68 SOCIAL SCIENTIST an allegedly popular outlet, accounts for only a small proprotion of the surpluses. Given the nature of the survey, these results are perhaps only to be expected; perhaps a small-scale intensive survey of a more "personalized" form would produce better information. Apart from the question of the unequal distribution of incomes amongst cultivating households, the survey is unable to throw any light on the larger issue of differentiation amongst the lower echelons of the peasantry. While "mention is made of the growing proportion of agricultural labour households, and while the original field survey included landless labour households in the sample, the book limits itself to cultivating households. For a fuller analysis of the "impact55 of the green revolution it is obviously - extremely important to evaluate its implications for wage-labour which comprises at least 33 per cent of the households in agriculture. Although the survey brings to light important information on the small "peasant holding as a unit of production, and though the publication of the data from such a detailed large-scale survey in a book form ^is to be welcomed, it is perhaps reasonable to expect something more than merely a survey report from a bools. In particular, the long lag between publication in book form and the carrying out of the actual field survey (almost nine years; a somewhat abbreviated version was published as a two-part article in the Economic and Political Weekly, May 15 and 22, 1982) would have encouraged one to expect a more detailed comparison of the survey results with those of other surveys in the past, inclusion of information on wage-labour and tenancy and in general an attempt to situate the survey in a rdore dynamic setting. SATISH DESHPANDE Lecturer in Economics, St Stephen's College, Delhi.