"Culture as a whole way of life" - Are we convinced by Raymond Williams?

In ancient India, the society was divided into four basic classes- the ‘Brahmins’ (scholars), the ‘Kshatriyas’ (the warriors), the ‘Vaishyas’ (traders, manufacturers and merchants) and the ‘Shudras’ (so-called lower class doing menial jobs). Although they were divided in terms of their professions (hereditary) for the sake of convenient classification but it was much more than just occupational; it became an economic base of division leading to social categorization weavingthe political and ‘cultural’ fabric. Had Marx been alive at the time, this would have been an interesting case study for him as this kind of a superstructure did not echo an economic base in the initial setup and thus the cultural genesis in this case must have been something else.
Defining culture has always been a herculean task for the scholars but nonetheless of vital importance because of the exploitative use of the word ‘culture’. Narrowing my area of focus to Britain in the early twentieth century, there was no scholarly analysis on the culture (Pete Anderson made his presence felt too, but none of them were concrete enough in terms of ideas). One of the earliest cultural thinkers was Raymond Williams (1921-88). He was a Welsh academic, critic and novelist. He came from a ‘British working-class background’; his father was a railway signal worker, a trade unionist and a socialist. This might be one of the reasons for Williams’ association with Marxism. The materialist conception of history (Marx) was a great influence on Williams and he went on to study at Cambridge University. He, in his widely read academic works like Culture and Society (1958), The Long Revolution (1961), Problems in Materialism and Culture (1980) and many more, asserted the idea that ‘Culture is Ordinary’ and ‘culture is a whole way of life’ (Williams, R., 1958). Coming from a working class background, he had seen the discriminations made between the ‘high’ and the ‘low’ cultures. He was concerned with the question of culture in the class-based society of England. He attacked the ‘high’ culture saying that it is not comprehensive and is not a reflection of the society as a whole, the way a culture ought to be. Through culture, people and groups identify and define themselves, conform to society's shared values, and contribute to society.
For his idea of ‘cultural democracy’ he broadly used Marxian analysis to illustrate the genesis of culture in a society. To him ‘it is (was) capitalism….which is (was) confusing us’ (Williams, R., 1961, 327). Marx used the concepts of historical and dialectical materialism to provide a clear picture of the world we live in. Williams took this theory further and “…..traced the evolution of culture through its various historical conditions towards a complete form” (Sardar and Van Loon, 1997). He emphasised that in order to understand the holistic nature of culture, the proposition to determine the base and the superstructure became vital. Crucially, he revalued the ‘base’ separately from its traditional economic notion of being restricted to just the ‘relations of production’ to real social and economic relations which make the base dynamic. Williams reviewed all the elements of Marxian analysis such as ‘productive forces’, ‘social consciousness’, ‘class struggle’, added to them the contemporaneous recognition and reproduced it to fit in a superstructural framework for the study of culture. As he says, “…if we fail to see a superstructural element, we fail to recognise reality at all.” (Williams, R., 1980)
He argues that one of the unfortunate consequences of Marxian analysis is that it is so hard to comprehend that people often choose a much easier way such as the ‘totality complex’ theory which takes into account all the human activities such as social intention law, institutions, which affect the culture but without assigning any specific weights to any aspect. He endorsed the views of Antonio Gramsci, the great political philosopher and thinker, on ‘hegemony’ and its complexity. Williams found “this notion of hegemony as deeply saturating the consciousness of a society” to be fundamental (Williams, R., 1980)as it had an obvious advantage over the concept of totality, recognising the class domination over culture and society.
“The theoretical model which I have been trying to work with is this. I would say first that in any society, in any particular period there is a central system of practices, meanings and values, which we can properly call dominant and effective. This implies no presumption about its value. All I am saying is that it is central.”
-(Williams, R., Problems in materialism and Culture, 1980, 38)
