BOOK REVIEW 79 model for Russia was the French model except that Lenin emphasized proletariat-peasant alliance because there was neither a strong urban middle class nor a fully developed bourgeoisie.594 Lenin's was not the French model. The proletariat led the way to socialism whereas the French bourgeoisie led the French nation into the epoch of capitalism. The Russian bourgeoisie failed to lead the revolution of 1917 not because it was numerically weak but because it was historically incapable. Dhanagre's theoretical framework plays on Marxism on the one hand and sophisticated Anglo-American theories on the other. These theories encompass Barrington Moore on the right and Hamza Alavi and others on the left. Moore held that power dynamics determined the role of the peasantry. Yet he did not dispute the truth of classical Marxian thesis on ^class conflict9 and ^alienation' as the sources of radical revolutionary changes. The author holds that Moore's conclusions on India are not drawn from any systematic theory and pleads for its re-examination in the light of more extensive survey of peasant movements in India, and then contradicts himself by adding, e Three Questions Dhanagre replaces the question of revolutionary potential by three questions: What role do different classes of peasantry play in revolutionary and near-rcvolutionarp movements? What kinds of social structure and historical ciscumstances are conducive to peasant revolt or movement? Why does mobilization of peasants at one time and place lead to peaceful, constitutionally reformist agitation but assumes a rebellious character in another place or time? This is the guideline that he adopts for his enquiry into the peasant movements in India from 1920 to 1932. The methodological implications of these questions with their underlying assumptions are: that a sociological study of the peasant movement has to be historical, an ex-post facto analysis, and that it must be comparative in perspective in order to offer generalizations of broader theoretical relevance. However, such a comparative study must not gloss over the facts that comparisons must also be historically valid. The merit of Dhanagre5 s work lies in his efforts at analyzing the class character of Indian peasant movements from a sociologist's angle. Unfortunalely modern sociological approach fails to distinguish class origins from class approach. It must be remembered that the possibility of betraying one's class and espousing the cause of another is fundamental to Marxism. The sociological approach does well in describing how the local rich and middle peasantry led rebellions and movements but does not analyze searchingly why the poorer peasantry did not take over.