84 SOCIAL SCIENTIST list' and 'socialist' societies are mereley variants of the 'industrial society' which would converge in due course of time under the impact of the scientific and technological revolution. The basic assumption of these theorists is that the nature of the relations of production is inconsequential as far as the development of science and technology and their social consequences are concerned. They exaggerate the role, and hence distort the significance, of the introduction of three major factors in the capitalist system under the impact of science and technology: increasing socialization of the production process; growing economic role of the state; and the introduction of the elements of planning. The convergence theory mentioned above is plainly unsound when we take note of the fact that while production itself is increasingly socialized, in capitalist societies appropriation is private and is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands sharpening the contradictions of the system. In this context the open economic role of the state reflects the severity of the crisis of monopoly capital and not a socialization of appropriation. Equally, the introduction of planning in certain sectors of the economy does not lead to rationalization of production, for market conditions and profit continue to be the determining factors. These concrete conditions account for the sharp difference in the material and spiritual lives of the common people of the capitalist and the socialist countries. Science and technology, which have enhanced the possibilities for the latter, have accentuated the contradictions for the former. A variant of the 'industrial society' approach is used by A Rahman and others in their book Science and Technology in India. The book considers the quantitative growth of the scientific technological infrastructure as a measure of the effectiveness of scientific endeavour for social and economic development. The authors contend that the infrastructure built, priorities set and resources provided by the British Indian Government, though intended 'to ensure the military, administrative and economic control over India', led nonetheless to 'a viable infrastructure of science and technology' coming into existence. Contentions of this nature assume that the infrastructure of science ^.nd technology and their role in development are independent of the goals set for and pursued by science and technology. The science policy followed in independent India has maintained the continuity of the organizational structure conceived and established by the British. Constant references to 'advanced countries' and 'industry in the West' while no mention is even made of the existence of the socialist mode of production and development, reveal the bias of the authors. The lessons drawn and the comparisons made are, oddly enough, with 'the advanced countries of the West'who have had the "advantage of being acclimatized to the situation over the years, having grown with contemporary science." There is no attempt to take note of, let alone learn from,