COMMUNICATIONS 63 pre-empt. But the proletariat, once they get revolution-oriented, are tempted to overstep their limits and reflect very little on the chances of success. The intellectuals, further, should guard against any premature 'emutes' and should act decisively against ill-timed and misconceived insurrections, Marx observed in 1859 in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy: No social order ever perishes before the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed.3 It tends to appear from the above statement that this stage cannot be predicted until a close study of the existing economic structure is undertaken. So, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that the prime function of a Marxist intellectual is only to help the 'spread and growth of class consciousness of the working class. . .' as Habib would have us believe.4 Another illustration from Marx, we believe, will amply establish the fact beyond doubt. In an article published by Marx in No 4 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung Revu, 1850, it was remarked that: It is evident that these conspirateures do not limit themselves to the mere task of organising the proletariat; not at all. Their business lies precisely in trying to pre-empt the developing revolutionary process, to drive it artificially to crisis, to create a revolution ex nihile, to make a revolution without the conditions of revolution, Thus in view of the above entreaties, it can be logically derived that (a) there is no such component as 'practising revolutionary' within the Marxist intellectual fold, and that the (b) distinction between the 'practising revolutionary' and 'Marxist academics' is not at all contingent. To be more precise, by 'Marxist intellectual' we mean only the 'dyadic relation' of a revolutionary and an ideologue, and not the one or the other. Ideologues without being committed to revolution, will, pretty sure, turn Marxian Diadoche who, instead of fostering the cause of revolution, may possibly act as thermedorians. And India, we presume, suffers from the maladies of having more 'Marxist Diadoche' than real (Marxist intellectual', which explains, why Marxism as an ideology could not win much sympathy here so far. II To explain, why Marxism could not strike deep roots in the Indian soil, we come across, inter alia, another phenomenon in communist leadership here. It is the question of 'charisma' in leadership. The concept of 'charisma' entered into the arena of social scientists only very recently when Max Weber, while studying the question of leadership defined it and indicated its significance.5 By charisma Weber meant a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural. . . powers or qualities. . . .6