4 ^ SOCIAL SCIENTIST sections; and then there are four separate studies of their 'economies', to 1857 only. With a characteristic defiance of chronology (the region subjugated earlier by Britain should surely have come first) the study in each chapter begins with the northwestern and central regions. These regional studies are followed by three chapters on National Income, Population and Occupational Structure, all the three basically concerned with the post-1857 period. From these we are led to Part II, styled "The Beginning of the Modern Economy". This begins with a chapter on the growth of large-scale industry. There is next a single chapter on Irrigation and Railways (a pairing for which it is difficult to find a reason, unless it lies in both of these being treated as 'public-works'). Chapters follow on Foreign Trade, Price Movements and the Fiscal System. Part III consists of two chapters on "Post-'Independence Developments", one on India, the other on Pakistan. I beg to be forgiven for setting out the list of contents like this, but this is necessary to show that such a plan of chapters practically precludes a whole series of the most crucial questions from being taken up. Where can one study the Tribute or Drain of Wealth, let us say in the'mercantilist' phase, 1757-1813 ? Or the process of 'de-industrialization' ? The editors say disarmingly that there ought to have been a chapter on handicrafts, though curiously enough they allow Professor Morris, who writes on large-scale industry, to have a full say on small-scale industry as well.2 The editors themselves hasten to add that they wished there were a separate chapter on the theme simply because of "the continuing importance of handicrafts", lest some one might think that they have had 'de-industrialization' in mind. There is similarly no space provided to discuss the process of the late nineteenth century commercialization of agriculture; and the question of growth of landless labour is suitably tucked away among the 'regions'. The whole issue of the "Imperialism of Free Trade", which since the Gallagher-Robinson essay should have gained a place in "current literature",3 eludes both the editors and the contributors. If the straitjacket of the editors' scheme "was not sufficient, the contributors themselves, with a few exceptions, have succeded in setting a course which suggests that to them economic theory came to a close with" Free Trade and Comparative Advantage. Explicitly, and most often implicitly, they are out to demolish the nationalist criticisms of exploitation and impoverishment under colonial rule. It is worth some reflection that there is little in this volume at which official annoyance could have been aroused even before 1914. In this paper, I take up what I think have been important aspects of the colonial impact on Indian economy (up to beginning of the twentieth century) that are either overlooked in the CEHI or receive treatment on which one may have considerable reservations. It should be understood that I do not pretend to be more knowledgeable than the editors and authors of the CEHI, and that I note and raise particular