentiation and

whether it is uniform among all castes. It

is by now well documented that persons

from upper castes have moved mainly to

business

and

industry,

modern

professions

and

white-collar

jobs,

whereas the

lower

castes

have moved

to

blue collar as

well

as petty jobs

in the

organised and unorga-

nised sectors. Only a few of the latter are

in

white-collar obs. For instance,

in

rural

Gujarat among the Vanias

50

per cent are

in

agriculture (many

of them are

middle

or rich peasants), 30 per cent are in

btiiness, 10 per cent in professions and

h)ite-collar obs

and 3

per

cent in

agri-

Wilture

or other labour. Whereas

among

the

Kolis 65

per

cent are

cultivators,

a

majority

of them small

and marginal

farmers;

less

than

one

per

cent

each are

in

business,

white-collar

jobs

and

profes-

sions;

and

35

per

cent

are

agricultural

or

other

labourers.

The

situation is not much

different

in

urban

Gujarat.

The condition

of Vagharis,Machhis and other OBCs is

worse than the Kolis. Thus, though dif-

ferentiationsare there

both

in

upper castes

as well as

OBCs,

their nature is

quali-

tatively

different which affects

differently

their life chances.

Unfortunately, whether

we like it or not, caste still tells us to

quite

a

larger degree

the

total

range

of

deprivation.

It is true that SCs

being

outside

the

chaturvarna

system

suffer more than the

OBCs. But there are some castes who are

traditionally

not

treated as

untouchables,

but who in

practice

suffer

from the

stigma

and entry to many private and public

spheres

has been denied to them.

Many

of the OBCs are

'socially'

and

educa-

tionally

in no

way

better

off

than

SCs.

This is

certainly so

because

of

their

poor

economic condition

coupled

with

their oc-

cupation, but

it is also

because

of

their

traditional social status

reinforcedby pre-

judices deep-rooted

in

the

minds of the

upper castes.

Preiudices, though

a

socio-psycholo-

gical construct,

are

closely related

with

ceonomy and power.

They reinforce each

other. The condition and life chances of

OBCs on the one hand and of the domi-

nant castes on

the other cannot be

under-

stood in isolation from

each

other.

One

would have expected

a

sociologist

to

ex-

amine OBCs

in

relation

with

the

vested

interests of the

dominant

castes and

the

mechanism-

formal and

informal-that

they

have evolved to

push

back the

new

entrants within their domain. Were the

anti-reservationists who launched their

struggle.

n

the

streets

in

1990

and

earlier

really concerned with a modern society

based

on

meritocracy?

This is

not

just

a

question

of caste

status,

but is

primarily

a

political

issue-a

conflict between those

who

are in power and those who have

been so far denied

access to economic

and

political

opportunities on

one or the other

pretext.

In a scenario where

'artificial

barriers'

to free competition

have not yet

been

removed and

who-knows-whom counts

in

the

distribution

of

benefits,

the domi-

nance of the upper and

middle castes con-

tinues unabated. Individuals

belonging

to

OBCs are placed

in

a relativelydisadvan-

tageous

position. The

members of the

up-

per

castes

sitting

in

decision-making

bodies consciously favour those

whom

they know,who sharesimilar-notions and

styles

of discourse and

behave

in

the ex-

pected

manner. In this situation caste con-

sideration is

no less important. Of course

they get

advantage

not

as

a

legal 'right'

but

they enjoy privilege

by

virtue of their

traditional caste status which

is

in

prac-

tice

a.defacto

right as of

being a member

of the

particular

caste.

That

gives

them

an

edge

over

others.-Opportunities

in

the

modern

sectors are

limited for OBCs not

only because of theireconomic condition

but

also their

limited

contacts with those

who

distribute benefits and who happen

to

belong

to the

upper

castes. If the

state

does not

give

them

preference

on

caste

ground, the

dominance of the upper

castes

in

the

garb

of

the 'secular princi-

ple'

would

remain

unchanged.

