Ambedkar and Indian Nationalism Author(s): S. M. Gaikwad Reviewed work(s): Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.

33, No. 10 (Mar. 7-13, 1998), pp. 515-518 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4406493 . Accessed: 30/11/2011 02:40
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 Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

PERSPECTIVES
Ambedkar
S M Gaikwad

and

Indian

Nationalism

The Indian national struggle of the first half of this century was not merely a struggle to wrest political power from foreign rule but also a struggle to lay the foundation of modern India by purging society of outmoded social institutions,practices, beliefs and attitudes. Ambedkar'sstruggle constituted a part of the internal struggle of a nation-in-the-making,one of the divergent and sometimes conflicting currents all of which helped to secure 'freedozm' -from external and internal oppression and enslavement. WithoutAmbedkar'sopposition to mainstreamnationalism, the process of internal consolidation of the nation would not have been carried out sufficiently enough to strengthenand broaden the social base of Indian nationalism.
THEpoliticalduststormraisedby Shourie's blatantlymalignantbook on Ambedkarhas rendered most people so myopic that no or politicalcommentator book reviewerhas tried to transcendthe narrow confines of one's own political affiliation or the limits of conventional book review to provide a much needed objectively critical and historically correct perspective on certain sensitive political issues placed before the lay public in a ratherunguardedmannerby the media'sconcertedcampaignto focus the public attention on a work of dubious scholarship, spiteful intentions and reactionarysocio-political orientation. There can be little new informationon Ambedkarand his political activities that Shourieor any one else for that matter,can claim to have made available for the first time. Most of the things he states (except for the conclusions drawn), have appeared in print in one place or other at different times in the past. Even the much publicised researchinto the writing of the book is no more thana clever trick to provide a facade of scientific objectivity to an essentially work. However,the distortional propaganda author'sclaim to creative writing must rest a on his ingenuityto manufacture sensational political story from certain historical facts torn away from their true historicalcontext andpresented skilfully in a dramaticmanner to produce a totally distorted picture of a history.But a sensationalpolitical tale does not produce a noteworthy contribution to history or historiography.Nor do the piles of documentary evidence by themselves establish any historical truth. A truth and especially a historical truth needs to be established through a careful and critical analysis of the whole complex of historical situationof which they (i e, the given facts) form just a part. It is worth noting that Shourie proceeds to pronounce his verdict on Ambedkar without even bothering to locate him in the course of the 20th century Indian history. Furtherit needs to be emphasised thateven a scholarly work can be deficient or even partial on a certain count due to the author's ignorance or inability to grasp the true significance of a particularaspect of a complex phenomenon or problem, but it can never be entirely biased, spiteful and distorted. Shourie's massive work of clerical research on Ambedkar's is outrageously distorted and, therefore, cannot make any contribution towards improving our understanding of the man and his politics. Indeed the most important period of Ambedkar'spoliticallife (1930-47) notonly coincided but involved a bitter interaction with the Gandhian phase of the Indian nationalmovement.It is, therefore,unlikely thatsome aspectof his controversial political life hadever remainedburied.His vehement opposition to the Congress and Gandhi,his oft-repeatedthreatsof religiousconversion, his long held pious belief that the British would act decisively one day to give justice to India's long oppressed and socially despised Hinduuntouchablesand, his final disillusionment with the British after the Simla conference are facts of history and need no documentaryevidence. Even his opposition to the quit India movement and membership in Lord Wavell's executive council during those critical years (194246) are also facts of recent history and cannot be considered as little known. Yet thcpertinent questionis whatpurposewould it serveto countorrecounttheaforementiond facts? One is unlikely to be interested in above stated facts unless one wants to undertake a study of Ambedkar's dalit

