2 SOCIAL SCIENTIST logic of the situation forced fhem into that role. And it is the logic of the situation which has ranged U S imperialism against the popular democratic struggle in El Salvador. The U S objective is not confined to El Salvador alone; it is to "roll back" the revolutionary tide in the entire Central America. Apart from stepping up military "aid55 and sending in thousands of military ('advisers'? to El Salvador, it has got neighbouring Honduras to undertake aggressive attacks on Nicaragua and has even ordered a naval blockade of Nicaragua. As the war in Central America intensifies, it becomes imperative for people everywhere to unerstand the situation there and to extend their support to the fighting people of Central America. To familiarise our readers with the struggle of the Salvadoran people, we had published a short article in Social Scientist (No 105). With the same objective we publish a long article by Susan Ram as the lead article of the current number. The editorial note of the last number of Social Scientist had mentioned the ongoing debate on the change in agrarian relations in India since independence and dtawrup^tAcuiar attention to two distinct positions in this debate. Our idea was to publish two papers, ea'ch articulating explicitly or implicitly a particular position. We regret however that for reasons of space both could not be included in the last number and one had to be held over. This article by G S Bhalla which was held over is being published in the current number. It explicitly takes a position on the changing agrarian relations in the country which is quite distinct from the position underlying Utsa Patnaik's article in the last number. Though the two papers were written independently of one another, each for a particular occasion, between them they should give a flavour of the debate on agrarian relations and the nature of post-independence agrarian reforms to our readers. Harbans Mukhia's article on Indian historiography has a jrele-vance wider than its title suggests. Not only the imperialist and communal historians, but even the nationalist Historians, all, according to Mukhia, thought in terms of communal categories, despite their widely different objectives. The former emphasised communal conflict while the latter emphasised communal harmony; but they shared the same perception of society as being constituted by groups with separate communal identities. This commonness of perception however was not confined only to historians; both the Congress and the Muslim League, despite their divergent positions, shared the common .perception of two separate communities, and this in practice affected adversely the fight against communlism. The paper does not explore the material roots of this commonness of perception; nevertheless the issues it raises are important and deserve further discussion and debate.