l3i SOCIAL SCIENTIST actually should be the object of our concerns. GOPALAKRISHNA KUMAR Balliol College, Oxford 1. That this continues to be an issue generating heated debate can be seen, firstly, in the wide range of positions taken at the MIT Conference discussing the Political Economy of Slow Industrial Growth in India* where a first draft of Bardhan's book was discussed (cf Varshney, 1984) and perhaps more significantly, in the reaction at home to some of the participants' views ; see in this context the note by Raj (1984) pouring ccid water on many of the ideas discussed at the meeting, and Bardhan's (1984) rejoinder. 2. For reviews see for instance Nayyar (1978), Ahluwalia (1984) and Patnaik (1984). Refrences I.J. Ahluwalia 1984 : Industrial Growth in India : Stagnation since the Sixties, OUP. P. Bardhan 1984 : Some Observations on Economic Growth in India, Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay) (henceforth EPW) December 22-29. C.J. Bliss and N.H. Stern 1982 : Palanpur : The Economy of an Indian Village, Oxford Clarendon. A.V. Desai 1981 : Factors Underlying the Slow Growth of Indian Industry, EPW Annual. D. Nayyar 1978 : Industrial Development in India : Some Reflections on Growth and Stagnation, EPW Special Number. P. Patnaik 1984 : Market Question and Capitalist Development in India, EPW Annual. K.N, Raj 1984 :0bservations on Economic Growth in India over the Period 1952-53 to 1982-83, EPW October 13, T. Skocpol : 1979 States and Social Revolutions. OUP. T. Skocpol 1982 : Bringing the State Back in Items, Social Science Research Council New York nos. 1/2. A. Varshney 1984 : Political Economy of Slow Industrial Growth in India, EPW September 1.