B60K REVIEWS ^ likely impact of British rule was reasonable enough in 1853 when it was written but unfortunately these brief newspaper articles (which Marx based largely on information provided by Engels) have been resuscitated by vulgar Marxists as if they were holy writ, particularly by Palrne Dutt. Thus they have contributed to the general exaggeration of the impact of British rule in India." Whatever may be the exact quantum of the British imperialist plunder, a recognition of the enormity of exploitation is implicit in Maddison's own statement that while between 1757 and 1947 per capita income in India did not increase, in UK itself in the corresponding period, there was a ten-fold increase in per capita income. Discussing the origins and ideology of the Indian nationalist movement, Maddison distinguishes four main types of nationalism : (1) Status-quo conservatism represented by the forces that led the Mutiny in 1857 ; (2) bourgeois nationalism represented by D Noroji and RG Dutt inherited by the State apparatus and bureaucracy after independence , (3) populist and partly revivalist Gandhian nationalism ; and (4) social-revolutionary nationalism represented by Nehru who wanted to break up the old society and to experiment with new social and economic forms. In a summary judgement on Nehru, the author says ; Nehru "was a social-revolutionary in theory and only to a limited extent in practice." In contrast to the complexity of Indian nationalism, Pakistan's nationalism is of simple bourgeois character without any social revolutionary element. "Jinnah and his supporters were men of property who did not wish to change the social order but simply wanted to ensure that their community got a fair share of the pickings. In fact, Jinnah gave the social problem no real consideration. He was not even conscious of the irony when he said once in London, 'Democracy is the blood of Mussalmans...! give you an example. Very often, when I go to a mosque, my chauffeur stands side by side with me. Mussalmans believe in fraternity, equality and liberty5." According to Maddison, since independence per capita income has grown by 0.9 per cent a year in India, compared with a more or less stagnant level from 1900 to 1946. He lists five reasons for this accelerated economic growth : the emphasis of bureaucratic action on development, increased rate of investment, foreign aid, the growth of qualified labour force and the greater technological opportunities. Maddison does not fail to remind us that growth is not confined to India but is a world-wide phenomenon. When he compares India with other developing countries, he finds that this country's post-war performance is 'well below the average for developing countries'. In a t^ble giving comparative figures of levels ofper capita real income for a sample of 22 developing countries, India occupies the twenty first position. In fact, the only country poorer than India in the list is Pakistan. Pakistan's growth rate in the 60's has been a little higher than that of India. The author says, "It seems virtually certain that the average income level in East Pakistan is lower