movementor examine his politics in relation to the national struggle for independence. Itjustcannotbea realdefenceofAmbedkar to point out that a few stalwarts of the Congress, Lokmanya Tilak included, had fromtheholypathof freedomstruggle strayed at some stage. It is totally misleading to equate Tilak's momentary straying with Ambedkar' unconcealed firmlyresolved s and opposition to the mainstream national movement. Moreover Tilak belonged to mainstream nationalismto whichAmbedkar stood opposed. Any defence of Ambedkar mustbe based upon the meritof his political position alone. Even the fact of Gandhiji calling him a patriotof sterling worthis not defence enough. The rationaleof the reactionary, revivalist Hindu's deep antipathyto Ambedkarwhich finds its articulated sophisticatedexpression under the convenient guise of historical researchin Shourie's 'worshippingthe false gods' stems from his fanatic belief that the narrow, conservative brand of Hindu nationalism is true nationalism which he unmistakablyidentifies with the anti-alien (i e, anti-British, anti-Muslim) sentiment and unflinching faith in the superiorityof theIndian cultural tradition whichis identified with the Hindutraditions, beliefs andvalues. Itis no wonderthen, anything- man,ideology or movement- which appearsto pose a real or imaginary threat to the survival of that old decadent social order, which helps to preserve the hegemony of the traditional ruling class, is immediately condemned as anti-national.To him 'nationalism' is the
ultimate weapon - a 'mahaastra' - to be

launched to destroy any enemy - past or presentwho had/hasthetemerityto challenge the old order. To throw out Shourie's main thesis that some political leaders(not all) who opposed the nationalmovement led by the Congress must be counted among anti-national to elements, it is important explode the myth of a monolithic Indian nation, implying a monolithic nationalism, which has been fosteredcarefullyoverthe years.The modem Indian nation, if the term 'nation' is to be used and understoodin the sense it is used by the political scientist, began to assume some form for the first time only duringthe last few decades of the 19th century under the impact of British rule which due to its superior technologicalcivilisationhadbegun to make, for the first time in a millennium some serious inroads into a more or less stable networkof localised socio-economic formations called the village communities by effecting certain significant changes in their underlying economic structure.With this change went the unprecedented process

Economic and Political Weekly

March 7, 1998

515

unificationof of politicalandadministrative the Indian subcontinentmade possible and sustainable by modern means of communication and transportation.These changes effectively destroyed the static balance of socio-economic life in India, setting into motion a process of change that finally paved the way for an unprecedented of transformation thechange-resistant Indian society in course of a few decades. Under the changed conditions of life emergeda new elite class with its new-found wealth and social prestige. This new class fostered by the British, adopted not only western mannerism and lifestyle but also westerneducation, valuesandsocio-political ideas and ideals. It is among the members of this class drawn mainly from the upper crustof the Hindusocial orderthat the first stirrings of the self-awakening, selfconsciousnessdrivingthem on to searchfor thecollectiveidentityrootedin the historical past,wereclearlyfound.Ina relativelyshort, period of time this craving for a collective identitystemmingfrom a sharedperception of common interests - economic, cultural and political - laid the foundation of the nascent Indian nationalism in the closing decades of the 19th century, which in the next few decades grew into a formidable political force encompassingthe length and breadthof the British India, reflecting the generalpoliticalevolutionof Indiansociety. Indiannationalismin its initial stages, by of the very nature its historicaldevelopment, was an upper class (upper castes) phenothe and menon,reflecting interests aspirations of its members.Naturallywhen nationalists interest certainly spokeintermsofnational they meant theirown The (class)interests. evocation of 'nation'was a necessaryritualto ensure the much needed popular support for an essentially partisancause. The sectarian character of Indian nationalismpersistedeven afterthe nascent upper castes' movement developed into a national trulymass-supported anti-imperialist liberation movementenlisting the supportof millions of people cutting across the traditionalcaste/religion divisions. And, it is this failure to change its basically proupperclass/castesorientation despitea basic shift in its underlyingsocial base thatIndian nationalmovementin due course helped the riseof new sectarian socio-politicalcurrents, runningparallelto the mainstreamnational movement. The emergence of the Muslim Leaguewas thefirstoffshootof thisinevitable processof politicalsplittingalong the sociocommunal fault lines. Ambedkar' s emergence on the Indianpolitical scene in 1930, commencing the advent of dalit (the scheduled castes) politics, was just another manifestation of the same process. Ambedkar's dalit politics posed no really significant threatto the overall domination

