76 SOCIAL SCIENTIST the last 26 years, namely, monopoly bourgeoisie, medium-sized bourgeoisie and the small bourgeoisie. While for the most part of the period, despite declarations and legal enactments to the contrary, the bourgeoisie as a whole has grown, the rate of growth has been highest in the monopoly section, followed by the medium and small bourgeoisie trailing one after the other. The monopoly bourgeoisie can be easily identified. Available data reveal that a few industrial houses together control the overwhelming part of industrial productive resources. In the later part of this period the small bourgeoisie is fighting for its existence, its total number having decreased. While in many cases the small scale sector functions as an ancillary of big business, there are several cases where there is competition between the big and small bourgeoisie for raw material, inputs, finances and markets. It is wrong to characterise the Indian bourgeoisie as comprador; there is also no such category as the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in India. There has been a greater penetration of foreign capital, particularly US owned, and absolute gross foreign aid has enormously increased, though growth of indigenous capital has been greater. Foreign debt constitutes a substantial proportion of the total assets in the organised sector. The net inflow from public institutions such as the World Bank, IDA and others is being reduced, though this is not due to the conscious attitude of the government, but because imperialist countries are not ready to lend. Hence, it is apparent that the growth of the public sector has assisted the growth of the big bourgeoisie by mobilising finances, allocating them in favour of big business, by producing raw materials and providing them cheaply in favour of big business and generating effective demand in favour of the big bourgeoisie. Moreover, the state has contributed directly to the growth of monopoly bourgeoisie by its tariff and taxation policies and by its limited fight against imperialism and foreign capital. The inflow of foreign private investment continues to increase but at a decreasing pace. Imperialist influence is also reflected in the fact of its insistence of the continued import of foreign technology; this acts as a fetter both to the development and to the utilisation of the existing domestic technology and consultancy services. It is important to note the impact of feudal and semi-feudal relations in agriculture on the capitalist development in industry. Such relations affect the extent of market for industrial products as well as the supply of raw material for agro-based industries. These constraints have affected the rate of growth and distorted development. The problems faced by the bourgeoisie in the latest phase of its development is primarily characterised by the shrinkage of the market compared to the availability of funds and the capacities installed in the country. A flow of capital, though not yet large, to countries in Africa and South East Asia has begun, so that products of Indian industry may be sold in those countries. Not more than 20 crores of rupees have been