Andre

Beteille

himself has observed in

one of his

earlier

studies

that the meaning

of caste

keeps changing

from

context to

context. Its

social and

political meanings

are not

the same. It

should be noted that

the

meaning

of

caste

under affirmative

action is not the same as localised en-

dogamous group,

it

is

a

cluster of

several

castes

called

'backward'

or

'forward'.

Traditional

boundaries of

jati for social

interaction have

expanded. For instance,

a Patanwadiya

has become

Koli and then

OBC

in

which

many

other similar

jatis

have been included

on the

same

footing.

It has political potentiality

of

evolving

a

new identity as

backward or deprived,

combining

the SCs,

STs

and OBCs

together. Moreover,

under affirmative ac-

tion, a quota

is

not

given

to each

caste,

hence a person from

OBCs does not get

a position or admission just by virtue of

his/her caste

irrespective of

his/her

qualifications.

Needless

to

say (though

the

author gives

a

different impression),

all

members

from OBCs are

not entitled to

get

the benefit of

reservation.

It is

meant

only for those

who are qualified.

And ob-

viously in the present

capitalist system,

only

those can get qualification

who can

study

at least

up

to the twelfth standard

and only

those can take education

who

have

some wealth.

In an in-built inegali-

tarian educational structure,

only

tihose

get

'better'

education who

have more

wealth and contacts. In such a systemeven

a

relatively

well-off OBC has

the

possibili-

ty

to

get

left out as

his

access

to elite

schools

is still

limited.

In

the

prevailing

circumstances,

caste

under

affirmative

ac-

tion

is

a

category

more for identification

rather than

for

legitimisation

of caste

system

as

morally good

or legally

desira-

ble.

And

whatever

element

of

legitimacy

it has can further

be weakened not by ig-

noring

it but

by evolving

a

mechanism

of

dereservation.

As I

have

mentioned

else-

where,2

once an individual gets

certain

benefits under reservation, he

should

cease to

get

further

benefit;

thus

his/her

family gets dissociated (for this purpose)

from caste.

Similar devices could

be evolv-

ed

to facilitate individual

mobility

and

to

weaken caste solidarity. Beteille

is right

that reservationof

posts beyond a point

becomes

counter-productive when

it

creates or

reinforces

the feeling that

the

rights

of the weak can

be

protected only

by

those

of their

own

caste .A mechanism

can be evolved to blur such feelings.

However,

n

the given

economy and polity,

ignoring

caste on the excuse

of

modernisa-

tion

would

virtually strengthen

the status

quo, allowing the

dominance of upper

castes to be perpetuated.

Despite

the availability

of a

large

number of historical and contemporary

studies that provide ample

empirical

TABLE:

HIGHE.ST

NI)

LOWEST1

ERCENTAGE

ARKSOF

ADMITTED

TUDENTS

N

MEDICAL

COLLEGES

Year

Open

Merit

OBC

SC

ST

H

l

H

L

H

L

H

L

1970

86.50

69.66

75.83

67.00

67.16

45.50

55.33

45.83

1980

99.33

88.66

97.66

86.66

87.33

67.66

79.66

50.66

1990

99.00

90.50

96.83

92.00

93.00

80.00

82.00

48.00

Note:

H

=

highest;

[ -

loscet.

.Source:

See

note 6

at end

of

review.

634 Economic and Political Weekly April 10, 1993

8/10/2019 Reservation, Merit, Distributive Justice

4/4

evidences debunking

the

tradition-moder-

nity dichotomy,

Beteille

does

not

wish

to

re-eamine

his own

framework.

He

argues

that modern institutions have impersonal

laws, structure of rights and obligations,

sub-culture

of

their own

with

distinctive

set of ideas, beliefs and values. They are

opposite

to

values perpetuated by caste.

Recruitment hrough 'distributive ustice'

on

the basis

of

castes

would

damage

modern

institutional

culture and lead to

decline of these institutions. Even gran-

ting

that the values and ethos of caste and

modern

institutions are

antithetical,

to

assume

that caste values would not

change

or that values

and

structure

of

modern

in-

stitutions

are too weak to survive

against

caste

is a

static

view of

a

dynamic process.

