50 SOCIAL SCIENTIST same conception of the world, there must necessarily be, in their theoretical principles, a convertibility from one to the others and a reciprocal translation into the specific language proper to each constituent element. Any one is implicit in the others, and the three together form a homogeneous circle. Joshi says: ... in India Marxism gained popularity as 'political' Marxism—that is, as the strategy and tactics of the capture of political power by the party of the proletariat. Marxism as philosophical movement— as the continuation of the critical spirit of the Enlightenment and as the stimulator of a higher level of critical self-consciousness did not strike firm roots. The new forces growing within Indian Marxism therefore come up now against the formidable dead weight of the habits and ways of the era of 'political9 Marxism. Let it also be noted that in the case of India, as in the case of many other countries, the historical sequence of development of Marxist thought has been reversed. The older generation of Indian Marxists shot up mainly as political activists rather than as Marxist intellectuals and as such they became familiar first with Stalinism (and to some extent with the political contributions of Leninism) rather than with the entire philosophical and cultural legacy of Marx, Engels or even Lenin. Cultural Preconditions? Besides overlooking the fact that 'political5 Marxism, that is, the strategy and tactics of the capture of political power is itself an embodiment and application of the Marxist philosophy, Joshi is somewhat wide of the mark even in respect of'facts. The early pioneers and the first large influx into the Communist Party of India that came from the Andamans Prison and the detention camps in the thirties were quite familiar with \the 'wider' aspects of the Marxist system. Although the "entire philosophical and cultural legacy of Marx, Engels and even Lenin-" was not freely available in this country in those colonial days of censorship and thought-control, the older generations of the Indian Marxists had gone through a more systematic schooling in the theoretical base of Marxism than is the custom today. The many obvious failures of the Indian Marxists cannot be explained in such simple terms as is attempted by Joshi. The roots of these failures lie much deeper in the specific historical evolution of Indian society and can be unearthed only with a much more rigorous application of the Marxist methodology. Joshi goes on to say: ... Marxism as an intellectual force, independent of the narrower Marxism of sectarian political groups, hardly grew in India. As a result the problems for integrating the struggle for power with the endeavour for a cultural renewal of the problem of creating the cultural preconditions of the struggle for power was seldom posed in