108 SOCIAL SCIENTIST and 'Review of . .', op. dt., pp. 53-68), we would think, testifies to the power connotations of this pragmatism. 69. It is precisely this issue that Saberwal's formulation, indicated at the outset of this essay, seems to avoid. An assessment of a 'transplant* cannot be separated from an analysis of its generative sources and principles. 70. A. Giddens, op. dt., pp. 15-6. See also K. Kumar, Prophecy and Progress, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1978, pp. 13-68. We may note in passing that Marxism (at least as doctrine) cannot be located outside this project of modernity. 71. At the specific moment of the introduction of sociology in India, it was already constituted in the west. Consequently, sociology offered, and continues to offer, an already constituted field for the interpretation of social domains. 72. Of course, this is not to ignore the significance of the sort of questioning and analysis offered in part I of this paper. 73. I am collapsing a whole range of complexities in this one statement. For an inkling of the issues involved, see Hans Kellner, 'Narrativity in History: Post-Structuralism and Since', History and Theory, Beiheft 26, 1987, pp. 1-29. 74. A.K. Saran, 'India', op. cit., p. 1013. 75. See, for instance, A. Nandy, 'Cultural Frames for Social Transformation: A Credo', Alternatives, 12, 1987, pp. 113-23; J.P.S. Uberoi, Science and Culture, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1978; or even T.N. Madan, Culture and Development, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1983. G.C. Spivak, In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, Methuen, New York, 1987, is also illustrative. I am presently engaged in encountering the terrain these discourses inhabit. 76. If the reader is sensitised to my celebratory reception of Foucault or Bourdieu or, more generally, of the entire range of post-structuralist theorising, he/she is forewarned. I may well be living my revolt within the frame of reference of the dominant legitimacy! And yet, it seems to me that the ongoing critique of the west's most characteristic discourses, routed either through western or non-western critics, seems to be the point at which Western Rationalism preserves the boundaries of sense for itself. I have, perhaps perfunctorily, made indications in this direction with reference to Martin Heidegger (see my 'The Gnostic Vision: Incursions into the Heideggerian Field—A Combative Note', mimeographed). And, Foucault et al., even Bourdieu, cannot be far behind. In Gandhi, and perhaps the Bhakti vision/movement, one could discover possibilities incommensurable with Western Rationalism. Until then, I remain compicit, schizophrenic. 77. To Prof. T.N. Madan, Seemanthini Niranjana, Willie de Silva and Valerian Rodrigues, among many others, I am grateful for the encouragement and support. I have hardly had the opportunity to work through their comments and suggestions in their entirety. And that I defer for a more elaborate reading of the discourse(s) of Indian sociology.