Book Review of all material histories.' This all-pervasive colonial/western hegemony is abstracted from internal contradictions and 'those touched by it become capable of only derivative discourses'. This method ignores contradictions within structures. Thus, is it possible to talk about the world of western cultural hegemony, without referring to the colonial exploitation of India or the internal contradictions and conflicts in Indian society? Moreover, if extended to the present, it has serious de-politicising implications. Although its beyond the scope of this review, one can perhaps say that Sarkar seems to be straight-jacketing Partha Chatterji's argument (Partha Chatterji, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse?-, Delhi, 1986). Sarkar explores the evolution of the idea of time and history in nineteenth century colonial India. He makes certain valuable formulations to illustrate super-impositions like the ancient/medieval/ modern - inherited from post-Renaissance Europe - and the way these were re-cast to create 'Hindu', 'Muslim' and 'British' periods. He contests the idea of 'homogenised presentations, both of pre-colonial notions of time and history as well as of the colonial rupture'. He refers to the non-absolute nature of the cyclical/linear binary and the fact that it would be unhistorical to talk of a homogenised time since virtually nothing is known about pre-colonial notions of time of the peasants and low castes. The problem of course is that his engagement with Saidian discourse makes Sarkar emphasise 'continuity' and tone down the component of colonial 'rupture'. This poses methodological problems. Were not the drives of colonialism conditioned both by the existing environment and by newly introduced components which marked a break? Should not one accept both continuities and breaks - as dialectical components interacting with each other - while examining historical processes? In fact, ignoring 'rupture' to disprove Said can retreat into a form of 'culturalism' itself, where the terror of colonialism can become invisible. It can, more disastrously, also take the form of 'indigenism', with everything being located as originating in India. Another crucial point that the author critiques relates to an assumption that 'post-Enlightenment' knowledge is always rational/ scientific and interrogates things. This simplistic 'linearising' has serious methodological implications if examined in the context of India's colonial connection. One can of course extend this and also argue about the extent of its relevance in the context of the 'West' itself. Sarkar refers to the notion of Kaliyuga which may have vanished