You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Zilla Parishad Presidents in Karnataka: Their Social Background and Implications for Development
Amal Ray and Jayalakshmi Kumpatla
Economic and Political Weekly
Vol. 22, No. 42/43 (Oct. 17-24, 1987), pp. 1825-1827+1829-1830
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4377639
Page Count: 5
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Political power, Graduates, Local government, Democratic authority, Muslims, Tenants, Community structure, State government, Poverty, Tribunals
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The paper reports on the newly emergent leadership structure of the zilla parishads by focusing on the social background of the adhyakshas (presidents). The caste composition of the local government leadership does not seem to have significantly changed. The two dominant landowning castes, the lingayats and the vokkaligas, dominate as in the past, while the non-dominant backward castes have been able to maintain their strength, however insignificant compared to their shares in the state's population. When, however, the totality of the resources which generally make up the political capacity of an adhyaksha is considered, the hold of the major castes in the governance of the zilla parishads is likely to be enormous. In the absence of the Janata government's will and ability to break the stranglehold of 'semi-feudalism' in the countryside of Karnataka, the newly created powerful system of democratic decentralisation is unlikely to create substantial gains for the rural poor.
Economic and Political Weekly © 1987 Economic and Political Weekly