BOOK REVIEW 67 increasing amount of land under permanent cultivation is probably a significant feature of reinvestment of surplus income in agriculture in the tribal area. The transition from Jhum to settled cultivation is usually a slow process, with Jhum cultivators gradually bringing land under settled cultivation while continuing to meet their subsistence needs from shifting cultivation.3 (This probably explains why government schemes which attempt to abruptly resettle Jhumias often do not succeed.) Hence households that are presently engaged in both Jhum and settled cultivation are likely to best represent the dynamics of decision making in situations of change and transition. It is unfortunate that the author has ignored 81 sample households that are engaged in both types of cultivation. Of the remaining households, 294 are engaged in settled cultivation while 100 are Jhummias. One is not clear as to how many of the former were originally dependent on shifting cultivation and how many have always been engaged in permanent or settled cultivation. The study of change hence becomes problematic. Notwithstanding a few lacunae which are the result mainly of constraints imposed upon a researcher by a project-oriented, large-scale study, the book remains an important contribution to our understanding of the tribal situation in Meghalaya. The data that has been generated can be fruitfully used by students with a research interest in continuity and change among the tribes. The conclusions drawn by the author and the possible alternatives he suggests, for instance, production on cooperatives lines in the tribal area, have important implications for tribal development policy and merit serious study. GEETHA B. SINGH Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Chie Nakane, Garos and Khasis—A Comparitive Study in Matrilineal Systems, Mouton and Co., Paris, 1961. 2. Ibid. 3. P.CKar, Garos in Transition, Cosmo Publications, New Delhi, 1982.