of the traditional rulingclass, yet it certainly exposed the hollowness of the nationalist claim to representthe whole nation.Finally theunwillingness thenationalist of leadership to attack the long unresolved social contradictions sittingatthebaseof theHindu social orderpropelledpeoplelike Ambedkar to contest the claim of the Indian National Congress to representthe scheduled castes (i e, the untouchables)which were forced into a most degradingform of survitudeby the Hindu social order. By the very logic of its historicalevolution 'nationalism'is basically a sectariancreed. It is the ideology of the most advanced segment of the emergentrulingclass which happenedto be the nationalbourgeoisie at that historicaljuncture. Unfortunatelythe Indiannationalbourgeoisie could not fully extricate itself from its medieval and premedievalsocio-cultural rootsanda basically anti-rational world-view. Consequently, despite its long struggleto adaptitself to the demands of the changed times its consciousnessremained deeply immersedin a hazy pre-historical and historical past, preventing it from carrying out a thoroughgoingmoderncapitalistrevolution or a kind of socio-economic and political reformation which alone could deliver India fromthe tangleof unresolvedsocio-political and economic crises. To conceal its overtly partisannaturethe proponents of the nascent Indian 'nationalism'sought to glorify and mystify their political creed by investing it with a number idealisedabstract of ideasandvalues suchas thelove of motherland, pridein one's culturalheritage and history and above all the sense of being a partof a highly abstract metaphysicalcategory,namely,the concept of 'one people'. Consequently,wheneveran appealis made in the nameof 'nationalism' a strong emotional response from the populace is a foregone conclusion. This immensely powerfulhold of the nationalist creedonthecollectivepsyche of thepopulace puts into the hands of the rulling class considerablepower which can be skilfully used to manipulate theirpoliticalbehaviour. However, the sectarian characterof an emergentnationalismtendsto grow less and less pronounced as the masses acquire a greaterdegreeof politicalmaturityand start exercising their potentialpower to increase theirshareof economic and political power. Still, the prospectof 'nationalism'shedding its sectariancharacterand developing into a trulyprogressiveforceand,therebyhelping to bring about a complete socio-economic and political transformationdepends to a greatextent on the willingness of the ruling class to lessen its hold on the existing power structure. Whatcan one say aboutthe basiccharacter of Indian nationalism in the light of the

above discussion? No one can really deny that the development of Indiannationalism through the early decades of the present centuryreflectedthegeneralsocio-economic evolutionof India.However,socio-economic development was never vigorous and thoroughgoingas to allow unrestricted scope for the growth of emergentsocio-economic forces. It was a stunted development all along, indicating the unwillingness of the Indian rulingclassto allow hithertooppressed sections of emergent Indiannation to have anysignificantplacein anew powerstructure that was gradually emerging. The general underdevelopment Indian of nationalismmight have been due to the fact thata majorthrustfor its rapidgrowthcame mainly from the anti-imperialistsentiment instinctive which, in generalreflectedrather dislike and hatredof foreign rule. It lacked basically any compulsions of internal development,callingforradicalrestructuring of the whole socio-economic order. The overall failure of the Indian ruling class to absorb successfully the emergent socioeconomic forces released by the underdeveloped capitalist development created the base for the eventual rise of Ambedkarandhis scheduledcastes politics. Those who blame Ambedkarfor his bitter opposition to the Congress-led freedom the tail struggle to understand socialevolution of Indian nationalism. Theydo notunderstand thatfreedomfrom an alien rule was no more significant than the freedom from internal formsof slavery,oppressionandexploitation. The severity of the oppression and exploitation experienced by the socially subjugated people (i e, the untouchables) could not have possibly been surpassedor even matched by any other form of socioeconomic discrimination and segregation practised in the history of man. And, even then the nationalistshad no concern for the hapless untouchables. They were clearly concernedwith theirown sectarianinterests. Their singular goal was to put an end to British rule which in terms of civilisational progressand the natureand quality of rule, was farsuperiorto anythingtheirforebearers had ever had at any time. They wanted to throwout Britishrulebecauseit was a foreign rule denying them full political controlover their own destiny. But these very same championsof freedom and the rightto selfdetermination were totally opposed to castes. concedingthoserightsto thescheduled The nationalists,who consistently turneda blind eye to the deplorable plight of the scheduledcastes hadno moralrightto claim for themselves the right to speak for the scheduled castes. It needs to be pointed out, that the right to self-determination and freedom is not bestowed upon chosen ones. It is the right claimed by one and all who refuse to suffer

~~~~~~~~~516~~~~

