The three main articles of the current number provide valuable material for capturing the impact of colonialism and neo-colonialism on the Indian economy. Frank Perlin's paper is noteworthy insofar as it explores a relatively neglected field of study, namely, the circulation of coinage media, to establish that there was a far more vigorous development of commercial capitalism and money economy in pre-colonial India than is usually believed. It does not necessarily follow from this that India would have developed industrial capitalism but for colonial occupation. On the contray her very integration into an international economy increasingly being dominated by European commerce would have affected the trajectory of her development. Colonialism in a sense was thus the culmination of earlier processes; at* the same time it brought about, along with deinduslrialisation, a process of relative demonetisation.
A consequence of deindustrialisation as well as of the oppressive revenue burden was to push the peasantry into acute distress and to spark off a series of peasant rebellions, especially in Bengal which was the first region to come under colonial domination. The fact that these rebellions often had a religious garb should not mislead us into ignoring their true character. A critical recovery of this tradition of resistance is a paramount task of any radical historiography; Atis Dasgupta's paper on Titu Meer's rebellion is an effort in this direction.
Dinesh AbroPs lead article is a systematic exposure of how various US agencies under the guise of collaborative effort, have acquired control over the entire field of agricultural research, education and extension in this country. This control has been utilised for pushing the HYV programme, with its heavy reliance on chemical fertilisers and pesticides, to the neglect of virtually every other scheme for agricultural development. There has consequently becM little research on dry farming practices, on high protein crops like peas and beans, on the incorporation of local germplasm in plant-breeding, on suitable crop rotation patterns to reduce dependence on chemical fertilisers and on biological means as opposed to chemical pesticides. Abrol's paper is both a study of an aspect of the operation of neo-colonialism, as well as a critique of India's agricultural strategy. It throws open interesting possibilities for research into the political economy underlying this aspect of neo-colonial operation. Elsewhere in this issue Amal Sanyal appraises Amartya Sen's critique of "welfarism".
