78 SOCIAL SCIENTIST site for the building of democratic secular India*. In this connection the author refers to the activities of RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parisad, BJP, etc. and the movements which are being organised by them such as the movement on Ram Janambhoomi and points out that 'Organisers of the movement are using the names of Vedic and Upanishadic Rishis including Sankara to buttress their activities'. The author then unequivocally declares that 'combating the pernicious activities* of the reactionary forces is 'one of the foremost tasks of the left and secular political forces in the country'. Marxists will generally agree with all these statements which indeed call upon us, directly, to conduct vigorous ideological struggles against all idealistic ideologies, above all, the reactionary ideology of Sankara. Unfortunately the article also contains another kind of statement which projects an exaggerated view of the importance of Sankara's philosophy, and also contains phrases which express veneration for this most reactionary philosopher in our history. Such statements and expressions along with some remarks on philosophical idealism in general not only totally offset the thrust of the above quoted statements but also tend to inhibit the very spirit of partisanship in philosophy which is so important in a Marxist approach to ideological questions. The very introductory section of the article, which is intended to set the tune for the rest of it, contains a brief discussion on the nature of idealism in general in its relation to materialism. Even a cursory reading will convince the reader that the purpose of this discussion is simply to cultivate the reader's mind so that he may not be too unfavourably disposed to idealism in general. And once this is achieved, it will be easy to persuade him not to adopt 'nihilist attitude' to Shankara variety of idealism too, notwithstanding the criticism of his philosophy that the author makes in the rest of the article. Let us see the points made by the author in this introductory section. (a) The author says, idealism and materialism are not such polar opposites that they are always and everywhere to be opposed to each other. The relation between the two is not metaphysical but dialectical. (b) He says, neither idealism nor materialism is static, they are developing always negating each other—struggle between them in newer and newer forms is the law of development of human thought. Therefore, there is no question of materialism as such being superior to idealism and idealism as such being inferior. (c) Besides, the author quotes a passage from Lenin which reads, 'Philosophical idealism is only nonsense to the metaphysical materialist, but to the dialectical materialist it is one sided