~~~Economic

and Political Weekly

March 7, 1998

underany form of domination- no matter whether it is external, that is, foreign dominationor an indigenous one. Through Ambedkarthe scheduled castes had at long last expressed their will to be free of the dominationof caste Hindus.It is, therefore, grossly unjust and unfair to construe Ambedkar'srefusal to have any truckwith thenationalistsas anact of treason.A careful readingof his writingson India's economic problems reveal his deep concern about India's economic exploitation by British imperialism.His oppositionto the Congress stemmed from his unwaveringconcern for the rights of the scheduled castes. He was never opposed to India gaining freedom at he anytime.Nevertheless was firmlyopposed to any scheme of Indian independence in which the scheduled castes were not given due representation commensuratewith their numerical strength. His demand for fair cannotbe termed anti-national. representation No progressive intellectual can say that the communalaward was in the best longterm interestsof the Indian unity. But it is also true that the nationalistsdid very little to destroy the communal basis of national politics.Theywereneveropposedto Muslims andotherstrongminoritiesmaintaining their separateexistence in the national political life. If they were truly opposed to the communalawardthey should have had opposed the provisionof a separateelectoratefor the Muslimstoo. They chose to oppose andstop s Ambedkar' demandfora separate electorate because the scheduled castes were feeble and vulnerable.That the Poona pact proved to be a good thing in the long-terminterests of the Indian nation is a different thing. The six crore untouchables were nonentities in national politics, when even microscopic minorities enjoyed power, prestigeandwealth.This could happenonly because the scheduledcastes were not free. They were enslaved by the Hindu caste system. The spiritualist Hindu who never gets tired of preaching to the world the gospel of 'vishva bandhutwa' (universal and brotherhood) the principleof basic unity of all things never feels any qualms about his own inhumanand wicked treatmentof the scheduledcastes. Therewas no evidence of the Hindu ruling class ever being really concerned about this very basic social problem. Gandhi's conscience was stirred by the practice of racial discrimination in South Africa and, he fought against that in his own characteristicway. However, his conscience was not troubledby the practice of untouchabilityback home, which was indeedthe most condemnablecrime against humanity. The degrading, dehumanising misery of the servile untouchablesdid not touch his heart.He was moved to make the causeof theun-touchables own only after his Ambedkar' politicalstanceposeda veritable s

threatto the nationalisthegemony. That his interventionon the side of the scheduled castes helped to focus nationalattentionon this very pressingbut long neglected social problemof nationalimportanceis however, a different matter. It needs to be emphasisedonce again that freedom which fails to uphold the basic inviolable principleof 'intrinsicdignity of man' for a vast multitude of socially subjugated people is no freedom at all. Freedomthatthenationalists werestruggling to secure had very little to offer to the scheduled castesandotheroppressed sections of the Indian society. Freedom from the British rule would not end their servitude andmisery.Itis, therefore,important note to that while the nationalistsrepresentingthe advancedsectionsof the Indiansociety were to struggling achievefreedomfromtheBritish the rule,people like Ambedkar, representing Indian 'helots' and other oppressed, backward people, were fightingto regainthe very 'manhood' of the people stripped of theirinalienablehumanityby history'smost hierarchical oppressiveanddegrading system of social segregationcalled the Hinducaste system. If 'nation' is not to be consideredas coextensive with the rulingclass, andit cannot be so in the present age of masses; and, if it is to be truly representative all people of it ostensibly claims to encompass then the Indiannational struggle of the first half of the presentcenturywas notmerelya struggle to wrest political power from foreign rule but, also, a struggle to lay the foundation of modernIndia by purging Indiansociety of its outmodedsocial institutions, practices, attitudes and beliefs. It is not generally realisedthata nationalstrugglefor freedom has an internalaspect too, and that aspect is reallyveryimportant. Ambedkar's struggle constituteda partof this internalstruggleof a nation in the making against its own historical past,to freeitselffromthoseaspects of its communallife which were preventing it fromemergingas a single unified modern nation. The complex process of nationbuilding involved of necessity, many apparently divergentandconflictingcurrents which were in the final analysis helping to secure the ultimate goal of 'freedom' freedom from both external and internal oppression and enslavement. The Indian National Congress, which spearheaded the national struggle for the national independence, represented Indian bourgeoisie's drive for overall political and economic control; while people like Ambedkar, representing the most underdeveloped, servile segment of the 'Indiannation', tried desperatelyto secure for themselves some foothold in the newly emerging power structure. Without Ambedkar's opposition to the mainstream