The above statement highlights the theme of selective tradition formulated by Williams, according to which, there are certain parts of any culture which are passed off as being traditional or residual and the ‘selectivity’ is that central point from which certain ideas or social practices are excluded. He describes the culture to be ever changing and hence the dominant (central) culture also has to be amended from time to time. His ideas echo a Marxian theme of dialectical materialism when he talks about the old ideologies being discarded for alternative ones (oppositional culture).
Williams imagined a democratised culture in which every individual’s beliefs could shape their mindset and together would shape the culture of the ‘masses’. He argued that ‘there is no such thing as masses, only ways of seeing people as masses’ (Raymond Williams); this was his basis of supporting the statement that culture is extremely dynamic.
Williams had responded to a lot of criticism for his earlier works in his latest book- Problems in Materialism and Culture. His earlier critics noted that his idea of a democratised culture was utopian and that he never explained in any of his works on how he aims to amalgamate the contemporary situation and his own idealised notions. What they did not however understand was that Williams never put forth the theme of a ‘uniform culture’ but a ‘democratic’ one. By this he meant that the culture should not be restricted to the ruling or dominant class and should ‘recognise’ or ‘acknowledge’ the culture and the lifestyles of the proletarian class. The study of culture could no longer be reduced to an aesthetic or moral question but involved a ‘whole way of life’, a complex, lived-in ‘structure of feelings’. (Chambers, I., 1986, on Raymond Williams).
What I particularly noticed in his writing is that he acknowledged that unfortunately just like when in capitalism, a non-profit making entity is overlooked till the time it starts making losses, even certain human practices outside or against the conscious dominant form of culture exist only till the time the interests of the ruling class are served or rather, not opposed. If the stakes are too high, new ‘traditions’ will emerge out of the ‘central point’ which will minimize the effects of the emerging struggling culture.Williams immersed himself so much in Marxian analysis that it was the only framework he could set things in. He could not build his own crucible which could encompass and withstand all the heated culture-debates. So, although his reasoning was quite scientific and his last work mostly satisfied his critics, the lack of originality remains prominent. In this essay, on the basis of Gramscian view, I noted the role of state in forming the social and economic relations in a society. The state, according to this view, is the ‘site of a permanent struggle to conform…. the whole complex of social relations, including those of civil society, to the imperatives of development in a social formation.’ (Hall, S., 1986).
Conclusion
To summarise my essay, I would highlight its key objectives which were- first, to give evidence of how Raymond Williams supported his views on culture as ‘a whole way of life’ and second, to rate his reasoning. On focusing on the former, we see a prominent presence of Marxian analysis, which he used to support his view. I have given examples of how he supported his arguments with the concept of materialism and class-struggle. He explained the earlier seeming follies in his later works and thus made his theory clearer. When I considered the second part, it was not an innocent exercise to critically examine his reasoning because the culture-studies is a complex subject which is not dependent on ‘definite’ elements, but I constantly searched for his views on the role of state in the society. Being restricted to Marxist thought, he could not analyse the state’s role in isolation and thus, lost a very crucial study theme. This drawback also led to exclusion of the ‘emerging capitalist culture-industry’ from the subject in question. The contemporary popular culture is fed to the media audience by the ‘providers’ in the industry who control the content and project a tempting illusion of media-democratisation.It makes people believe that they can actually be a part of controlling the content meted out to them. It would be interesting to discern how Raymond Williams would perceive Lady Gaga or issues of Social Networking Sites like Facebook! Or perhaps this is what he had idealised- a world free of prejudices between ‘high’ and ‘low’ cultures. My only question is- how would he explain the emergence of capitalistic media content providers? Will he totally condemn their presence, keeping in mind his Marxian mental background? We would know, only if he were to be alive today. The research, meanwhile, continues.

