13. Passage 1. Read the passage and answer the questions No. 71-76
Three decades of politically guided economic development have failed to alleviate rural poverty in India. This stark fact raises issues which go beyond the o ften discussed one of suitable development policies. The more fundamental question concerns the political conditions under which appropriate strategies, aimed at reconciling "growth with distribution," are likely to be pursued effectively. Given the basic constraints of a democratic polity and a largely capitalist economy in India, what type of regimes can facilitate economic gains by (he lower classes? This article suggests an answer to his question by comparatively analyzing some recent and varying reform experiences in India. As a large federal polity, where states are often ruled by political parties other than that controlling the center, India provides a considerable variety of developmental "models" within one country. Especially between 1977 and 1980, when India was governed by a highly fragmented Janata party, the State governments exercised considerable autonomy. Since, by the Indian constitution, the agrarian sector is under the jurisdiction of the stares, this autonomy was especially significant in rural policies. Communist-ruled West Bengal, Congress-ruled Karnataka, and Janata-ruled Uttar Pradesh, as three of India's more important states, thus provide interesting comparisons of the significance of regime variations for rural reform, allowing us to examine how different patterns of political rule, in similar social structural conditions, affect redistribution policies.
I argue here that, within the general constraints of the democratic-capitalist model of India's development, certain patterns of leadership, ideology, and organization lend to facilitate distribution, while others do not. A well-organized, left-of-center regime, such as that of the communists in West Bengal, could politically penetrate the rural society without being coopted, by the pro pertied groups, enabling the leadership 10 implement a number of redistributive programs. By contrast, a factionalized government dominated by commercial peasant interests in Uttar Pradesh had little success in its efforts to alleviate rural poverty. The case of Karnataka lies in between: here, a government dominated by a populist leader was able to push through limited reforms. These three cases, then, not only highlight the significance of regime-type in alleviating rural poverty, but also allow the delineation of the specific regime features underlying success or failure in redistributive programs.'
(Source: Atul Kohli (1983): "Regime types and poverty reform in India," Pacific Affairs, 56(4), pp.649-50)
Which of the following. according to the author, accountS for differential redistribution policies in Karnataka, UP and West Bengal? (University of Hyderabad MA 2021)