2 SOCIAL SCIENTIST writings of Keynes himself, who was much more alive to this reality. What Keynes advocated, and what Keynesian measures achieved, is a 'controlled inflation' as an instrument for squeezing real wages and boosting profitability with the object of inducing capitalists to maintain a high level of activity. Keynesian measures represented not so much an onslaught on financial interests, which under monopoly capitalism in any case 'coalesce' with industrial interests as Lenin had pointed out, as an indirect onslaught on the workers' real wages. Once the workers begin to resist this, 'controlled inflation' becomes uncontrolled inflation and finance capital switches to monetarism with the aim of recreating a massive reserve army to beat down the workers'resistance. Thus the crisis is an organic outgrowth of the pursuit of Keynesian measures, and monetarism can at best alleviate only one component of it, inflation, by sharply accentuating another component, unemployment. In the ultimate analysis both Keynes-ianism and monetarism prove to be utterly bankrupt in ridding capitalism of crisis. SanyaPs theme is an extremely important one and we would welcome a discussion of this theme in the pages of this journal. Monetarism constitutes of course an important component of the package of so-called 'liberalisation' measures dictated by the IMF to the borrowing countries of the Third World. The disastrous economic consequences of adopting this package are detailed in B Uday Shankar's piece on the Indian economy. A serious recession is engulfing the economy while inflation continues unabated, and subsidies, which provide some cushion to the people, are being cut. Yet the balance of payments crisis, which this package is primarily aimed at curbing, is getting sharply accentuated precisely because of it. At the Sc.mc time to sustain this 'liberal' onslaught on the people and to break down their resistance, a number of authoritarian measures are being enacted, of which the two recent bills—the Bihar Press Bill and the Hospitals and Other Institutions Bill—discussed in two separate notes in this number, constitute but two glaring examples. Economic 'liberalism', whether or not it promotes exports or growth, is necessarily accompanied by political authoritarianism. Princy Dharmaratne's note looking at some other so-called 'liberalised' economies should be quite instructive in this context. Sudatta Sikdar's piece provides an account both of the transformation of the economy of the Arunachal tribes under the impact of colonialism as well as of the complex play of motives underlying the activities of the colonial government. Finally, this number canies an important communication. E M S Namboodiripad dwells on the complex question of the link between capitalism and the formation of nationalities. The communication raises basic theoretical points which need to be discussed and debated. We hope this would stimulate discussion.