References
1. Bennett, T., Colin, M., et al., (1986) Popular Culture and Social Relations, Philadelphia: Open University Press

2. Chambers, I. (1986) Popular Culture- the metropolitan experience, London: Methuen
3. Sardar, Z., Borin, V.L., (1997) Cultural Studies for Beginners, Cambridge: Icon Books

4. Williams, R. (1980) Problems in Materialism and Culture,Chapter 2,London: Redwood Burn Ltd.

5. Marx, K. (1859) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Neoliberal policy of privatisation in India- supporting development?

1. INTRODUCTION

The gigantic economic growth of India over the last two decades has been much talked about and analysed. It has been surprising for many because its image reflecting orientalism, orthodoxy and thus, resistant to any kind of change. Much has been written about the dynamics of this rise of India and its placement and recognition on the world map. After the advent of the New Economic Policy (1991), the overall “rate of economic ‘growth’ (of the Gross Domestic Product) of the country as a whole has somewhat speeded up in the 1990s in comparison with the 1980s” (Dreze & Sen, 2002, p. 317). The GDP growth rate of India rose from 3.7% (1950-60) to 6.0% (1990-2000) to 8.2% (2011-12), which is substantially high (source: government of India’s Economic Outlook report, p.20). The economic policy of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation has altered the Indian economic and social landscape.
“Privatization of public enterprises has generated much debate; developing economies, which had previously opted for planning as a strategy and system for national socio-economic development. Under the Five Year Plans, the Indian state took upon herself the responsibility to undertake investments in basic and strategic economic activities and to control and direct private sector through a network of regulatory institutions. After pursuance of planned development for nearly half a century, a stage was reached when questions were raised about the relevance and the need to continue the planned development strategy. There is an ideological position that asserts to ‘end all direct and indirect state interventions in the economy’. The state should, according to this viewpoint, roll back and occupy the minimum possible space. The market forces instead of the arbitrary decisions undertaken by bureaucrats and politicians should decide all economic decisions. The contrary viewpoint is that since the Indian economy is ridden with extreme disparities in incomes, wealth and consumption, macroeconomic decisions cannot be left to the operation of the free market system. Third World economies suffer from so many socio-economic limitations that it is obligatory on part of the state to operate from the ‘commanding heights’ and aim at the highest level of socio-economic good for the largest numbers.”
(Goyal, 2009, p. 1)
In this essay, India would be considered as a case of developing country, given its categorisation as a country with medium level of human development and its HDI ranking as 134 out of 193 countries. The HDI is computed to be 0.547

[source 1="(United" 2="Nations" 3="Development" 4="Programme," 5="2011)" language="website:"][/source]

. The discussion would be introduced with India as a developing country followed by an explanation of the concept and context of ‘development’ in this essay. Keeping this background in mind, we shall move to the new economic policy of India and its features, narrowing it down to privatisation. After looking at the advent and spread of privatisation in India, there will be a critical analysis of its effect on development, followed by a conclusion and future prospects of privatisation as a probable causal factor of development in India.

1.1. INDIA AS A DEVELOPING COUNTRY

India was traditionally an agrarian economy with agricultural sector being the prime employer too. during the British Raj (British-rule) from 1858 to1947, it started developing a few industries of prime importance such as iron and steel industry, railways, postal services and a few manufacturing units. This epoch marked the beginning of industrialisation in India. Owing to colonial restrictions, none of the sectors of the economy could optimally grow, until 1991. Despite all the glossy representations of India’s economic prosperity, social progress leaves much to be desired. The ‘development’ levels according to any of the development indices (accepted internationally) are abysmally low in the country.
“Despite a booming economy and a $9 Billion jobs programme, India ranks poorly on the poverty indicators- 41.6% of the country’s population lives below US $1.25 per day.” (Report, 2005, p. 28). It ranks 45th on the Global Hunger Index among 29 leading countries with hunger crisis and the country has one third of the world’s poor. It lags behind China, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, its neighbours. (international food policy research institute, 2011)
So, in this regard, evidently India can be classified as a developing country as opposed to a developed one.
1.2 CONCEPT AND CONTEXT OF ‘DEVELOPMENT’
Development is defined by Mahbub ul Haq (1934-1998), the father of Human Development Report of the United Nations, as follows:
"The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's choices. In principle, these choices can be infinite and can change over time. People often value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and sense of participation in community activities. The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives."
This definition is not ultimate and the idea of development in itself is highly contested because of its nature. It is a term which encompasses almost all aspects of life and is the overlapping concern of every field of study. Similar approach is given by Amartya Sen for understanding development (Dreze & Sen, 2002). It should be understood that there is a distinction between ‘growth’ and ‘development’. It would be misleading and dangerous to equate the two concepts. A country which is economically prosperous “may fare poorly on some of the commonsense indicators of development, such as literacy, access to drinking water, low rates of infant mortality, life expectancy” (Ray, 1998, p. 25), poverty, employment, inequality and so on. So, contrary to the ‘GDP as a measuring rod’ (Dasgupta, 2007, p. 30) for development, a more holistic view of the concept must be understood.
Since it is beyond the scope of this essay to consider the impact of privatisation on the development as a whole, I am considering the main development indicator to be HDI (Human Development Index), which is the universally accepted measure of Human Development. There are of course other measures like the Inequality index, Happy Planet index, Gender inequality index, Global Hunger Index and so on but they all cover specific parts and not a totalistic view. Human Development Index was devised by Mahbub ul Haq in 1990. The UNDP adopted this measure to measure development levels across nations. It is a mathematical value and the organisation defines it as follows:
“The education component of the HDI is measured by gross enrolment ratio and expected years of schooling. The life expectancy at birth is the second component of the HDI. For the wealth component, GDP per capita is considered. The scores for the three HDI dimension indices are then aggregated into a composite index using geometric mean.”
Source website: (United Nations Development Programme, 2011)
The value of HDI for any country lies between the value of 0 and 1. For India, the value is 0.547 and its rank is 134 according to the latest Human Development Report. On a careful absolute and comparative analysis, it has not changed much since last two decades.
So, in the essay, although HDI would be an indication of the level of development in India, we would also be looking at development in general- instances of poverty and underdevelopment.

