98 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Even at this juncture Bose was a student/youth leader. He sought to enlarge and consolidate his support. And, given his support for the 1928 Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act—which implied an opposition to the peasantry—Bose veered towards the working class. The author projects Bose's well-known attempt to synthesise the egalitarian logic of socialism with the 'discipline* of fascism, without conforming to a strand of scholarship which has over-emphasised this while assessing Bose. The question is, how much was Bose (or any Indian intellectual of the late 1920s) aware of fascism? Moreover, the legacy of Bose survives as a leftist component in Indian politics today. The author projects Bose's ideological foundation as an opposition to Gandhism. This is difficult to accept, especially if one keeps Bose's position vis-a-vis the agrarian question—where he did take a pro-landlord position—in mind. Moreover, features like intensive boycott of British goods and publicising the Indian freedom struggle in the west reflect distinct continuities in national protest forms, which were also important for the 'Mahatma*. And, finally, Bose's role in the labour front (in the late 1920s) points to continuities with Gandhian trade unionism most unambiguously. The author's hypothesis regarding the opposition to Gandhism is however borne out if one keeps the shifts in the post-Gandhi-Irwin Pact period. The disillusionment with Gandhian 'retreats' and compromises led to a search for alternatives, leading to a drift towards socialism. In the case of Bose this was accompanied by a disillusionment with fascism and the acceptance of zamindari abolition/radical land reform—which indicate a major shift from his earlier position. These coupled with other significant developments— i.e. the formation of the Kisan Sabha, the Congress ministries and the rise of mass movements in the princely states—re-shaped the middle class leadership, which is not properly highlighted by the author. Given this, the success of Bose at the Tripura Congress, where he defeated P. Sitaramayya (Gandhi's 'candidate') appears to be based only in the politics of the middle class. Another problem is the way the author locates the Congress's opposition to anti-zamindari politics. Thus, while one can agree that the Bengal Congress was dominated by Hindu landed interests, the author's method over-emphasizes this point while seeking to explain its pro-zamindari position. The Congress's links with the feudal order—and, not because it wanted 'to protect the Hindu rentier interests' (p. 38)—led to this phenomenon. It is however creditable that the author highlights certain limitations in Bose's political discourse. He refers specifically to Bose's perceptions of his high caste status, ambivalence vis-a-vis the Hindu-Muslim question and a stress on the authoritarian character of the state. Consequently, his visions of a more equal, just and democratic order were undermined by these shortcomings.