nationalism, the process of internal consolidationof the Indiannationwouldnot have been carried sufficiently far to help strengthen and broaden the social base of Indian nationalism. For those who refuse to see history as a real world process driven by a complex interaction of a myriad of gradually but continuously evolving socio-cultural, economic, politicalandtechnologicalforces, 'nationalism' cannot be a historically determinedpolitical phenomenon.Forthem 'nationalism'is a static, unchanging'ideal', limits. But in independentof spatiotemporal reality that idealistic conception of 'nationalism'stems from a partisanview of history which may be termedas a sectarian ideology. All this being said is not to imply in any to way thatAmbedkar'sapproach the Indian problemdid not suffer from any limitations. Indeedthere were some basic limitationsof his approachwhich continue to afflict not only the dalit politics but also the national politics to this day. But that can be said of Gandhitoo, who aloneamongthenationalists was able to understand clearly the basic fact of underlying socio-culturaland economic heterogeneityof the emergentIndiannation and, yet did nothing to attack that basic problem.Instead,he chose to do everything possible to create a semblance of Indian unityby offering politicalconcessions to the minorities.Butsuchconsiderations, however importantthey may be, are clearly beyond the purview of this paper. Our central concern is to show that nationalism is not tantamountto a blind worshipof the motherland.It is much more than that. And people like Ambedkar,who nationalmovement opposed the mainstream contributed indirectly towards laying the broadsocial foundationon whichthe present Indian nation state stands. It would be impossible to ignore Ambedkar's role in the complex and protractedprocess of interaction between the mainstream nationalists and their opponents which exercised considerable influence on the developmentof the Indian nationalism through 1930s and 1940s. As a consequence of this vigorous and at times bitter interaction, the nationalistscame to adopta 'wider', moreliberalandprogressive conceptionof freedomthatultimatelyfound its expression in the historic proclamation of theIndianrepublic.True,Ambedkarnever in participated the freedom struggle,in fact he opposed it. But it is also true that his oppositionhelpedto widenthe internal scope of the freedom, thus making it really meaningful for hundreds of thousands oppressed and enslaved people. This is not to deny the existence of a liberalprogressive currentwithin the Congress representedby theCongresssocialistsswearingby theideals

Economic and Political Weekly

March 7, 1998

517

of democratic socialism. But, still, it is rather difficult to believe that their half-hearted commitmentto 'utopian socialism' would havereallyhelpedto transform traditionthe ridden, change-resistant Indian society. Ambedkar'sinterventionwas necessary to bringaboutsome measureof mentalas well as material empowerment of the former untouchables withoutwhichtheywouldhave been unable to assume their rightful place life. Itis important bearin mind innational to thatit was Ambedkar's political challenge whichforcedthe Congress to appreciatethe nationalsignificance of the problem of the scheduled castes and to adopt certain measureswhich in due course, contributed towardsbroadeningand strengtheningthe social base of Indian nationalism. Further the proper understanding of the true of significance thescheduledcastes problem, rendered possible through the abovementioned interaction, was indeed an important consideration influencing Gandhiji'sunhesitantdecision to accede to the requestof the scheduled caste members of the constituentassembly that Ambedkar should be included in independent India's first government. Shourie's assertion that Ambedkar requested Jagjivan Ram to recommendhis name is false. In fact Babu JagjivanRam, then a protege of Rajendra was Prasad, theonly scheduledcaste member of the constituentassembly who had openly that to declined support proposal.Iammaking this categorical statement on the basis of information givenby my uncleR M Nalawade who was a member of the constituent assembly's important steering committee besides being a member of the All-India Congress Committee. According to him NehruandSardar Patel were totallyopposed to consideringof Ambedkar'sname. It was Gandhi, who without any hesitation, welcomedthe idea of including Ambedkar in the governmentsaying that there was no harmin including Ambedkar, for, after all itwasgoingto be a national unitygovernment. It is a pity that the man who was alone responsible for Ambedkar's political at rehabilitation a time when his political influencewas at its nadir is the most hated man among the many who swear by This is again a sad reflection of Ambedkar. our political underdevelopment,and, also, an indicationof the great task before us. Preparingthe Constitutionof a vast and nationlike Indiawas a stupendous divergent task, involving collective efforts of many varied talents. No single person can be considered as its sole creator. However of Shourie'scharacterisation Ambedkaras the rapporteur the constituent assembly of is grossly unfair, unjust and mean. For he was one of the very few who were entrusted thetaskof notmerelycodifying thedecisions madeby the constituentassembly but, also

