60 SOCIAL SCIENTIST experience and is further proof that the Statement is a posthumous child of Colonialism". His feigned nationalist concern expresses itself in the demand that "we can hope to build an indigenous science only when such lost sciences and implicit philosophies (traditional science and philosophies of science of the 'common man5) are respectfully articulated by contemporary Indian scholars. No theory of progress negates this principle of basic respect for nonmodern idea systems". Even if we ignore the fact that Nandy's own arguments are drawn largely, if not very faithfully, precisely from men steeped in the "Western experience", one cannot neglect the implications of the stand he is adopting. Modern science is the preserve of the West, which progressed to this position by, respectfully or otherwise, overturning the "non-modern" idea systems that hindered development. This however is not possible for India which must accommodate "non-modern" ideas, of which the eternal nature of social oppression, so confidently upheld by Nandy, is certainly the foremost. Placed in the context of Indian conditions, and the specific conflict of class interests, the two statements, which appear to be irreconcilable at the level of ideas alone, display a surprising compatibility in that both fit into the ideological framework of the ruling classes. For, on the one hand, these classes are interested in utilizing science both for production and the management of socity to the extent that this furthers their interests. But, on the other, their capacity to modernize Indian society while retaining their political and social dominance is severely limited, which leads to the duality in their position. Increasingly, the need to resort to alliance with obscurantism and reactionary socio-political trends offers itself as the best solution to the problem. Within this perspective the Bombay statement can be seen as an idealized, and given the reality of Indian development in the last few decades, nostalgic expression of ruling class interests; Ashis Nandy's counter-statement is an unabashed attempt to legitimize the war against the scientific advance of social life and values unleashed by the bourgeoisie in both the developed and the developing capitalist countries. Abolition of oppression and inequality, and the urge for modernizing society are feasible social goals only when science is allied to the social forces capable of revolutionizing society at the present historical juncture. Hence the question of the spread of the scientific temperament is fundamentally a political question to which there can be no voluntaristic solutions. RAJENDRA PRASAD* 1 The statements along with articles by E M S Namboodinpad and B Chatto-padhyay and explanatory notes by a few of the signatories have been published in Secuttfr Democracy, November 1981. 2 Anil Sadgopal, "Between Question and Clarity", Science Today, October 1981. 4 Geprge de Santi liana. Reflections on Men and Ideas, MIT Press, pp 120 and 133. • * Works on the editorial staff of the People's Democracy.