2. INDIAN ECONOMY AND THE ADVENT OF THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY 1991
India was traditional an agrarian economy i.e. - based on agriculture. During the British Raj (colony rule), there was a shift towards industrialisation, at least in the basic heavy industries like iron & steel industry, textiles industry, railways and so on. According to Leon Trotsky’s “law of uneven development, the wealth and power of the great powers is maintained only by the exploitation and impoverishment of the colonies. In their search for sources of cheap labour and raw materials, the imperialist powers distort and stunt the development of culture in the colonies. These colonies do not simply “lag behind”, but rather their development is the “other side of the coin” of the advanced conditions enjoyed in the great powers. The law of combined development flows directly from that of uneven development: while blocking their normal development, the imperialist powers introduce into the dominated countries the most advanced techniques and relations of production, side by side with the most primitive” (Hymer, 1972, p. 38). This was exactly what happened in the Indian context. But even after independence, entrepreneurship in India was a challenging task as the licensing was in the government and it was extremely difficult to accumulate capital and other resources (which again was government owned), which was needed to enter into the market as a manufacturer. The services sector was not as what it is today. The IT sector only boomed in the 1990s, after coming of the New Economic Policy in India (1991) consisting of major neo-liberal reforms.
A senior research analyst at the Institute of International Trade, India summarized the reforms- ‘The 1991 Balance of Payment (BOP) crisis was the “tipping point” in India’s economic history. India was forced to procure $1.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The bailout wounded India’s pride and thwarted the country’s policies of “self-sufficiency”. India’s policy failures were now glaring across the Indian policymakers and the world. In response to the crisis, the government immediately introduced stabilization measures to reduce the fiscal deficit. Fiscal tightening and devaluation of the rupee by 25% adequately reduced the current account deficit. Though the foreign exchange reserve recovered quickly and ended effectively the temporary clout of the IMF and the World Bank, reforms continued in a stop-go fashion. The government has since initiated a reversal of the historic policies of regulation and government intervention. The economic liberation reform, initiated by Dr. Manmohan Singh in 1991, is considered to be one of the milestones of Indian economic reform as it changed the market and financial scenario of the country. Foreign Direct Investment was encouraged, public monopolies were stopped, and service and tertiary sectors were developed. It was not until 1991 that the government signaled a systematic shift to a more open economy with greater reliance upon market forces, a larger role for the private sector including foreign investment, and a restructuring of the role of the government. In the 10 year period from 1992-93to 2001-02, the average growth rate of the country was around 6%, which puts India amongst the fastest growing developing economies of the 1990’.
Source: (Diwan, 2011, p. 5)
Broadly the new reforms consisted of the LPG policy- Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation.
Dr. Ajay Verma provides a rationale for privatisation in India:
“One basic rationale for privatisation in the concept that private ownership leads to better use of resources and their more efficient allocation. Throughout the world, the preference for market economy received a boost after it was realized that the State could no longer meet the growing demands of the economy and the State share holding inevitably had to come down. The ‘State in business’ argument thus lost out and so did the presumption that direct and comprehensive control over the economic life of citizen from the Central government can deliver results better than those of a more liberal system that directly responds according to the market driven forces. Another reason for adoption for privatization policy around the globe gas been the inability of the Governments to raise high taxes, pursue deficit / inflationary financing and the development of money markets and private entrepreneurship. Further, technology and W.T.O. commitments have made the world a global village and unless industries, including PSEs do not quickly restructure, they would not be able to survive. Public enterprises, because of the nature of their ownership, can restructure slowly and hence the logic of privatisation gets stronger. Besides, techniques are now available to control public monopolies by regulation/competition and investment of public money to ensure protection of consumer interests is no longer a convincing argument”
(Verma, 2009, p. 2)
Professor S.K. Goyal, (Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi) explains privatisation: “Privatization, in its broader sense, stands for policies to reduce the role of the state, assign larger role for the private sector pursuing the logic of the market in all economic decisions. Viewed in this perspective departure from the policy of reservations of certain economic activities for exclusive development by the public sector (de-reservation) implies a reduction in the relative position of the state sector and larger role for the private sector. The entry of new private sector enterprises could introduce competition where public sector enjoyed monopoly. The existing public enterprises (PSEs) would be forced to go commercial and respond to the market discipline. The de-reservation process has sometimes been described as ‘Parallelization’ in the privatization framework. Privatization is also witnessed when governments take a decision to reduce their obligations to regulate and direct the behaviour of private actors in the economy. Pursuance of deregulation policies is aimed to make the restrictive regulatory system less important. In India, deregulation would imply loosening such statutes like the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 (IDRA), Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, (MRTPA), Foreign Exchange regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), Capital Issues Control and technical scrutiny by the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD)”.
Privatisation, however, is most often associated with transfer of public sector enterprises and services to private ownership, management and control. The privatization process for public enterprises can involve steps ranging from dilution of state-held equity, to adoption of practices like franchising, award of lease and management contracts, sub-contracting of select activities and tasks, down-sizing of workforce, and changes in the process of decision-making even without change in ownership, so that business decisions are guided by market and commercial principles of profit maximisation than vague societal concerns.”
Privatization in India has been carried out in several stages; such as, deregulation, de-reservation, privatisation and disinvestment.
3. THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OFTHE NEO-LIBERAL POLICY OF PRIVATISATION
Privatisation in simple terms means- to partially or wholly sell government equity to a private party. There are broader theories on privatisation and one of them is as follows:
“By privatisation we mean a combination of two changes undertaken by a reformer. The first is turnover of control from spending politicians to managers, often referred to as corporatisation. The second change that is usually part of most privatisations is the reduction of the cash flow ownership by the Treasury and the increase of cash flow ownership of managers and outside shareholders. The Treasury can sell its shares for cash, or it can give them away through vouchers or some other allocation scheme” (Boycko, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1996, p. 21). It is very evident that privatisation is a hard-core neo-liberal policy of capitalism. Philosophers like Heilbroner have looked at capitalism as a regime, as a “social order whose organising principle is the ceaseless accumulation of capital cannot be understood without some appreciation of the historic changes that bring about its appearance” (Heilbroner, 1987). He further explains the expansion of capitalistic regime- “….transfer or the organisation and control of production from the imperial and aristocratic strata of pre-capitalist states into the hands of mercantile elements” and goes on to illustrate how the neo-liberal policies are becoming threatening for the position of state ‘under the garb of free market economics’ (Heilbroner, 1987, p. 41).
Neo-liberal policies are often accused of diminishing the self-sufficiency of a country, especially in relevance to developing countries. As Vakulabharanam (2009) noted that “the neo-liberal regime ensured that the supported non-capitalist institutions such as families, state, and community structures in otherwise largely capitalist social formations were all wrenched open and destroyed….any stable phase of capitalist accumulation witnesses a stable but unequal relationship between the capitalist and non-capitalist institutions in a social formation”.
4. DID PRIVATISATION REALLY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA?

