2 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Said, as a critic of colonialism, maintains for himself a "perceptual distance" from official discources as well as from "family-quarrels of the Western philosophical tradition". Sibet Bozdogan also notes this essential difference between Said and Foucault and underscores the point th'at the strength of Said's "adversary position" comes from his not counterposing a defensive, oppositional discourse against the Orientalist one : Said does not advance an authentic traditional Orient in opposition to the sterotype of the Orient produced in the Orientalist discourse. The author takes this as the point of departure for cutieising some recent views on Islamic culture and architecture. Rajeswari Sunder Rajan's paper cuts through the Orientalist-Anglicist cojrUroversy to lay bare the commonness of their assumptions and intent. Both Orientalists and Anglicists, she argues, were concerned with administrative efficiency and involved in the imperial project. Their differences centred around methods rather t^ian goals ; the Orientalists' concern for Indian languages for instance derived not from any desire to perpetuate or promote these languages as such, but from a desire to use them for a better imparting of English "ideas". Both Orientalists and Anglicists wer^ like-wise united in their contempt for the India they saw ; the Orientalists however invoked a glorious past culture as a counterpoint to this contempt, while the Anglicists indulged in wholesale denigration. The introduction of English literature as a discipline for study into school and college curricula was part of an overall imperial project; in this overall: project the Orientalists and Anglicists were collaborators. The author then raises the pertinent question : can the study of this discipline even today be seen as an "Orientalising enterprise" ? The paper by Kalpana Sahni, provides an interesting complement to tb?,other papers. While analysing the process by which Dostoevsky moved in the course of time towards an arch-nationalist and even imperia'-list position, and contrasting his attitude with that of Tolstoy, the paper shows that the Oriental Phantom was not domiciled in Western Europe alone, but haunted Russians well. What we have got together in this number is only a small offering.; the cojoiplex question of Said's relationship with Marxism for inst^nc^ is noti covered anywhere. But we hope that the readers will find it useful, at least for acquainting them with a range of ideas.