State and the People: Political History of Government in India (With Special Reference to Bihar)

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

This is a study of India's system of governance in terms of its accord with the people. The author has concluded that the post-independence adininistration, in deep political sense, is the same as was fashioned by the British for colonial purposes. Departing from conventional historiography, the author provides insights into the various stages of administrative development since 1793. By 1947, the year of independence, the Indian people found themselves held firmly within the surrounding arms of a vast bureaucracy. India's leadership chose not only to retain the set-up but went on to aggravate it further. The system is alien to Indian tradition, and works adversely against the emergence of a democratic polity. On the other hand, there has been enough evidence of the Indian people's capacity for self- realisation and resistance, as in the continual tribal movements in eastern India since 1778, the revolt of 1857, and the Quit India Movement of 1942.

As a conceptual backdrop, the human individual's place in power-structure in three great world traditions, the Western European, the ancient Indian, and the medieval Muslim, is etched out in comparative terms. Mahatma Gandhi's revolutionary message of the empowerment of the people is given a special treatment.

The long-range effects of people-state alienation are demonstrated in the political and economic decline in the State of Bihar. These have been assessed with reference to three areas closest to people's lives, namely, education, land-relationships, and agriculture.

The author is of the view that a satisfactory quality of life for the people can- not be gained without far-reaching, directional change in the mode of governance.

LAKSHMESHWAR DAYAL (b. 1926) was in the IAS and served as Addl. Secretary, Government of India, and Chief Secretary, Bihar. After retirement, he has made himself known as a social activist, columnist and public speaker. He undertook this study as Senior Fellow, Indian Council of Historical Research, New Delhi.

State's relationship with people is the substance of history. The lives of the people bear the imprint of State power in varying degrees. On the other hand, the deterministic effect of the people on the character of the State is inhibited a great deal, as this comes to depend on its accord with the society and the nature of leadership. Arising from social traditions and economic relationships, human society has continued to be a conglomerate of uneven classes, with uneven influence on the conduct of the State. Secondly, the behaviour of the State gets determined by the centrifugal nature of leadership, with its tendency of distancing itself from its very genesis. History, in the east and in the west, is thus read as a saga of struggle between the people and the political power embodied in the State. The problem calls for study at both ends of the spectrum. It is necessary to see how people have addressed political authority, as also how authority has acted on people's lives.

The political roots of government-which is State's operating arm - lie in people-State relationship. My study of the political basis of government in India is undertaken in a historical framework. The time-segment is the 'modern' period of Indian history, beginning with the rise of British power in India since 1757. The time extends out to the post-Independence period down to the present day, when a representative system, based on adult franchise, has created the possibility of people in India rising up to deal with the State on equal terms. The lessons to be drawn from both phases of modern Indian history are rewarding. The space- segment is eastern India, where the colonial State was planted; there is increasing focus on Bihar from the Permanent Settlement (1793) onwards.

My hypothesis is that social development happens in direct ratio to the consistency between the masses of people and State power. Understandably, such harmony was no part of the Indian system during more than 150 years of colonial government, but, most intriguingly, the polity did not change its character after Independence. The State, either in the colonial period or in politically free India, did not work out a tryst with the people. This is evidenced in the fields of constitutional development, economic progress, land reforms, literacy and education, and, above all, in State's response to public protest. Each area is evaluated in this study, one by one. The post-colonial Indian Government seems to have carried forward the British Indian modes of governance, in some cases to the point of aggravation; the similarities are disturbing. It is also my hypothesis that an all-embracing, expansive administration has the effect of stalling people's awareness and enterprise so necessary for the development of a democratic polity. Such a system was allowed to emerge in India, in stages, since the late 18th century as an unavoidable requirement of the colonial scheme, until it reached its commanding heights at the commencement of the present century in Curzon's time. The system was, however, not only accepted by the leadership of free India but was developed further on the same lines, with similar features.

**Contents and Sample Pages**