Before the LPG reforms, there were 17 major industries which did not allow for the private players to enter including- Arms and ammunition and allied items of defence equipments, defence aircraft and warships, Atomic energy, Iron and steel, Heavy castings and forgings of iron and Steel, Heavy plant and machinery required for iron and steel production, for mining, for machine tool manufacture, Heavy electrical plant including large hydraulic and steam turbines, Coal and lignite and others. After the reforms, only 8 could make it to the same list. All the sectors which were privatised are doing extremely well, especially the telecom sector which now ranks 3rd in the world in terms of network size.
The government website of the telecom sector reflects on its growth and developmental achievements:
“Efforts are being continuously made to develop affordable technology for masses. Emphasis is being given to technologies having potential to improve rural connectivity. Also to beef up R&D infrastructure in the telecom sector and bridge the digital divide, cellular operators, top academic institutes and the Government of India together set up the Telecom Centres of Excellence (COEs). Their development measures are as follows-
Secure Information Infrastructure that is vital for country’s security, Capacity Building through Knowledge for a sustained ‘growth’, Support Planned Predictive Growth for stability, Reduce Rural Urban Digital Divide to reach out to masses, Utilize available talent pool and create environment for innovation and Management of National Information Infrastructure (NII) during Disaster, An expanding Indian economy with increased focus on the services sector, Population mix moving favorably towards a younger age profile, Urbanization with increasing incomes..”
(indian telecom sector)
Now, if we consider the components of HDI and transpose the effect of privatisation on it, we see that in the terms of education and health, privatisation has pushed its way through and a unforeseen surge of private health and educational institutions has emerged.
There have been higher education colleges in huge numbers which have provided the people with skilled knowledge and have prepared them for industries. But the statistics show that rural to urban privatised schools “ratio is 2/25 i.e., for every 2 private educational institutions in villages, there are 25 urban ones”