It is well

documented

that

caste associa-

tions have now undertaken

functions

of

modern institutions. Many institutions

such as

hospitals, co-operative

societies

and

educational organisations managed

by caste

or

community

associations are

managed

as

efficiently

or

inefficiently

as

modern secular institutions. The textile

industry

in

Ahmedabad

would not have

developed but

for

inflow of capital and

labour on caste and kinship connections.

R Gillion

observes,

The

managing agents

not only

had

their relatives

as

joint part-

ners

in

the

agency

and as shareholders

in

the

company they managed

but also

employed

them

on

the business side as

well. Thus the caste system and joint fami-

ly system found

new avenues of

expres-

sion

in

a

modern

context...

Indeed,

but

for

the corporate spirit and confidence pro-

vided by these ties it is doubtful if

Ahmedabad could have industrialised to

the extent she did 3

I

am not

arguing

to

justify

caste ties. I am

only contesting

the

view that affirmative action on the basis

of

castes

would

invariably

be disastrous

for modern institutions.

In the article 'Some North-South

Dif-

ferences'

he

author

argues

that

sustained

academic work of a

high

order is not

being

done in south Indian universities

because of caste

quotas.

Let us not ask

as to what he means

by

work of a

'high

order'. He

forgets

that north Indian

universities

I

include most of the

depart-

ments of the central universities

also)

do

not havea better recorddespite not having

caste

quotas. Beteille,however,

has

to

con-

cede the fact that Tbmil

Nadu

or

Karnataka

where there is reservation for the OBCs

are better administered

than

say

Bihar

or

UP.

This

anomaly, according

to

him,

is

because there

are

many ways

to

ruin ad-

ministration

And if

that is what

it

is, why

is it

that

the

same

logic

is

not

applied

to

south Indian

universities?

Why

does

he

single

out 'reservation' for all evils? This

is a classic

example,

as

some

eminent

scholars from south India have put it, of

a 'tails-I-win-heads-you-lose' rgument, if

Tamil Nadu is better administered than

Bihar, it is despite reservations and

if

Bihar

is worse

administered

than Tamil

Nadu it is

because of

factors

other

than

reservations .4

No one

will dispute

with

Beteille

that

'merit'

is important

for institutional

well-

being.

But he and all those

who oppose

reservation

on the ground

of merit

alone

do not spell

out what

they

mean by

merit.

They play

with words.

It seems

for them

merit is

more or less

metrical

which

ranks

persons

along

a

single,

quasi-quantitative

dimension.

But such

tests do not

take

into account

the more

impalpable or less

easily measurable

qualities'.5

Moreover,

the author

ignores that

individual perfor-

mance

is

influenced

by organisational

culture

And

such culture

is so far evolved

and

dominated in

the central

government

departments

by

those who claim

to have

more merit than

persons

from the OBCs.

The book under

reviewgives

an impres-

sion

that

all

members of

the SC-ST and

OBCs get recruited

just because

of their

caste status,

as if

they

have not

to

pass

any

qualifying

examinations.

This

is

common

propaganda made by anti-reservationa-

lists,

to which

the book gives credence.

It

should

also

be mentioned

that candidates

just

with a

pass

class

are not eligible for

admission to medicine

or

engineering

col-

leges

or

for

white-collar jobs. In

all cases,

there

are

some minimum requirements.

These

minimum requirements

have been

raised

over a period

of

time,

and

the gap

between the

general

and

reserved

seats

is

getting

narrower.

This

is

borne out

from

the data on

medical

college

admissions

in

Maharashtra.

The

accompanying

table

shows that there

is

very little

difference

between those who got admission

under

OBC

quota

and

open

merit.

The fact

that even the lowest

percentage

of those

admitted

from the reservedcategories

was

67

per

cent

in

1984 suggests

that there

is

no basis for thinking

that unqualified

students

are admitted to

medical educa-

tion because

of the

policy

of

reserva-

tions'6 Similar was tte

case for MBBS

course

in

Tamil

Nadu in

1990. The

cut-

off

point

for

open

competition

was

95.22

per

cent.

