THE DEBATE ON SCIENTIFIC TEMPER 57 signatories would have us believe is the whole of science; the latter is presumably attributed to the role of prevalent pro- and anti-scientific ideologies, for at one point the statement refers to "deep-rooted structures of an ancient society with super-imposed colonial structures". But this is no explanation at all, for it simply describes a situation in which scientific attitudes have not been socially imbibed. The failure of the statement to come to grips with the question can be understood at two levels. The statement presents a totally ahistorical perspective within which the process of social development is sought to be understood. Social advance and transformation are claimed to be a product of "the spirit of enquiry" while periods of stagnation result from the deadening of this spirit. In what amounts to a reversal of the causal relationships in the historical process, "the spirit of enquiry" acquires an idealized and unrealistic independence from the social forces and interests of which it is in fact the expression. From this position it is but logical that the statement should view socio-historical movements primarily as the vehicles of the battle of ideas and intellectual attitudes, rather than seeing the intellectual ferment as the manifestation of the struggle of different and opposed social interests. The theoretical weakness at ' this level certainly impairs the ability to decipher the significance of both social policy and the direction of social changes. This is evident in the statement's claim that the "deadening of curiosity and questioning" represented our "complete colonisation and subjugation to British imperialism" while it was "the spirit of questioning" that "ultimately overwhelmed an imperial system which seemed so powerful and even immutable". The distorted emphasis on ideas alone, the forcibly fitting in of facts into an impossible categorization results in such blatant absurdities. For while it is correct to assert that British imperialism, product of monopolistic domination at home and aligned with the vested interests in India, encouraged revivalism and obscurantism to suit its interests, it would be a travesty pf truth to claim that the national movement was the outcome of "a critique of traditional society". Such over-simplification makes it impossible to grasp the fact that the national movement witnessed not only struggles against social obscurantism but also conscious compromises with it. Some of its outstanding leaders invoked obscurantist ideas and symbols to mobilize the people. To lose the duality inherent in the ideological tone of the leadership of the national movement, to neglect to identify the class interest which determines this apparent vacillation and "lack of sustained^ interest", is ultimately to lose the capacity to grasp the nature of the drift of policy in post-independence India. Where no attempt is made to indentify the social groups or classes benefiting from the maintenance of the structures of ancient