BOOK REVIEW 71 an undertaking* The absurdity of it all is upon usiiwhen we oome across statements such as, "For purpose of comparability, ^^gorteatipn as givci} in Psychological Abstracts published by the American Psychological Associa" tion has beea followed in reviewing research in clinical psychology, although a, simplified model would have been more suitable.^ or "Psychodiagnostic procedures employed are mainly the same as developed and used in the West". (Emphasis added). Page after page is devoted to American writings and to the beginnings of psychology in India. One draws a blank later on when, for instance, M M Sinha writes: "III. Instincts: No significant study has been reported". "I. Neurology: No work has been reported". "IX. Genetics: No work has been reported." Because he chose to adapt American classification, A K P Sinha had to discuss psychiatric illness under "Performance and Job Satisfaction"! Under "Engineering Psychology" he had to be more apologetic by outlining "the type of research involved in this area5^. The Survey is full of such examples which leave the impression of absolute subservience to the West and an alarming intellectual bankruptcy. Clinical Psychology and All That The first trend report is on clinical psychology. How and since when has clinical psychology become a social science? Although clinical psychology is considered a discipline distinct from psychoanalysis or psychiatry, the report devotes considerable space to the history of psychoanalysis, mental hospitals and psychiatry in India. As we know, clinical psychology is not meant only for the insane after they are brought into mental hospitals. Unfortunately, even the areas suggested for research (immediate attention) are all related to etiology and not with therapy or mental hygiene. Is it being seriously suggested that therapy has always to be imported from the West? If only Mitra could present the listings of the adaptations of tests, we would have been saved the ordeal of at least 200 pages of tiresome material because his survey is a mere description of these adaptations. Indian psychology is but adaptology.8 Nowhere in this thick volume can the reader figad mention erf any original theoretical contribution by Indians. If anything^ the wer.viewer stops with the title and a half-senifcence summary as for UAaa Parcels sodal change model. Kuppuswamy's books have been completely ignored. It Is remarkable that the mass of studies carried out by Indians who are always indexed in the international directories of cross-cultiaral researchers does not even get a line-In his review of developmental psychology Pammeswaran avoids the studies in a conventional style since apparently he has almost nothing Kiordi talking abewtt. His last section under "Some laadividiiial Investigations" is the only portion that has any relevance at all and it does not cover more Most of ^he bird's-eye- view studies kwe dwelt at length on such