Application of the Pluralist Model in the Indian Context

Can the pluralist model of power distribution be relevant in the analysis of contemporary Indian situation? Pranab Bardhan has illustrated the influence of the dominant proprietary classes comprising the business–industrial class, rich farmers and landed proprietary class and the bureaucratic class on decision-making. Bardhan’s study excludes the possibility of pluralism as the basis of decision-making in India. Bardhan’s conclusion about the dominant influence on decision-making was also reflected in the book, In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State by Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph. Rudolphs argued that the Indian state oscillates between ‘command’ and ‘demand’ economy and demand by a variety of dominant interests create problem of overload for the system. This means that though decision-making is based on plural participation of demand groups; it is not based on negotiation and resolution. Dominant demand groups enjoy better chance of influencing the State policy than others.

However, we may recall that some of the keen analysts of Indian politics such as Rajni Kothari (‘The Congress “System” in Indi’’‘, Asian Survey, 4(12) had discussed the phenomenon of what he called ‘the Congress system’. Rajni Kothari and Morris Jones had characterized the Indian party system under the dominance of the Congress party during the 1960s as ‘One-party dominance’ model. It was argued that dominance of the Congress as a party depended on it being a comprehensive and all-inclusive system of party interaction. Kothari treated the Congress party as a ‘system’. This means the party includes a variety of groups, interests and factions within itself. These groups, factions and interests within the Congress party were positioned as such that they were in communication and interaction with similar interests in opposition parties. This was a situation of intra-party pluralist competition within the Congress party. Here a variety of interests, factions and groups compete within a single party to further, negotiate and reconcile various interests. Congress party as such appears as a ‘party of consensus’ and ‘grand coalition’.⁶³ Consensus building through such a party model suggests relevance of pluralism. This pluralism manifested in terms of Congress seeking consensus from various interests outside through its own relevant factions and groups. For example, on issues relating to poverty alleviation, nationalization, labour relations, etc. the left-to-the-centre faction of the Congress communicates with the left opposition parties; on issues of right to private property, the right-to-the centre faction would be in communication with the economic right parties. Nevertheless, the Congress system itself sought to maintain left-to-the-centre ideology. However, this pluralist model of consensus building has been made irrelevant after the emergence of credible multiparty opposition to the Congress party and further due to emergence and onset of coalition politics in India.

Given a variety of sectional, caste, religious, professional and associational interests in India, it would be difficult to pronounce with any certainty that decision-making is not based on plurality of inputs. There are caste associations, business and landed interests, professional, bureaucratic and middle-class interests and a variety of social, cultural and religious interests that put demand on the Government and channels of interests aggregation for influencing decision-making. Nevertheless, phenomenon of dominance by certain groups within plurality is not ruled out.