74 SOCIAL SCIENTIST in characterisation, that is, the smallness of the capitalistic sector. Conscious of this, Bettelheim warns "that the size of the capitalist sector should not be taken to indicate that the capitalist sector's role in the Indian economy is negligible. On the contrary, the enterprises of this sector play a decisive role in the dynamics of the economy95. (P. 3) But in the same vein he has said : ^The fact that only a relatively small part of the incomes... less than half—comes from modern industry and trade shows the importance of pre-capitalist relationship in the Indian economy". (P. 3) He has noted further that in spite of certain changes in the relationships among the agriculturists, there existed an important obstacle in the form of semi-feudal relationships in the field of production, which made emergence of agricultural capitalism difficult. But to ' characterise Indian economy as semi-feudal and capitalist as Bettelheim has done is also questionable. Marxists, particularly those who share the views ofAndre Gunder Frank, may say that Indian economy including its agriculture is part of a capitalist system. It is the development and functioning of this system which produce both development and underdevelopment simultaneously and which account for the terrible reality of agriculture in India. ^ Indian bourgeoisie as a whole totals at the most 1.5 per cent of the population, but its economic and political influence is tremendous. This reality is generally ignored by all those social scientists who wrongly believe force of numbers is the only factor which determines the power of a social group. Bettelheim, however, takes pains to stress that inspite of its smallness, the bourgeoisie holds the key position in Indian society. Its wealth is concentrated and it is in close contact with both the national politics and admininistration. But due to India's colonial heritage a relatively large part of big industry's and the bank's capital remained in the hands of foreigners and this limited the power of the national bourgeoisie. He further observes that the Indian industrial capital has shown a tendency to take monopolistic form, which, in his opinion, is quite natural in a country which started industrial development when the world capitalism had already reached the monopolistic stage. The influence of monopoly capital has been strengthened considerably by the fusion of commercial and industrial interests with interests in the banking sector. (P. 72). It is in fact this penetrating analysis of the modern industrial sector that helps in identifying the character of the state. No doubt, the proletariat in India is disorganised and weak. But to characterise Indian labour as transitional, as it has been done by most of the labour experts, is not corroborated by facts. Commenting on this viewpoint, Bettelheim has very aptly remarked that "if this were so, one could hardly speak of true proletariat". (P. 88) In his view, the emphasis on the migratory character of Indian labour is totally misplaced. Nobody disputes that the industrial workers maintain contacts with their villages ; at the same time, it is also not true that they are temporary migrants. "The industrial proletariat is stable enough