LAND REFORMS IN KARNATAKA 77 lays emphasis on the phenomenon pf "dominant class tenancy", where small landholders lacking the means to cultivate their own holdings lease it out to larger farmers. Unlike land relations^ the pattern of rural indebtedness and the nature of credit relations show, according to the author, "broad uniformity through the different regions of the state", the^ source of credit most commonly being either landlords of other "agriculturist moneylenders". Pani places great emphasis on the role of the rural credit system—particularly, that of loans to meet consumption expenditure— in defining the structure of class domination. Arguing that since most loans are of a short duration of 1 to 3 years and given on personal security, the rural credit system acts as a basis of economic coercion, linking the dominant class—which is constituted functionally by either landlords or "dominant class tenants"—with agricultural labourers and poor peasants. The amendment to the land reforms legislation in Karnataka given effect to in 1974, constituted a drastic overhauling of the earlier legislation and in the opinion of the author its effective purpose was to bring "about changes in favour of the already dominant classes". The 1974 amendment, amongst other things, removed the exemption earlier enjoyed by small landholders. As a consequence, the land transferred from small landholders to (presumably) large farmers, accounted for as much as 33 per cent of the transfers and 26 per cent of the total acreage involved. The amendment also introduced a new measure of area for purposes of the land ceiling, which gave a tremendous concession to private investment and capitalist farming. Land irrigated by privately owned pumpsets—even if the source was government canals— enjoyed a 60-150 per cent higher land ceiling than that irrigated by government tanks/canals. This singular piece of legislation could have no other possible motive but to provide protection to large holdings with some investment in fixed capital. In contrast, the implementation of the land ceiling legislation was abysmal in the 'Southern' and 'Malnad' regions, but somewhat better in the 'Northern9 region. Pani, commenting on the political organisations involved in the state's meagre record of agrarian movements, finds that the orientation has tended to be almost exclusively towards tenancy questions and at a later date (1980) on price issues. There has been in general a lapse in taking up the issues of agricultural labour and assessing the difference between "classical" tenancy and "dominant class tenancy", the implications of these diverse kinds of tenancy for the approach towards agrarian reform have not been adequately appreciated by the left movement in the state. While the broad spectrum of issues covered makes interesting reading, this simultaneously tends to be a weakness of the book. There arc too many formulations and hypotheses which have little supportive evidence. Much of the arguments and conclusions is totally conjectural,