102 SOCIAL SCIENTIST science publishing (in its broadest sense of the word) came to the fore as both protest and indictment. It produced many works of fly-by-might significance. But serious Indian scholarship is uneven. It is yet to mature into a powerful dialectic which does more than interact with itself for its own sake. The Indian academy has been generally uniformed about the work on and in Pakistan. Attempts to get intellectuals of both nations to interact have been beset with a bucket full of immigration difficulties. Indians have tended to be a little more exuberant about such meetings than their Pakistani counterparts—even though there is a shared common feeling that, at least, writers and intellectuals should begin to talk—even if for no other reason than the simple belief that dialogue is a good thing. But, in all this, while Indians—both in their scholarship and their exchanges—have been expansive, self-critical, confessorial and effusive, Pakistan responses have always been a little guarded, giving no more than the occasion demanded and, generally, circumspect that what is said and written should not be wholly out of tune with the ultimate aims of Pakistan's foreign policy which is to present itself as wounded, cast off orphan struggling to find its form against its powerful neighbour. If Indian reactions portray India's million mutinies and treat its predicament as part of the challenge of governance, scholarship in and about Pakistan has hesitated and stepped back. This may be no less true of foreign scholars who have chosen to make Pakistan their special subject as well as Pakistani indigenous and emigre scholars. A strong empathy represents not just an understandable sense of belonging to the subject matter put a self induced bias which finds its surreptitious place in scholarship. Foreign scholars with regional academic interests have to give due pragmatic recognition to the fact that undue provocation may aff6ct the visa status of the researcher. Paula Newberg has been a Pakistan watcher for some time. Her recent book on Kashmir was seized but not impounded by Indian officials for little reason and ignoring the fact that the book, in part, support India's case. When she took on this book about Pakistan's constitutional politics, she did so with the eye of a political scientist—concerned more, perhaps, with the consequences of legal decisions than the legal discourse which gave rise to them. She is not alone in pursuing such consequentialist analysis. Indeed, Griffith's insightful Politics of the Judiciary does precisely that—to establish the class biases of the English Judiciary. But, whilst Griffiths examined the background of the English judicial establishment and the politics of patronage that governed judicial appointments with due care and attention, Newberg fails to undertake such an analysis, concentrating instead on the political circumstances that gave rise to the decision making; and not, in any great measure, on the people and the real politic in which they were willy-nilly enmeshed. As a