76 SOCIAL SCIENTIST 4 per cent for agriculture. It is casually observed that the ryots could ^rob a store or could riot; the latter was a frequent occurrence in the district ofDoah"14. It is the basic hyphothesis of the book that the British wanted to bring about modernizing changes but Indians did not welcome the benevolent light of British statesmanship: the resistance and traditionalism of the natives stood in the way of the progressive plans initiated by the Queen's government. With this assumption it would have been difficult for ft® author to explain the frequent peasant revolts, whjch form the subject of study by, among others; S B Chaudhuri and Stephen Fuchs. One might say th}s has been too querulous a criticism of a widely-acclaimed study which provides us with new material on public works and agricultural resources, revenue settlements, policy and problems of litigation, indebtedness and so forth. The wealth of data makes the study a standard work on these topics. The danger of Whitcombe's contribution, however, lurks in the wealth of empirical data obscuring the apologetic, neocolon^al approach which ignores the economic mo fives of the colonialists who chose the most backward class of landlords as their prop and pillar. By isolating agriculure from the broader economic context, this book conspicuously leaves out the analysis of the underlying socio-economic forces. GEORGES KRISTOITFEL LIETEN 1 The United Provinces under the British Rule, 1860-1900, p 208. 2 Ibid., pp 63-64. » Ibid., p 191. 4 Ibid., p 92. 5 Ibid., p 97. 6 Ibid., p 273. •7 Ibid., p 179. 8 Ibid.,? 17. 8 Ibid., pit 5. 'o Ibid.,? 147. *l Ibid., p 48. ^ J^.,p56. '» /^W.,pl41. ^ Ibid.,p\97.