Articles by Sharad Kulkarni

her effort, but also of the judicial officer's impatience with her evident lack of a sense or that august institution's notion of relevance and irrelevance. And yet she had no reason to worry about the consequences, for she had deftly left enough unsaid to have her excuses ready in case inspector Mogilaiah were to pay her home a visit later in the week. It was a task that would have daunted a lesser person, but this illiterate peasant woman handled it with dexterity, and left asking the civil liberties people whether "it came out all right".

IT is often said that in the case of the government of India the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. It now appears that in (he case of forest development the right hand is undoing what the left hand is trying to do. It is reported that the prime minister, while addressing a conference on Panchayat Raj and Tribal Communities, announced that a committee will be appointed to consider the Forest (Conservation)Act of 1980 and the recent amendment to the same made in 1988. It is surprising to note that a resolution on National Forest Policy was also passed by Rajya Sabha in December 1988. One is surprised to find a difference in approach between the two measures. After independence the government of India adopted the National Forest Policy Resolution on May 12,1952. It was stated that the National Forest Policy should be based on paramount national needs that were listed as follows:

MAHARASHTRA Adivasis, Law and Social Justice Sharad Kulkarni THE Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act is a unique piece of legislation as an attempt to extend social justice through the resotration of legally alienated lands to Adivasis in the state. The Act, like every attempt at social justice, was challenged in the courts. Some social scien tists described it as an attempt to weaken the foundations of democracy. The Bill took a long time to receive the President's assent.

October 16, 1982 gimes that are repressive, corrupt and authoritarian. Sound prudential reasons might prevent the management institutes located in these countries from referring to the nature of these regimes. but it is irresponsible to pretend that people-centered planning or participatory development could emerge on any significant scale in such political climates, if only local level vested interests could be handled or overcome by creative and committed bureaucrats. Even under the somewhat more favourable circumstances of India, J K Satia points out in his paper that the generally low performance of officials in IIMA's Jawaja project area was inter alia traced to "fear of possible political renercussions if the resulting actions should run counter to the interests of powerful economic and political groups in the district". A part of the problem is that the management approach seeks to arrive at its "concepts and technologies" for "development management" drawing upon its experience with enterprise management, This process ignores some basic differences. To the enterprise manager, the political system and its functioning are externalities or "the environment" which is to be lived with or manipulated in the pursuit of the interests of the enterprise. On the other hand, politics is thoroughly internal to development; the development manager cannot manipulate it but is rather manipulated by it. In this situation, the kind of prescriptions that the study is able to come up with only confirm Karl Mannheim's well known observation that the fundamental tendency of all bureaucratic thought is turn all problems of politics into problems of administration.