It was 93.18

per

cent

for Back-

wards, 89.62 per

cent for the

Most Back-

wards

and 83.98 per cent

for the SCs.7

Anyone

who is

working

in universities

knows that marks do not always indicate

merit,

and

it

is difficult

to

say

that one

who gets 10 or

15 per cent

more marks

is betterqualified

than others.

Here we are

not

even

considering

that the OBC

can-

didate has

generally

to face many adverse

situations to

appear

in

examinations

com-

pared

to

his

upper

caste counterpart

belonging

to similar

economic

conditions.

Besides examination

marks, another

way

to judge merit

is open interview.

We

all

know

that

it

is difficult to judge

the

'merit' of a person in about

30-40

minutes. Those who are

smart, vocal

and

have mastered interviewtechniques have

an edge over

others. More important,

in-

terview

situations

provide

a

free hand for

nepotism.

In such

a situation those

who

do

not have contacts,

access

to coaching

classes and so-called

modern life-styles

are

in

a disadvantageous

position.

The OBCs

along

with SCs and

STs fall

in this

group.

One would expect

scholarly

discourse to

show waysand

means to tackle

this tangle.

Without

this, an aggressive

concern

for

'merit'

would result

in supporting

subjec-

tive notions

of merit which continue

to

be reinforced by those who perpetuate

their power

and influence

in

society.

Similar to

most anti-reservationists

in

political

circles.

Beteille

has

also indulged

in

distorting facts.

For

instance,

he

accuses

the Mandal

Commission

for

using

caste

quotas

as

the

only way

of

reducing

social.

disparities

between

groups (p

97).

This

is

not true. The

commission

emphasises

the

need

for

far-reaching

structural

changes.

It

strongly

recommends

imple-

mentation of progressive

and

legislation

so as

to

effect

basic

structural

changes

in

existing production

relations

in the

coun-

tryside'. It is not the contention of the

commission

that

by offering

a few

thou-

sand

jobs

to OBC candidates

we

shall be

able

to make 52

per

cent

of

the

Indian

population

as forward .'

Notwithstanding

our substantial

dif-

ferences

with

the author on existing

social

reality,

some of the questions

raised

by

him cannot be brushed

aside by

those who

strive

for an egalitarian

society. There

is

no

royal

path for social

transformation

in

favour of

the

have-nots.

There are dilem-

mas and dilemmas. Beteille,

though,

does

not

face these problems,

as he has definite

answers irrespective

of social reality.

Notes

[I thank Jan

Breman

and

Biswaroop

Das

for

their

comments.)

I

One

may

not

agree

with

the list

of

OBCs

given by

the

Mandal Commission

or other

commissions

appointed by

the

state. Some

castes

may

be included

or excluded

on the

basis of

certain criteria.

But this

is

not

an

issue

for

Beteille.

He

rejects

OBCs

altogether.

2

'Caste,

Class and Reservation'

Economic

and

Political Weekly,20(3),

January19,

1985

and

'Social Backwardnessand Politics of Reser-

vations',

Economic

and Political

Weekly,

26

(11

and

12),

Annual

Number,

1991.

3

Kenneth Gillion,

Ahmedabad:

A

Study

in

Indian

Urban

History,

Berkeley,University

of

California

Press,

1968, p

94.

4

S

Guhan,

et

al, 'South India

and Reserva-

tions:

A

Reply

to

Andre

Beteille,

Hindu,

October

27,

1990.

5

David Riesman,

'Notes

on

Meritocracy:

Daedalus,,

Vol

96,

No

3, Summer,

1967.

6

H

K

Paranjpe,

'Educational Reservations:

Results

of a

Survey',

Mainstream,

Vol

28,

No

23^

March 31,

1990.

7 Hindu,

October 1990,

quoted by Madhu

Kishwar,

Beyond For or Against:

Exploring

the Complexitiesof Reservations',Manushi,

Nos 63-64, March-June

1991.

Economic

and Political

Weekly

April 10, 1993

63>