56 SOCIAL SCIENTIST development in any industry or sector of the economy. Secondly, as argued by us elsewhere, there is no way in which income parity can be ensured, short of ensuring fixity of prices in a whole range of not only current inputs into agriculture, but also of all the commodities that would enter into the changing consumption basket of cultivators. This obviously cannot be done in a system where most of the prices are flexible. The same has to said about industry. It is rather strange that the drastic implications of the parity objective have not been recognised so far. If it is accepted that the recommendations of the Agricultural Prices Commission are fair, then one fails to find a justification for the demands by the Kisan Sabha and other peasant organisations for fixing much higher prices. There can, no doubt, be a debate on whether all the costs have been covered or whether all costs have been appropriately determined. It is our view that with the available facts, these suggestions can only result in a marginal adjustment in the prices recommended by the Commission. These cannot add up to the prices demanded by the peasant oiganisations. But a more important question is whether it is tactically correct for a radical peasant movement to make prices the central issue for peasant struggles. The main attraction of this struggle is that it is highly populist and draws into its fold all sections of the peasantry. With the advent of green revolution, almost all categories of farmers (except those operating less than one acre of land) sell a fair amount in the market. Even the deficit farmers who may turn out to be net purchasers have to sell in the market at the harvesting time. With such widespread support from all sections of the peasantry, struggle for higher prices enables the movement to spread its net wide and increase it electoral prospects. The main limitation of this policy is that the agricultural labourers do not support any struggle for higher prices. Consequently such struggles tend to become confined to cultivating peasantry only. Furthermore, the experience so far is that the leadership in all these struggles is assumed by the Kulak lobby of Gharan Singh, Joshi and Pawar rather than by the radical Kisan Sabha. In view of this, it is erroneous to make the price issue the central issue of the peasant movement. Conclusion The peasant movement in India has a glorious tradition of having conducted a relentless struggle against feudal oppression and having played a leading role in the freedom movement. One of the important features of the movement was that it was able to unite the entire working peasantry in this task. It has been argued in the paper that the objective basis of unity between various sections of peasantry has ceased to exist for two main