(A SOCIAL SCIENTIST review that resulted, particularly the insights into the implications of the approach for economic theory, that it attracted the attention of the international economics profession. Sraffa himself was highly appreciative of Krishna's review, which has been included in several anthologies and selections on economic theory subsequently. This marked the beginning of a period of fruitful professional association between Krishna Bharadwaj and Piero Sraffa which lasted until Sraffa's d^ath two decades later. Sraffa named her as one of the two editors of his papers along with P. Garegnani; regrettably this is a task which remains unfinished. Krishna was a visiting fellow at MIT from 1961 for two years, and it was in the USA that her daughter Sudha was bom. Not very long after her return to teaching in Bombay, her marriage ran into difficulties and led to eventual separation. During this strained period in her personal life, Krishna was invited to be a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge, from 1967 and undertook a project of working on the Farm Management Studies which had just been completed in India, for the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge. This author's personal acquaintance with her dates from this period, when the problems of being a woman academic and heading a single-parent household were compounded for Krishna by a bout of severe illness during the winter of 1969-70 involving pleurisy and tuberculosis of the lungs. (The ancient and poorly heated flats on Newnham Road in which Clare housed some of its Fellows were no doubt partly responsible.) It was almost the story of Ramanujam again—but ^fortunately Krishna made a complete recovery and resumed work on her project. This work, published as a DAE monograph, set out the critique of marginalist economics applied to agriculture which she was to develop in several papers later. Published under the title of Production Conditions in Indian Agriculture, it contained a critique of the production function approach—to be developed more rigorously in her CDS, Trivandrum paper, 'A sceptical note on so-called technical relations in agriculture*—and it also contained the seminal ideas on interlinking of modes of agrarian exploitation, which many other economists were to develop later under the rubric of 'interlinked markets*. (It must be noted with regret that the originality and priority in time of her published ideas on interlinked markets, were not always recognised by economists later working with her ideas.) At Cambridge, Krishna was of course in the thick of the continuing fall-out of the capital theory controversy. The Cambridge school's onslaught on neoclassical theory which had indeed started in the 1920s and 30s, took the form in the post-war period of showing the untenability of the logical foundations of the notion of an aggregate production function. Since the value of capital could not be defined independently of the rate of profit this implied the necessity of a prior theory of distribution of output between wages and profits, and there