62 SOCIAL SCIENTIST unitary Indian state and (ii) separation of the various linguistic-cultural groups from India to form independent states. The latter was given a distorted form when the Hindus and Muslims formed themselves into opposing political groups and started fighting within the freedom movement. This culminated in the partition of India, the formation of the Indian Union and Pakistan, on the basis of an acceptance -in practice, though not in theory, of the 'two-nation' concept of the Muslim League. In this general background, the author examines the stand adopted by the Indian Marxists towards the question of nationalities in India. Reference is made to some Soviet academicians, like A M Dyakov, who have made painstaking studies of the question. Note is taken of the serious debate in the Indian Communist movement—in the undivided CPI and subsequently in the CPI (M)—on tlie relevance of the Leninist slogan of self-determination to the point of secession. The amendments made by the CPI (M) to its Programme at the Ninth Congress and other documents of the Party are quoted to prove that Indian Marxists are working for the unity of India under a genuinly federal setup. While assessing the development of the national movement directed against the British colonialists, and the Indian Marxists' approach, the author examines the process through which "regio-nalised communities of culture" developed and "were found in crystallised units immediately before British conquest". Specific mention is made of Maharashtra, Punjab (Sikhs), Assam and Kerala, among the regions where such "communities of culture" were crystallised. Concerning the last, The National Question in Kerala by the present writer, published in 1952, is mentioned to controvert the idea contained in the book that the people of Kerala had begun to develop as "a nation" in pro-British times. "A mere community of culture", the author holds, "should not be mistaken for a nationality or a nation in the making". The above conclusions are in general acceptable- Let us make it particularly clear that the formulations made in the 1952 publication on Kerala do suffer from serious drawbacks. We however desire to point out that Professor Guha's own formulations leave some gaps to be filled and mistakes to be rectified. Professor Guha makes a valid distinction between "regionalised communities of culture" which emerged in pre-British days and the nationalities that have been developing in the struggle against the British rulers. The former do not come under the category of nationalities or nations in the making, since the formation of nationalities is a phenomenon which makes its appearance only along with capitalist development. This however does not answer the relevant question as to why the "regionalised communities of culture" started developing in the