156 SOCIAL SCIENTIST bow to London's diktat,"17 but fails to link this with the fact that thia diktat itself was part and parcel of a world-wide crisis of capitalism of which the colonial system was the weakest link. Therefore, London too had little option in the matter and each time it betrayed the hopes of either colonial bureaucrats or Indian capitalists, it did so as part and parcel of imperialist policy and not as a result of personal whims as Markowitz' method often makes it appear. Apart from this, there is a definite pro-British bias in Markowitz' presentation of the decade of the thirties, and in this, both methodologically and politically, he turns out to be the other side of the coin of the Indian historians he correctly takes to task for glorifying and exaggerating the role of the conscious intervention of the Indian-capitalist class in guiding the national movement. In a contradictory manner, on the one hand, he admits that "If it is accepted that British enterprise was basically part of a structure of imperial exploitation, the explanation for its progressive paralysis is perhaps to be found in the growing structural dysfunc-tioning of tire colonial system in India,"18 On the other, he is unwilling to accept the corollary that "the reasons for the greater success of the Indian entrepreneurs in the 30s are necessarily to be found in a close relationship with a rising nationalism" on the flimsy grounds that "opportunism seems to be the term best qualifying the attitude of Indian businessmen during the decade."19 As a result of this narrow frame of reference and a static methodology he fails to see how, precisely because of such an opportunist leadership, the national movement was forced to compromise with foreign capital and the indigenous landlord class, to isolate itself more and more from the organised working class and peasantry, the only assurance of uncompromising anti-imperialism, and to establish a crisis—ridden bourgeois-landlord state incapable of completing the agrarian transformation necessary to establish even a full fledged bourgeois-democratic system, in sharp contrast to those national liberation movements led by worker-peasant alliances backed by all sections of the people, including the indigenous capitalist class, leading directly to the establishment of Peoples Democratic or Socialist states. Nor does he appreciate how these developments clearly point out to the truth of the proposition he refuses to accept so arbitrarily. Unfortunately he has set out to refute the Marxist approach, a task unsuccessfully taken up much earlier by eminent men like Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and lately, Marcuse. And, not unnaturally, he too has failed to make his point against a dynamic theory of social transformation constantly being tested and refined by social practice and historic victories every day.