30 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Overall, studies on peasant rebellion inform us about nature and class character of each struggle during the colonial period and the participation of different sections of peasantry at a particular point of time. But why these sections abandon the 'fight in court' process in favour of use of force, can only be understood through the analysis of structural specificity of the law of property relations in which location of different classes decide their historical roles in a peasant uprising. Social changes or evolutions of social relations are long accumulating processes where a large variety of conflicting groups pursue their interests by trying to defend their positions in a system of politico-legal institutions or by modifying it according to their preferred version of social fabric. The state, in response to these pressures, attempt to harmonize the contradictions by adjusting the laws, so that 'men experience them as natural forces, as the necessary environment for their existence'.6 Rebellion is that juncture in a society's history whereby the belief that the existing order is the only possible one, has been shaken. Through these accumulated experiences (historically, to revise laws or protect their interests by legal means struggling within the ambience of certain property relations), transition from legal battles in the court rooms to the rejection of the legal system is arrived at. It is a result of a long historical process by which certain sections of society, concluding that the only possible solution is a change by force, become ripe for rebellion. So, the system of property relations and operative legal framework have to be examined. By this exercise we can examine protections offered to certain interests thereby channelising antagonism within legal framework and thus, discern why certain sections of peasantry did not move out of courts and participate in a violent uprising. As Washbrook puts it: The law may be seen to represent a set of general principles through which political authority and the state (however constituted) attempt to legitimise the social institutions and norms of conduct which they find valuable. As such, its history refers the struggle in a society to assume control or resist this authority. Its study should help to reveal the nature of forces involved in the struggle and to suggest the implications for social development of the way in which, at any time, their struggle was resolved. The condition of law may be seen to crystallise the condition of society. . . because of its function, the struggle around it is necessarily expressed in terms of general statements of principle(s) . . . .(which) demarcate the rules on which the contending parties seek to build their versions of society and provide useful clues to their wider, often undisclosed, positions. Study over time of their relative successes, failures and compromises, and of the nature of their evolving relationships may