Consolidation and Rule of the 'Marathas' With the inauguration of the State of Maharashtra in 1960 a new political elite took over the reins. The peasant groups coalesced and fashioned a political bloc under the banner of 'Marathas' now displaced the erstwhile Brahmin and bourgeoisie (Shetji and Bhatji) elements in the Congress party. It was especially through the Samyukta Maharashtra Movement that the forceful expression of these peasant groups got organised first through the PWP and later through the State Congress party. This socially networked peasant group is popularly called as the Maratha- Kunbi caste cluster in the social science discourse. (Lele, 1982) The 'Marathas' ('Maratha' caste cluster) through the Congress party took control of the state and fashioned new channels of political recruitment. They also organised new m6des of distribution of resources. With the ideology of agrarian expansion as the primary developmental model, the Marathas inaugurated several state institutions to fulfil this objective. For instance, the co-operative movement was strengthened through state support, agricultural universities and colleges were inaugurated, animal husbandry and agricultural extension departments were expanded both in tenns of man power and resources and agricultural industrialisation through the inauguration of processing units and agricultural training was part of this vision. (Baviskar, 1980) The formation of State of Maharashtra was not an easy affair. It meant the amalgamation of distinct historical-cultural territories i.e. the former Nizam ruled territory (Marathwada) and the former Central Provinces (Vidarbha) together with the Marathi lingual territories of former Bombay Presidency. This merger meant that new actors got involved in the struggle for power and newer networks were organised. It is in this context that the 'Marathas' of Western Maharashtra seized state power. Lele (1982, 1990) argues that networked groups in other parts of the State and within the Western Maharashtra began to contest the 'Maratha' dominance over state resources. He further posits that the 'Marathas' of Western Maharashtra organised ways to accommodate these contending interest groups through the process of 'patriarchal' (within the 'Maratha' group) and 'partimonial' (with other interest groups). But accomodationism was not 267 enough if the 'Marathas' had to maintain rule over long periods of time. The question then is, how did the 'Marathas' manage to acquiesce other contending social formations? Leie (1982, 1990) argues that it is through hegemony that the 'Marathas' reinforce group solidarity by disseminating the ideology of a 'common' past. It is in this context that Lele (1982, 1990) argues that this hegemony binds the disparate groups called 'Maratha' into a unified political bloc. This bloc according to him constitutes 31% of the total population of the State. Further, he contends that this political bloc is tightly knitted through kin relations, common historical relations, common cultural practices, common memories and experiences. Political scientists such as Palshikar (1994, 1996, 1998, 2002), Vora (1994, 1997, 1999, 2001) and Deshpande (1998, 2004) are informed by this logic. In the post colonial period the field of power was structured through the democratic state in which electoral fortunes determined who would capture power. In this electoral system, one political party became the dominant party i.e. the Congress party. Scholars such as Kothari (1970), Frankel (1990), and Kohli (2001) have examined how power was structured through the 'Congress System'. Lele (1990) has argued that after independence in the bilingual State of Bombay, the Congress party came to be dominated by the scribal group (Brahmin caste as social science scholars term this social group) and the bourgeoisie members. These members were the urban based educated elite and much of the developmental funds of the state were directed towards the growth of the city. It was only aftermath of 1960, that new elite with a peasant mooring took control of the Congress party and the state. With newer opportunities, the upwardly mobile section of this peasant group now contested and bargained with each other to share power. Compromises and accomodationism was adopted as a means to retain and reproduce power. I argue that it is through the social imaginary of the peasantry that the new 'Maratha' elite ensured that alternate networks and groupings were either co-opted or annihilated so that no challenge to the existing order remained. With the repeated success perpetuating power, the notion that 'Maratha' 268 can alone rule became so immanent that it got inscribed in the cognitive schema of the people and was naturalised. , . In this chapter I argue that the 'Marathas' in the post-1960 controlled the field of politics (of power) and through it all the institutions of the state, including the cooperatives, Panchayati Raj institutions, entry into lower and middle level bureaucracy and other government schemes and programmes. Those individuals and groups that had the desirable networks, cultural and symbolic capital gained access to these institutions. This in effect meant suppression of the popular mass based movements of the marginalised sections. The upwardly mobile groups organised themselves on the basis of primordial identities that fiinctioned as cultural and symbolic capital such as caste, kinship, language, region, ethnicity and religion, thereby masking their class interests. The Consolidation of 'Maratha' political power took place under the leadership of Yashwantrao Chavan (the first Chief Minister of Maharashtra). He inaugurated the agenda of agrarian development, which entailed the nature of the field of power, and the specified the species of capital required. This ideology had identified two key institutions that could become the instruments for agrarian growth. These were the cooperatives and the Panchayati Raj. The 'Maratha' elite promoted these insfitutions and the used them to expand their influence. Over time these institufions inter-locked with each other thereby giving enormous power to those who controlled them. Below I examine the growth of the cooperative movement and analyse the expansion of Panchayati Raj, that is district level democracy in Maharashtra and explore how it facilitated the consolidation of the 'Maratha' rule Co-operatives, Congress party and the 'Maratha' elite The co-operative movement in Western India had its origin in the late Nineteenth century through the efforts of social reformers. Nationalist leaders and British officials who endeavoured to improve the economic conditions of the peasant and particularly to decrease his dependence on the rural moneylender. '^"' Co-operative movement in Maharashtra has a long history beginning from the co-operative societies Act, 1904 that was instituted as a safety valve for the peasantry ( a result of the 1875 Deccan riots that 269 witnessed a peasant revolt against the money lending communities). This was followed by the Co-operative Act of 1919 and of 1925. The latter was very comprehensive and it widened the base of the co-operative movement labourers and the low-income peasant groups. It also brought in the non-agricultural labourers and emphasised on raising the standard of living by promoting small industries in the co-operative sector. Its unique feature was adherence to the famous democratic principles of 'one man one vote', which gave a fillip to the progress of the movement. In 1937-38, V.L.Mehta and M.D.Bhansali submitted their report that recommended the reorganization of the co­ operative movement in Bombay Province. As per their recommendations, the basis of the co-operatives was widened and the fields of utilities were widened. (Baviskar, 1980) In the post-independence era, the Congress party came to be progressively represented by the 'Maratha' peasantary that envisioned and charted out a programme of comprehensive rural development. This development was to take place through the expansion of the co-operative sector. As per Sarayya Committee Report (1949), the government of Bombay Province tried to bring more than 50 percent of the villages as well as 30 percent of the rural population within the ambit of the reorganized primary co-operatives. In fact, by 1949-50, Bombay Provinces became the leading province in India in respect of government expenditure incurred on co-operation and the expansion of co-operadve institutions. In 1953 a committee under the leadership of D.R.Gadgil (a leading Congressman and a member of the legislative assembly of Maharashtra) was constituted to suggest measures to revaluate and expand the credit cooperatives across the State. It recommended decentralisation of power and delegation of authority to the co-operatives such that the State level interference decreased. Similarly Gorwala (1960) committee recommended financial aid from the state to co-operatives in its initial stages of establishment so that they could overtime become self sustaining institutions. Further the committee recommended the setting up of bigger as well as self-sufficient cooperative credit societies in areas of 9 to 12 square miles, with a population of four to five thousands. Secondly, the Committee insisted on the distribution of loans to the peasants against their crops instead of their agricultural land. Furthermore, it recommended that the membership of the cooperative societies should be given to all 270 irrespective of their caste creed, religion or language.