2 SOCIAL SCIENTIST K. S. Bhattacharjee, in his piece on Centre-State relations, puts forward two propositions basing himself on certain observations of Marx: first, while political centralisation is in the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rapidity with which it is able to articulate and achieve this demand depends upon its strength and cohesiveness and, secondly, while political cenralisation under bourgeois rule plays initially a progressive role in breaking down localism and feudal ex-clusiveness, it inevitably turns into a weapon in the hands of monopoly capital to suppress the rising struggle of the working class and its allies. He uses these propositions in his attempt to explain some of the changing ideological and practical positions on the question of Centre-State relations in India. Two very different pieces are devoted to questions relevant to women's struggles. Manabendu Chattopadhyay in his note uses the findings of a field survey udertaken in 12 villages in Birbhum district of West Bengal, aprat from a host of secondary data, to argue that male and female labour in Indian agriculture is largely non-substitutable for one another. Usha Menon enters the theoretical controversy regarding the role of household labour under capitalism. While her particular analysis and conclusion may be debatable (and we would welcome a debate on these),there is no gainsaying the importance of the question, since different theoretical positions on this question would obviously give rise to different strategic perspectives for the women's movement. And lastly, the note by Aswini Pal and Arunendu Mukhopa-dhyay, based on a field study covering three districts in West Bengal, is striking for its demonstration that at the official procurement price for wheat nearly 60 per cent of the total holdings would have incurred losses in 1975-76. This is a timely contribution to the on-going debate on the agricultural price policy.