Incrementalim vs Ideology: The Dilemma of Developing NationsRam K. Vepa THE AMBIQUITY OF IDEOLOGY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM By Krishna Kumar Tummala Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1979, pp. 367, Rs. 50.00 VOLUME IV NUMBER 4 January-February 1980 It will remain for a long time one of
the much debated issues in Indian Administration: whether Jawaharlal Nehru did
the right thing in 1947 in opting (deliberately or otherwise) for a policy of
'gradualism' rather than making a clean break with the past. Even as he spoke
movingly of the 'Tryst with Destiny' on the midnight of August 15th, his instruments
of power and influence remained the same—the Civil Services and the Army—as
the legacies from a previous administration. Even the Constitution of India,
while drawing inspiration from the British and American models, relied for its
operative clauses largely on the much-maligned Government of India Act, 1935,
which the Congress Party had so contemptuously spurned during the Freedom
Struggle.
This is the
problem that is studied and analysed by Tummala in this well-written and
interesting book. In the words of the author himself: ‘The central question...
is whether social and administrative reform has an essentially different
character in developing as compared to developed nations.’ For the purpose of
the study, he takes two models: one, what he calls 'incrementalism' (the same
as 'gradualism', said earlier) which is suitable for a developed nation, by
which reforms come as a logical extension of the past; the other based on
'ideology' where discontinuity is sharp as in revolutionary societies; and a
possible third which is a 'mix' of the two. The question is where does India
fit in and how well has it fared in the last 25 years?
The study
was conducted through selective interviews with 40 carefully chosen persons in
1973 on the basis of a questionnaire sent to them earlier; as one interviewed
at that time, I can say that the author did his home work well in drafting the
questionnaire, in recording the interview and having it corrected by the person
interviewed. In the select list were ten politicians including Morarji Desai,
H.M. Patel, 16 civil servants including the then Cabinet Secretary (B.D.
Pande), the Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh (M.T. Raju), Director General,
Bureau of Public Enterprises (P. Fernandes), ten managing directors of public
enterprises and four drawn from a sample interviewed by another researcher
which included Mohan Dharia, then Minister of State for Planning.
It was
indeed a representative sample for the purpose of the study which focussed on
four concepts: political responsiveness, administrative capability, ... Table of Contents >> |