Page:Advaiti Management.pdf/86

 and cities and their wealth-sharing in the National reconstruction after Independence of India in 1947. In village India property was mainly in Land Ownership. But in towns and cities property holding consisted of various forms. He extended the same principle and called it Sampattidan.

The land could be cultivated largely by Human Labour and even an illiterate farmer could grow food which is a primary necessity of all human beings. Using the assets in the sense of a Trustee was the idea encapsulated in Sampattidan. The idea did not envisage its nationalization. The owner should declare every year what he contributed as Sampattidan. He should use that portion of his property in the normal course but set aside income derived from it for public good. He did not want to take responsibility of using the assets, or generating value-addition. Nor did he want to use the services of government servants for that purpose.

In subsequent years Government of India tried to manufacture welfare through the route of Nationalisation of Life Insurance business, Coal mines,

. General Insurance business, Banking services and several businesses following the Russian model of Socialism and Central Planning. For want of properly motivated and oriented work force this did not materialise in reality.

In my dissertation for my Ph D Thesis in 1979 I had suggested creation of a separate cadre of Managers to function as such Public Trustees. This was suggested immediately after 1976, when preamble of Indian Constitution was amended to add words Socialism and Secularism in it.

The Parliament of India entrusted this Role to Indian Civil Service (ICS, later renamed as IAS) which was created by Britain for running the subcontinent-size Colony for maintenance of Law and order. In this they followed the system they had observed of Mandarins in China. This was a cadre which runs the Multinational Corporations and which is aptly called Techno-structure by Prof J K Galbraith in his book ‘The Industrial State’.

Ultimately the strength and weakness of the giant banks or multinational corporations whose decisions are taken by multinational cadre of managers or their super-structure as a separate entity and it is not based on their ownership stake.

The stake-holders in Nation-state are elected representatives of the people and the techno-structure that runs the multinationals are technically elected by the shareholders but are essentially self-perpetuating oligarchies who wield the underlying power-structure in the giant business corporations in USA or China. It is the approach of these individuals that really decides the fate of their enterprises. What I have narrated in the chapters of this book as becoming the Maha-jan power by the Managers in their day-to-

81 