DISCUSSION 95 opposed to each other. Obviously he overlooks the interrelateness of ideas suggested throughout the essay, including the emergence of rationality within the domain of theology. Pandian's reservations aboilt my views on religion which he has described as 'quite straight forward* appears to be about my general and conceptual statement, drawn from the very insightful formulations of Marx. That he overlooks its analytical implications is not surprising as he dismisses it as an unnecessary invocation. But that he has ignored the fairly lengthy discussion about the positive role of religion in the reform efforts in the nineteenth century is indeed surprising. What I had sought to emphasise, apart from the ideological character of religion, is its connection with social structure, which imparts to the analysis of religion much greater complexity than just a recognition of internal differentiation. Pandian concedes that religion 'fetishes social reality', but his case is that it 'could have different functions at different historical conjectures^. What is meant by 'function' is not clear, but the notion of ideology is not devoid of dynamism in the context of the changes in social structure. That religion—internally differentiated or otherwise—becomes integral to different modes of social action is a result of this. Examples are innumerable, ranging from medieval peasant uprisings to contemporary political struggles. It is, however, necessary to recognize the inherent limitations of religious mediation in social protest. In this essay, I had confined myself to the realm of colonial intelligentsia and hence referred to their understanding of religion, their critique and the role they assigned to it for effecting social transformation. Since Pandian does not suffer from an elitist bias as I do he takes the radical example of the peasantry. I plead the case of other social strata and classes also—tribals, industrial working class, women, capitalist class—in whose life and activity religion might find different modes of expression and might also exercise qualitatively different influence. . Regarding the peasantry, in my recent study on religion and peasant uprisings in Malabar (Against Lord and State, OUP, 1989) I have tried to draw attention to the positive role of religion in peasant action. The picture, however, is not complete, if we fail to go beyond this positive potential. Just as several religions and religious movements which emerged as the ideology and practice of progressive social endeavours increasingly became conservative and even reactionary and thus actively aided oppressive social orders, religious ideology which at a particular historical juncture provided stimulus for peasant rivolt might, in course of time, turn out to be an inhibiting factor in the growth of radical consciousness. Religion not only makes dissent and protest possible, it also defines the limits of these actions, as the consciousness it engenders remains within the religious parameters. In my above cited study I have drawn attention to this aspect: '. . . the Mappilas were able to obtain legitimacy for action within their religious beliefs,