72 SOCIAL SCIENTIST argues with certain reservations that capitalism has made its entry into Indian agriculture. In the Leninist sense, ^the extent to which hired labour is used 'is certainly the best and most direct indicator of the development of capitalism".1 But this cannot be considered as the sole manifestation of agricultural capitalism. There are many small farms wlicre owners arc unable to cultivate by themselves for one reason or other and therefore employ wage labour.2 The chief motive force of capitalism is accumulation of surplus and its re-investment for the "intensification of production or for enlarging the scale or both".8 Production for the market may be taken as another manifestation of capitalism. Capitalism in Agriculture: Evidence Examined According to the author only 30 per cent of the total land in India employs wage labour and this is not a sufficient indication of capitalist development. But later on he points out that our agriculture is characterized by the co-existence of big farms along with small holdings. It is common knowledge that capitalist development is possible only in relatively bigger farms. As an evidence against capitalist development, he points out the fall in absolute numbers of agricultral labourers in the decade 1951-61. At the same time, the attached agricultural labour households recorded^ an increase of 17 per cent between 1950-51 and 1956-57. It seems that Sau has uncritically accepted the census figures of agricultural labourers. If one compares the 1961 and 1971 census data, one finds a sudden spurt not only in the number of agricultural labourers, but also in the proportion of agricultural labourers to all agricultural workers, from 23.26 to 37.53 per cent over the decade. This has happened because definitions of occupations change from census to census. In the case of attaclied labourers too there is a definitional change between the first and second Agricultural Labour Enquiry Reports.4 It is rather difficult to get cither cross-section or time series data t@ prove the existence and reinvestment of surplus in our agriculture. Indian farmers tend to declare a lesser than actual income to official inquirers-Sau examines the Reserve Bank data on rural assets and capital expenditure in farm business for the year 1961-62 and tries to find whether some evidence exists for re-investment. The composition of tangible wealth of rural households shows that farm equipment comprised only a very small portion of the total. The share of agricultural implements in the total expenditure on farm business is only 11 per cent. Less than 3 per cent of the households spend on wells and irrigation resources. Twenty per cent of the aggregate expenditure on farm business is on land. Therefore the author concludes that Indian agriculture is still primitive in nature. But it is to be noted that if at all surplus is generated in agriculture, it need not necessarily be invested in agriculture alone. Surplus Marketed and Marketable The pace and pattern of market arrival of foodgrains are shown