of deciding carefully whether a particular legal framework being proposed was operationally good enough to allow the realisation of the intended political goal without entailing any other problems, and to propose,if necessary,alternative proposals for the consideration of the constituent assembly. This was undoubtedly very importantwork for which Ambedkarand a few others like Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Besides his role Ayyardeserveourgratitude. in pilotingthe draftconstitutionsuccessfully through the constituent assembly was undisputedly pre-eminent. It is, therefore, necessary to warn those who deriveperversepleasureby denigrating Ambedkarasa Britishlackeyora rapporteur of the constituent assembly that they are doing a greatdisservice to the Indiannation in the name of 'nationalism'.Throughtheir sick, partisanpropagandathey are helping to reactivate the long dormant forces of socio-political reaction,which would if not counteredeffectively, engulf all of us in a cataclysm of communal and casteist fury thatgreat men like Gandhi, Nehruand now almostforgottenPathanleaderAbdulGaffar Khan had peristently and tenaciously struggledto bury by upholdingthe ideal of secular nationalism. Distorting history for narrow, sectarian gains is indeed, an act of treasonagainst the people. Only a sick and wicked mind would attempt to divide people by using the

historian's noble craft to achieve ignoble ends. Still Shourie and his brethrenshould be told that, though India has been greatly influenced by the brahminical cultural traditionit is not a brahminnation. Hence thechancesof theirreactionary socio-political ideology winning overwhelming popular supportare very dim. Even if they manage to secure power by manipulatingpeoples' historically acquired prejudices, they will have to share it with Yadavs, Kanshirams and others. Even if they secure absolute control their excercise of power would be subjectto the vicissitudes of the majorsocial groupsnow very conscious of theirpolitical power potential. Maybe the rise of Yadavs and Kanshirams would not help to effect the much requiredsocio-economic andpolitical which alone can putIndiaon transformation the path of true development and progress. would not But, still Yadavs and Kanshirams allow India to sink into the black hole of reactionarybrahminism.The age of a tiny, microscopicminorityimposingits will upon a vast multitudeof people is over since long. Historycan no longer fail to recordthe long suppressed voice of oppressed people. It is therefore importantto bear in mind that no matter what Shourie writes about Ambedkar,history's verdict will be always on his side; for he chose to upholdthe right to humandignity and to the freedom of the lowest of the lowly, the Hinduuntouchable, against overwhelming odds.

National Institute of Public Finance And Policy New Delhi

Invites applications for the position of HDFC Chair-Professorin Housing and Urban Finance in the pay scale of Rs.4500-150-5700-200-7300 plus allowances as per Institute's rules. The scale is under revision. Qualifications: A creditable academic record with a Ph.D in Economics and specialisationin housing and urban/localfinance with at least 10 years of researchor teachingexperience in this field of specialisation.Applicants having experience in policy-relatedresearchand in developing regulatory frameworksfor urbanutilities and housing will be preferred.Applicants must have to theircredit, publicationsin reputednationaland international journals. Age: Preferablybelow 45 years, but relaxable for deserving candidates. Otherthings being equal, candidatesbelonging to SC/ST will be given preference. Selection may not be confined to those who would apply in response to this advertisement. and Applications indicating qualifications experiencedulysupported true by and Officer, copies of certificates testimonialshouldreachthe Administrative NationalInstituteof Public Financeand Policy, 18/2, SatsangVihar Marg, Area (NearJNU), New Delhi-110067 witkin 15 days of SpecialInstitutional this advertisement.

518

Economic and Political Weekly

March 7, 1998