[source 1="Sixth" 2="All" 3="India" 4="Education" 5="Surveys" 6="(NCERT," 7="1998)" language=":"][/source]

. Thus, the privatisation in this sector is still nascent and has penetrated only higher education sector as the profit-making can occur only in the case of technical colleges. They did not venture much into primary education which is left for the government to look after and even in the cases where private schools do exist, they are mostly backed by the government

[source 1="(Govt" 2="backs" 3="private" 4="schools," 5="2007)" language=":"][/source]

.
There is a similar case in the health sector.
“The private health sector in India is the most dominant sector in terms of financing and utilization of health services. There has been a tremendous amount of growth in physical size, investments, expenditures and utilization. The share of the private health sector is around 4 % of the Gross Domestic Product as compared to the government spending which is around 1 %. The share of the private health sector at today's prices works out to between $ 4,571 million and $ 5,714 million per year”
(Nandraj, 1997, p. 2)
But even today, before the privatisation of insurance sector, hospitals were a far reach for the masses in India. Privatisation of Insurance sector has raised the standard of living of people by providing them with security and stability and it has done very well.
There are numerous other examples of privatisation leading to economic growth and growth trickling down to the citizens but as I had discussed in the essay before- growth does not always lead to development. As I had mentioned before, there has been no recognizable change in the HDI values of India since these neo-liberal reforms. It appears as a heavily polished and manicured concept which brings about growth, evidently, but does not transform it into development.
Privatisation has reduced social security which came about with Public Sector Units. The nine major PSUs, called the navratnas, are doing better than their private counterparts. One should not forget that the ultimate aim of capitalist private units is to maximize profit. Their aim is not to bring about development by providing employment and reducing poverty. Whatever development has taken place because of these reforms has been short-lived and a need for state intervention is being felt again. Is private and corporate the main sector for development as many lobbyists of neo-liberalism have pointed out? R. Nagaraj analyses the much hyped services sector growth of the 1990s and his research led to “skepticism which somehow muddies the picture of the recent growth significantly enough to cast doubt on the optimistic scenarios portrayed” (Nagaraj, FDI in India in the 1990s, p. 61).
5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

There have been more severe criticisms against Public Sector Units of lacking market discipline, lack of competitive production, corruption and many more. Privatisation has changed the economy for good, which is easy to establish if see the India now and compare it with previous decades. But this growth should not be expected to trickle down to the poor, more than 41% of the Indian population. Paul A. Baran, a Marxist, stresses on the fact that “..only a large-scale enterprise would be in a position to finance the outlays called for by modern technology…only big business could afford to maintain the research facilities that are indispensable for the advance of technology” and although this growth of large private firms, of monopoly and in some cases, oligopoly, owing to neo-liberal reforms was “a progressive phenomenon furthering the advance of productivity and science, the very same phenomenon tends to turn economically, socially, culturally, and politically into a retrograde force hindering and perverting further development” (Baran, 1957, p. 95). I conclude by saying that privatisation should not be reversed because it has boosted the economy and brought about changes which have provided the PSUs with an example of professionalism and competitiveness but it should not be expected to play the role of mediator-for-welfare. That would against the principles of its neo-liberal foundations.
REFERENCES

1. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/13709734/New-Economic-Policy-1991
2. Baran, P. A. (1957). The Political Economy of Growth. pelican edition.
3. Bhagwati, J., & Desai, P. (1970). India:Planning for Industrialisation. OUP.
4. Boycko, M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. w. (1996). A Theory of Privatisation. the economic journal , 309-319.
5. Chakravarty, P. (2007). Implementaion of Employment Guarantee:A prelimnary Appraisal. EPW .
6. Chakravarty, S. (1987). Development Planning:The Indian Experience. Clarendon Press.
7. Chand, K., Raju, S., & Pandey, L. (2007). Growth crisis in agriculture-severity and options at national and state levels. EPW .
8. Dasgupta, P. (2007). Economics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
9. Diwan, S. (2011). Retrieved january 2012, 2012, from http://www.slideshare.net/shradha29/two-decades-of-economic-reform-in-india#
10. dreze, j., & sen, a. (2002). India: development and participation. OUP.
11. Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and Participation. OUP.
12. Govt backs private schools. (2007, september 29). express india . ahmedabad, gujarat, india: express india.
13. Goyal, S. K. (n.d.). Privatisation in India. Retrieved january 10, 2012, from ilo.org: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/paper/privatize/chap3-1.pdf
14. Heilbroner, R. L. (1987). Behind the Veil of Economcis: Essays in the wordly philosophy. new york, london: w.w. norton & company.
15. Hymer, S. (1972). the multinational corporation and the law of uneven dvelopment. In J. Bhagwati, economics and world order fom the 1970s to the 1990s (pp. 113-40). collier-macmillan.
16. indian telecom sector. (n.d.). Retrieved january 10, 2012, from http://www.dot.gov.in/osp/Brochure/Brochure.htm
17. international food policy research institute. (2011). Retrieved january 9, 2012, from http://www.ifpri.org/publication/2010-global-hunger-index
18. Mohan, R. (2008). Growth of indian economy.1950-2008. A story of sustained savings and investment. EPW .
19. Nagaraj, R. (n.d.). FDI in India in the 1990s. EPW .
20. Nagaraj, R. (n.d.). India's recent Economic Growth:A closer look. EPW .
21. Nagaraj, R. (n.d.). Industrial policy and performance since 1980. EPW .
22. Nandraj, S. (1997). UNHEALTHY PRESCRIPTIONS: THE NEED FOR HEALTH SECTOR REFORM IN INDIA. Informing Reforming, The Newsletter of the International Clearing house of Health System Reform Initiatives ICHSRI , 7-11.
23. Nayak, P. (2008). Privatisation. In K. Basu, The Oxford companion to Economics in India. OUP.
24. Ray, D. (1998). Development Economics. Princeton University Press.
25. Report, W. B. (2005). Retrieved january 9, 2012, from http://www.riazhaq.com/2011/05/world-bank-on-poverty-across-india-in.html
26. Roy, T. (2005). Rethinking economic change in india. Routledge.
27. Roy, T. (2005). Rethinking Economic Change in India. Routledge.
28. Srinivasan, T. Eight lectures on India's economic reforms. OUP.
29. Srinivasan, T., & Tendulkar, S. (2003). Reintegrating India With The World Economy. OUP.
30. Starr, P. (1988). The Meaning of Privatization. Retrieved january 9, 2012, from http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/meaning.html
31. United Nations Development Programme. (2011). Human Development Report. United Nations.
32. Vakulabharanam, Vamsi (2009), The Recent Crisis in Global Capitalism: Towards a Marxian Understanding, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLIV no. 13: p. 144-150.
33. Verma, D. A. (2009). Disinvestment process in india. international research journal (shodh, samiksha aur mulyankan) , 755-757