46 SOCIAL SCIENTIST cess of transformation in these states did not begin from scratch. It was constrained by the historical setting as well as the 'colonial structure' and perhapse by a new type of relationship between the erstwhile colonies and their overlords. This pattern gave ample opportunities to those who so wished, to distort it to the advantage of vested interests having everything to gain from ambiguity and present it as an alternative to the socialist path of development. These interests, cashing in on the popular enthusiasm witnessed during the anti-imperialist struggle, attempted with varying degrees of success, to put forward the view that their rule would lead to the attainment of rapid economic development. They continue building fresh hopes by pointing out that much has been done and that what remains to be done is merely trimming the rough edges. Kotovsky, in his paper on "The Implementation of Progressive Socio-Economic Transformation as the Necessary Precondition of Consolidation of National Independence in the Struggle Against Imperialism", states that "some of the young sovereign States, including the biggest of them, India, have already been advancing along the road of independent development for a quarter of a century". One is at a loss to decide whether he is ignorant or telling a lie in the face of the growing collaboration, increasing sway of multi-national corporations, fast rising burden of foreign debt, and the general background of impoverishment of the masses suffering form a severe industrial and agrarian crisis in most of these countries referred to, and particularly in India. On land reforms, he has this to say, s> 'Agrarian reforms that have solved, in the main, the question of liquidating feudal forms of ownership and economy have been carried out by now in most Asian countries". Even the Indian Government admits that land reforms are far from successful. Perhaps a visit to the recent Chief Ministers' Conference on land ceiling might have proved more fruitful ground for disproving such a theory than the International Seminar on Imperialism. This same understanding is obviously the basis of H D Malviya's contention that "there are reactionary classes and forces almost everywhere, the domestic reaction, who assiduously oppose and hamper the socio-economic reforms which the progressive democrats in control of the state strive to put through". But it must be remembered that, such progressive democrats still fail to implement their policies in spite of their stranglehold over the state legislatures and parliament. One has only to reckon with some of the deeds of the progressive democrats in control of the State power so as to eliminate the distinction between the alleged undemocratic reactionaries and progressive democrats. There also stands the bleak record of mass killings, brutal suppression of democratic struggles, rigged elections, regressive taxation measures etc., all of which leave little room for believing Malaviya's academic reflections. Most of the Papers dealing with the various aspects of development have touched upon the particular experiences which differ from region to