^0 SOCIAL SCIENTIST incentives. Second, Meghalaya could be made more attractive to industrialists by increased spending on the social infrastructure, and by the increased provision of craftsman and labour training schemes. Finally, it is possible that development process would be accelerated, if policies were directed towards the encouragement of growth-points within Meghalaya."20 From this perspective, the aim of the Governments tribal development policy becomes clear : ruin the subsistence farmer, losen his hold over land and turn him into a labourer. This makes the 'second priority' of the Commissioner's report comprehensible. The tribal people are not only to be cheated of the mineral and other resources of their lands but they are also to be handed over to the capitalists as labour trained at public expense. However, they are likely to be disappointed in this endeavour as is indicated by the unwillingness of the beneficiaries of such concessions to actually start production once they have got hold of the licences. Their aim is to maximise profit without necessarily increasing production proportionally. This is underlined by the unwillingness of a leading contractor of Meghalaya (who earned Rs 50 lakhs from one contract alone in 1971-72 and who controls a number of fields including the exploitation of forests) to invest Rs 9 lakhs in a profitable industry without demanding that the government should train his personnel for him. Such men merely represent a massive annual drain from already backward areas. By underwriting their activities the Government will only intensify the problems of such areas with no appreciable benefit to either the people or the administration. It is not as if there were no alternative. Commenting on developments in the area, the writer in the AIGC Economic Review notes : it should not be thought that all the features of a tribal society are outmoded and, hence, are to be equally discarded. Hills people are inherently democratic and social minded. If any legislation is attempted to introduce private ownership of land for developing individual economic enterprises, it will amount to going back from some features of socialism to the institution of private property and corrupt capitalism. Rather, land being the main source of living for the tribals, any land reform in their areas is expected to develop dynamism in their society by accommodating demands for social ownership and individual initiative. These aspects may be reflected in and brought to relief by the development of cooperative enterprises in the hill areas.21 Needless to say, such suggestions, being as they are against the basic class interest of a ruling class bent on defending the private ownership of the means of production, will be aired to pacify intellectuals and then shelved. If they are implemented, it will be to defeat them in a manner consistent with a government making a desperate bid to preserve the private appropriation of the fruits of social production in spite of this