72 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Bose deftly weaves this part of his story with telling instances from the unfolding panorama of the twenties. Gandhi and his followers, so far as labour-industry relations are concerned, remained confined to Ahmedabad at this stage. The Ahmedabad Mazoor Mahajan would not seek affiliation with the AITUC, because partnership with the capitalists was the leading principle which Gandhi had managed to establish as its guide to action. His personal equation with the house of Sarabhai made this a practical proposition in one centre, but in the larger context of the nationwide struggles of labour in the twenties, Gandhi's Utopian prescription could not be followed by even his followers and admirers in the Congress. His move was of course a shrewd ingredient in the overall nationalist strategy of united and non-violent opposition to colonial rule, involving an essential alliance of labour and capital in the larger interest; but this was also in line with his ultimate vision of a frictionless passage to Ramrajya. His political followers pointedly ignored both his philosophy and his practical manual of managing labour relations, though many of them continued to liaise closely with capitalists, for both political and personal reasons. Bose makes particularly telling use of the original records from the proceedings of the Indian Legislative Assembly, reports of various official Committees, Police Department files, documents from the Trade Unions, contemporary newspapers and journals, personal papers of eminent leaders and so on. Not that he neglects secondary literature, even though whatever is available is not always historically penetrating or theoretically incisive. The author is in fact charting comparatively unknown territory, and establishing patterns of cognizable historical development on which work has been relatively scarce. This is why it is important that an overall picture should be in position for scholars and activists to grapple with. It is also important that questions be opened up for future generations to work at. And the author modestly claims to aim precisely at that preliminary labour. But this attempt to historicize trade union activities in the early phase of Indian capitalism may not always be in the foreground of this book's recitals, because a connected narrative has to be provided for the uninitiated reader. At times one may even have the impression that Bose concentrates too much on personalities, and sees trade union politics as the outcome of subjective interests and group loyalties. For instance, the story of M.N. Roy on the international scene and of Mukundalal Sarkar on the national may seem to be tarred with the brush of Namierism. But a careful reading shows that Bose has not really lapsed into an empiricist mode of historical narration and analysis. He is looking very carefully at the ground realities of the situation, which show up that, in the absence of either an organic leadership or a strong organizational base, the working people of India had to depend at that stage upon a leadership with strong outside interests and motives. That story had to be told in terms of personalities and groups and interests and inclinations. Bose tells the story and makes clear to us the ideological configurations which lie behind the actions of individuals. It is this dimension of ideology, of theoretical practice SQ to say, which Bose places at the centre when he discusses the role of the left in the forma-