68 SOCIAL SCIENTIST social infrastructure developed, permitting social coordination and at the same time, permitting individuals to 'individuate* themselves. (A paradox that Marx points to is that the individual 'individuates* himself precisely when the social division of labour is so extensive that social interdependence is highly developed.) It is the substitution of the 'market* and the 'state* in place of the communitarian organisations which prevailed earlier that made possible the 'privatisation* of the role of religion as more of a personal faith and sets of beliefs. This, however, is not to glorify the *market* (erroneously equated with individual freedom) or the achievements of the capitalist West. However the above provides a perspective to analyse how, in our own case, the force of commercialisation and of the active state presence in the process of economic development might have shaped communalism, and vice versa. This is a complex interaction which is also bound to be historically specific and here, we only indicate the broad contours. First we ask the question: Is the capitalist economic development a 'liberalising* process which eventually establishes the 'rational', 'free' individual? It is here that the perceptions of the political economy of Adam Smith and Marx differ from those of the liberal bourgeoisie with their faith in the egalitarian market regime. While both share the optimistic picture of human society advancing in material prospects, the political economy acknowledged explicitly and analytically say that the feasible opportunity sets that expand with progress do so differentially for individuals situated in different strata ('ranks and orders' in Smith or 'classes' in Marx) of the society. Not only do their opportunities open out differentially but there could also be conflicts of interest so that the progressive advance of one stratum could be at the cost of the other. Considerable research on the Indian agrarian situation has brought out the differential impact of the commercialisation process in a situation when 'markets' are 'informed' or characterised by pre-capitalist modes of operation. The process of commercialisation itself is further differentiating the economy— whether rural or urban—in terms of the processes of income formation, employment generation, etc. Further, in* the process of economic development, political economy ascribes to different agents of decision-makers different domains and powers of influence so that their economic decisions have a different impact and influence on the shape and pace of economic development. On the other hand, the pace and path of economic development itself changes these power-balances among different classes. In short, the process of commercialisation, particularly in the situations of unformed or disarticulated markets, such as in our case, produces systematic differentiation. Political economy, however, was also developed as an analytical scheme in the context of a competitive capitalist framework. This has meant that, although conscious of the historical context of societies and the various 'non-economic' factors which cause social differentiation, the political